Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12434] 
2.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that section 97(3) of the Sentencing Act 2002 is sufficient to ensure that leave to apply for home detention is only granted to offenders who do not pose a risk to the community? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: I am not satisfied that the discretion not to grant leave to apply for front-end home detention contained in section 97(3) has consistently been interpreted in line with the policy intent behind that section. For that reason the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee contains an amendment to that section to clarify that the court may grant leave to apply for home detention only if it is satisfied that home detention is appropriate given the other sentencing considerations including the seriousness of the offence and the views of the victim. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why does the Government not cut out any ambiguity whatsoever by simply ruling out leave to apply for home detention for all violent and sexual offenders or is the Minister satisfied with the fact that of those on home detention last year 27 percent had been convicted of such crimes? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is important that each offence is considered on its merits and the appropriate place to do that is the court. But the amendment is designed to ensure that the effect the member has raised will be achieved by maintaining the important principle that each offence is considered on its merits. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the Government satisfied that the interpretation given by the courts to home detention and deferral questions has been in line with the policy intent of the Sentencing Act? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. Although neither home detention nor deferral were new in the Sentencing Act the Government has not been satisfied that court decisions on those matters have in all cases adequately implemented the policy intent. Deferrals have been granted too often and the discretion not to grant leave to apply for home detention has not been exercised as was intended. That is why the Government late last year introduced amendments to relevant sections of the Act. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Government move amendments to the home detention regime to prevent the ridiculous situation where quite serious offenders sentenced to home detention can in fact be authorised to go to the gym or to play golf? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: That appears unlikely but it is also appropriate to wait until the select committee reports back on 18 May on the submissions on the bill. 
Ron Mark 
: How appropriate is it for a Parole Board subsequently to award home detention to persons like Kevin Moana Jarden who went on to reoffend and Maunu Nicholson who was suspected of drug manufacturing and was subsequently found dead in his home from a P overdose when a judge has not deemed them fit to apply for home detention; if it is not appropriate when will this Minister remove back-end home detention from the statutes? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am not familiar with the specific details of the two cases raised by the member but the principle is that all cases are considered by the Parole Board and the board applies the law as it is there. The decisions of the board have to be respected because it has the authority to make them. If the law is not adequate or does not give the board guidance then it is the responsibility of this House of course to change it—which is what is happening. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the fact that 29 percent of those on home detention have been found guilty of drug offences reflect the Government’s position that drug dealers and users do not pose a risk to the community if they are kept at home—or has the Minister not heard of “tinny houses”? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I have heard of “tinny houses”. Of course the Government is concerned if there is reoffending during that period. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that offenders convicted of knowingly possessing child pornography will continue to be eligible for home detention because the forthcoming increase in the maximum penalty—to 2 years’ imprisonment—for that crime will remain the cut-off point under section 97 for leave to apply for home detention; if so will she consider amendments to either the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill or the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill to remove that possibility altogether? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is my understanding that there is a Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill currently before Parliament in which the matter of penalties is reviewed. That would be the appropriate place to raise those matters. 
Marc Alexander 
: I seek leave to table a  
New Zealand Herald  
article citing that a psychiatric nurse caught with more than 15000 explicit— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.