Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8875] 
5.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied with the provisions of the Parole Act 2002 which state that as a guiding principle for the Parole Board “the paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.” yet the rights of victims are simply “upheld” and victims’ submissions “given due weight”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes I am satisfied that the safety of the community is and should be the paramount consideration of the Parole Board. It is also very important that victims’ rights are upheld and their views heard and given due weight. Under the Victims’ Rights Act and the Parole Act all victims—for the first time—have the right to make submissions to a parole hearing either orally at an attended hearing or in writing. That is a real advance in victims’ rights over what went previously. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister explain in what way he is satisfied that the rights of victims are upheld when Morgan Fahey for example was released after serving only 3 years and 4 months of a pitiful 6-year sentence for sex crimes against 11 women patients—including the rape of a pregnant woman—yet one of Fahey’s victims was unaware of his eligibility for parole and others stated: “I would like to see him die in there.” “I don’t ever want to see him again.” and “How could they let him out when he’s spent 30 years having a field day with women?” 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Victims of Morgan Fahey did take up the right to be present at the Parole Board hearing and to make submissions to the board. If any victim was not notified it may have been because she did not put herself on the victim notification register. The member might like to check that out with the person concerned. In respect of the sentence of Morgan Fahey he was sentenced 3 years ago and it is not for a politician in this House but for the court to determine what sentence is given. In this case he committed 13 offences—11 sexual assault offences one rape offence and one sexual violation offence. The judge at the time thought that a sentence of 6 years was appropriate but of course the sentencing laws have changed since then including the requirement that the maximum sentence be given for the worst type of offence. 
Tim Barnett 
: What are the rights of victims in respect of parole hearings? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Under the Victims’ Rights Act and the Parole Act both passed last year all victims have the right to make submissions to parole hearings. Those on the victim notification register will be automatically notified in advance of the hearing date. A victim may make an oral submission to a hearing. If it is an unattended hearing written submissions may be made. In fact the Parole Board will go to the extent of visiting the victim in his or her home so that it can hear those submissions. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Can the Minister explain how the Parole Act protects community safety when New Zealand’s youngest-ever murderer Bailey Kurariki—after serving only 1 year of a 7-year sentence and who has had 12 incident reports in Kingslea in the last 2 months and he has shown no remorse—is today being considered for home detention and could soon be returned to a home where even the Minister’s own officials reported there is no control over him and he never went to school; where is the community safety in that “soft on criminals” attitude? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is asking me to make a comment on a hypothetical situation because to the best of my knowledge the Parole Board has not yet made a decision. Therefore it would be wrong for me to guess what decision it might make. As the member knows well the Parole Board is an independent statutory body. It works under the legislation passed in this House but its decisions are its own and may not be interfered with by that member or by me. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Parole Act allowed someone like Morgan Fahey to be paroled last month when his application for home detention was turned down just 3 months earlier? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The comments I made to the previous question are appropriate to that question. I am not privy to the information the Parole Board has or hears; nor may I interfere with its decisions. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the rights of victims are upheld when offenders are paroled showing no signs of remorse—as in the case of Morgan Fahey who while giving an interview in prison said: “Whatever I did at the time I was doing it I did not know that what I was doing was wrong.” and who was found with pornography and old patient notes in his cell—if the Minister is satisfied why; if he is not what does he intend to do about it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Board while it has as its paramount consideration the safety of the community and obviously has judged that this man is not a threat to the community may also take other factors into account. However I did read with interest the member’s own comments describing Fahey as a sad and pathetic shadow of the status he once enjoyed; that he has paid the price for his offences over and above his prison term including the loss of his honour his city councillor role his luxury home and his right to practise medicine. 
Government Members 
: Who said that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is what the member said. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that in upholding the rights of victims the parole law should be dictated by the bad deeds committed by criminals like Fahey before their conviction rather than the good behaviour they may ostensibly demonstrate after the fact by making offenders fulfil their entire sentence so as to restore the intrinsic value of punishment so that victims can feel that justice has actually been done? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member is aware the Parole Board now has the discretion if it decides it is appropriate to keep an offender in prison for the full term of the sentence. This particular offender was sentenced under the old legislation so automatically had to be released at two-thirds of his sentence in any case.