Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13588] 
5.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Is he satisfied with the performance of Corrections’ Integrated Offender Management system; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes; Integrated Offender Management and the computer system that supports it have been in operation in New Zealand now for 8 years and meet international best-practice standards and indeed have satisfied all audits that have been done of it. As a system of managing inmates and offering programmes relevant to the nature of their offending it makes sense. However the success rate of rehabilitation in prison which is one aspect of the system is low internationally. New Zealand does reasonably well by international standards. 
Ron Mark 
: What does the Minister say to the report in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
showing that despite the Department of Corrections describing the Integrated Offender Management system in 2000 as “the biggest single initiative the department has undertaken to reduce offending” it has failed to budge the 2-year reconviction rate of released prisoners from 55 percent and has seen the reimprisonment rate rise from 34 percent to 38.8 percent? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: With regard to the latter part of that question—the higher reimprisonment rate—if the member reads all of the report then he will see that that is attributed to the fact that this Government has introduced much tougher sentencing laws. In relation to the question of rehabilitation I think that the member understands this area pretty well and he knows that it is very hard to achieve changes in a short period of time in characteristics that have built up in an inmate’s personality and behaviour that have been established over many years. However some really good things are happening there right now. If I take drug and alcohol as just one example I point out we have managed to achieve a 13 percent reduction in reoffending in that area as the member will know. That is quite significant. If I take the Driving Offender Treatment programme we see that the reconviction rate was a massive 64 percent. That has been reduced to 46 percent. That is a huge reduction. Obviously we still have a long way to go and we will keep adopting international best practice to do better and better. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What further evidence is he able to provide the House about the effectiveness of programmes aimed to address the causes of offending? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would like to give the member just one example which is where New Zealand has achieved the best performance of any country in the world. That is in the area of child sex offenders. The Kia Marama and the Te Piriti treatment units for child sex offenders have been hugely successful. Reoffending by Kia Marama programme participants has been reduced to under 5 percent compared with a level of 25 percent for those who do not attend the programme. That is a fantastic result. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Integrated Offender Management system records of parolees on the offender warning register are required to be checked every week yet in the 6 months that Graeme Burton was on probation they were checked only twice 5 months after he was released and only after he had already breached parole and absconded? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I cannot confirm the detail of what the member has said but I can say about the Graeme Burton case that the system failed the victims—in this case Karl Kuchenbecker. That was a result of failures on the part of the Department of Corrections the Parole Board and the police. There is no excuse that I want to make for those failures because they had tragic consequences. I know that the Parole Board for example deals with 10000 cases each year. I know that the Department of Corrections deals with 72000 cases a year. In this case they made a mistake and it had appalling consequences. I can say to the member however that the actions that have been taken for both legislative and operational change are designed to overcome those shortcomings and all of us in this House hope that they will be effective in preventing any reoccurrence. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that data management is a lesser priority than the current desperate need for additional prison staff so that prisons can return to more humane lockdown periods in order to reduce risks for both staff and inmates and to increase inmates’ access to rehab programmes; if he does agree what is he doing about it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member will be aware there has been an enormous increase in Department of Corrections staff both in prisons and in terms of probation officers. In particular in respect of probation officers there has been I think something like a 70 percent increase in staffing so that they can do their job effectively in very difficult circumstances. In regard to the question of lockdown that the member mentions one of the problems—and it is a problem in terms of employment of staff—is that New Zealand has the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years at 3.5 percent. That has made it more difficult for us to employ Department of Corrections staff. However we are addressing that problem as a temporary measure so that staff can have their normal Christmas vacations. We are extending lockdown times for that purpose and that purpose alone. It is not designed as some have suggested as a cost-saving measure. That simply is inaccurate. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister read Dr Greg Newbold’s criticism stating that the Integrated Offender Management system was “a large and expensive failure” and “another wreck on the scrapheap of abandoned fads of criminal rehabilitation” or New Zealand First’s comments of August 2004: “The project is a product of a bunch of new-age criminogenic cyber-speakers in Corrections who have mastered the art of creating work for themselves that is fanciful and fundamentally flawed.” and can he tell the House whether he will continue pouring money into this project that is not working? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first thing I need to point out to the member is that the costs quoted in the  
New Zealand Herald  
are grossly overstated. The costs of $40 million a year bear no resemblance to reality. The actual cost is $8.5 million—one-fifth the level that the  
New Zealand Herald  
quotes. That $8.5 million is made up of $5 million a year in capital investments for upgrades and about $3 million to cover staff and equipment. I can tell the member that every audit including international audits that have been done of the Integrated Offender Management system shows that it is effective as a system. It was brought in on time under budget and has worked effectively as a management tool. In regard to rehabilitation I have already quoted some very good figures to the member in that regard. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm the total development and capital costs for the project to date plus the ongoing operational costs and in the interests of openness and transparency will he now release the reports on the Integrated Offender Management system that his ministry refused to release on 13 August 2004 citing the need to “maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions between or to Ministers offices and employees of a Government department” as his reason for withholding that information? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will answer maybe one of those questions. Firstly I can confirm the figure that I have given the member of $8.5 million a year in costs. If the member approaches me then I can give him the names of the actual companies that were responsible for the various audits of the Integrated Offender Management system. I do not know why the department may have refused the report’s release before. I will have to talk to the department about that but I am happy to take up that matter with the member. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister absolutely confident that the Integrated Offender Management system will not be Labour’s INCIS; if so how much more money will be poured into developing and maintaining this system to a stage that it produces effective results before he finally pulls the pin? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can absolutely assure the member of that fact. INCIS was a National Government disaster and ended up being scrapped before it was even put into effect. The member remembers that and so do most of the members on the National benches who were there at the time. Contrary to the INCIS debacle of the National Government this system has now been in operation for 8 years. It was brought in on time and on budget. That should absolutely assure the member that there is no comparison between National’s bungle over INCIS and the Integrated Offender Management system which has worked reasonably well. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister detail to the House the steps taken to address the concern expressed in the  
New Zealand Herald  
article this morning on reoffending that only 26 percent of prisoners in 2005 were in employment? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can certainly answer that question. In the last 2 years there has been a huge focus on producing work for inmates. That number of 26 percent of inmates in employment within 2 years is now 46 percent. Our target by 2010 will be 60 percent. I think it will make sense to the public that inmates are doing work are paying back something to society in that respect and most important are getting work skills and work experience that assist with their reintegration back into the community at the point they are released.