Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Reports on Graeme Burton 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Reports on Graeme Burton 
[Volume:637;Page:7890] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am one of the Ministers; I appoint the Parole Board. I think it is regrettable given what we are talking about that a large number of the members opposite jeered and laughed their way through that speech. They need to remind themselves what is under debate here and that includes Mr English Mr Brownlee Mr Power Mr Williamson Mr David Carter and Mr Bennett who jeered and laughed as we discussed the death of an innocent person. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr English is laughing again! Mr English is laughing about the death of an innocent person. He is not worried about Karl Kuchenbecker he is worried only about political point-scoring at this stage. The hypocrisy shows through pretty clearly from a party that also did not care about the killing of young children outside schools but instead wanted to make a point about traffic fines. That is how serious those members are about these kinds of issues. 
Let us remind ourselves of a very simple fact. A young New Zealander going about his innocent recreation was killed and other New Zealanders could have been killed as well on the same occasion. Who is primarily responsible for that? 
Hon Members 
: You! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No Graeme Burton! The Opposition spokesperson needs to start with a simple fact. The person who pulls the trigger is the person primarily responsible. The member has to stop providing justification for killers and murderers by flailing around politically inside this House. 
Graeme Burton invented a tissue of lies to try to justify his actions on that day. He is a man who was convicted in December 1992 for murder. At that stage he was just under 22 years of age with 92 previous convictions. Since 1992 he has had two further convictions for assault on prison officers; one conviction for assault with intent to injure; and six convictions for escape burglary theft and possession of firearms—before his recent murderous rampage. 
Bob Clarkson 
: So why let him out of jail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He is a man of 1.95 metres and 111 kilograms—or the old measure 6 foot 5 inches and over 17 stone. To answer the member the average person could reasonably assume that such a man would have to meet a very high test to be granted the privilege of parole. I emphasise that parole is a privilege and we may need to reinforce that fact in the legislation. It is not a right to be argued as a right in front of the Parole Board; it is a privilege to be granted. This was not a man with a short or minor offending career. 
The Parole Board is required to satisfy itself before granting parole that the person will not pose an undue risk to the community. An independent review found that the decision to release Burton was reasonable but—and I say “but” very strongly—that conclusion rested on one key premise: an acceptance that it was also reasonable to ignore information that the board itself regarded as not reliable or persuasive. That information alleged recent violent activity by Burton while in prison. Had that information been fully considered by the Parole Board and had further inquiry been made by the board then indeed there may well have been a different outcome in terms of the decision to release him on parole. That in my view raises a difficult issue. 
If the board approaches such a question of release in this kind of case as it appears to have done on the basis of a very liberal and orthodox interpretation of the rules of natural justice and the burden of proof it is hard to see how at least in some instances its responsibility to avoid undue risk to the community can be met. The board appears to have balanced that risk against other factors. The legislation states very clearly that the security and safety of the community is paramount. I believe also that the House needs to consider these matters as part of amending legislation to ensure that guidance on this matter is much clearer than it appears to be under the current legislation. 
Clearly some clarification of the law on these matters is highly desirable. The public has the right to expect the Government and Parliament to address these matters— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who is being held to account? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Primarily Graeme Burton. He killed Karl Kuchenbecker. Nobody else killed Karl Kuchenbecker. If National members want to justify murderers let them do so. At the same time any changes to the legislation will have to be carefully considered to ensure that they will have the desired effect and not lead to unintended consequences. Hasty legislation can be got wrong in these areas. We owe no less than that to Karl Kuchenbecker’s family. 
The Parole Board needs to be able to hear confidential information. To argue otherwise is to ignore the realities of prison life alongside people like Graeme Burton where people actually have to front up as to who is giving the information and effectively be cross-examined on that. Those people themselves may be in serious danger of retribution from the people they are giving information against. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Burton was allowed to breach parole for a whole month and you say no one’s accountable for that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not saying that. The member should listen more carefully to what I am saying. The board also needs— 
Hon Bill English 
: These are just more excuses. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: These are not excuses. If the member listened to what I was saying he would hear me say that mistakes have occurred. Does the member not listen to what I am saying? That is the problem with National members: when somebody agrees with them they want to kick back because they are so unused to that happening. 
The board also needs the power to call witnesses. Already the board had indicated the need for other changes. Severally or collectively those changes might have avoided putting Burton in a position to once again express his violent and evil nature. There needs to be better communication between the board and the Department of Corrections—clearly a failure in this case. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They said it was well managed. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am making my judgment not the board’s judgment on this matter. Secondly there needs to be improved presentation of psychological reports particularly so they clearly address the matters of concern to the board. Thirdly there needs to be an assurance that the board has sufficient information before a final decision to release is made. Fourthly there needs to be clarification about obtaining information concerning allegations of misconduct. In this case those allegations were regarded as unreliable and unsubstantiated and therefore were not followed up. That was a crucial factor in the Parole Board approving the release of Mr Burton into the public. 
Fifthly there has been in line with the board’s expectations a new reality of supervision after release. There is no point in the board setting conditions for release that the department is unable actually to carry out in practice. Clearly then simple common-sense precautions were not followed sufficiently well in the case of Graeme Burton’s release. That is the fact. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that had those precautions been followed he may well not have been released and the events would not have occurred. Once he was released it is clear there was insufficient supervision in some key respects. 
Perhaps the conditions were unrealistic in the case of such a person in the first place. Had there been an absolute presumption that such a person should not be released then of course a different conclusion might have followed. Whether or not that is so what does seem clear is that infractions of his parole conditions did not trigger sufficient alarm signals and sufficiently quick action. There was specific failure in the continuity of supervision at one particular point. Apart from anything else what emerges from this case is the need to make it clear that the police can apply to the Parole Board for the recall of prisoners from parole—again perhaps that might have avoided a tragedy. 
Let me finish by returning to my original statement because in the heat of these debates it is so easy to lose sight of the realities. Since Burton’s murderous rampage a number of decent honourable New Zealanders—Parole Board people corrections staff—have been asking themselves whether they could reasonably have acted differently and if they had done so whether a young man Karl Kuchenbecker would still be alive. Rightly many of us have asked about accountability in this kind of case—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr English would be so much more impressive if he had not been laughing through Mr Key’s speech. But in seeking to apportion blame we should also recognise the difficulty of making decisions in these kinds of cases and we can all be infallible after the event. But in the end only one person pulled the trigger. Only one person by his own account used his power and status in the criminal world to obtain drugs and to obtain a pump-action shotgun. That man was Graeme Burton. He claims he was “gutted” that he was not killed by the police. It would be understandable if Karl Kuchenbecker’s family shared that view.