Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13962] 
1. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he have full confidence in the Parole Board; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In most respects. Both the Minister of Corrections and I have however foreshadowed a review of some aspects of the Parole Board and of home detention as introduced in 1999 by the very member who is asking this question. I do have confidence that the Parole Act of 2002 gives a very clear direction to the Parole Board that the safety of the community should be the paramount consideration in every decision and that an inmate who poses an undue risk should not be released. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What was the Minister’s reaction to the comments of the chairman of the New Zealand Parole Board who yesterday indicated he was unaware that for most offenders on parole their parole amounts to nothing more than weekly then very quickly monthly contact with their parole officer; and when the Minister appointed the Parole Board why did he not ensure that the board was properly briefed? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: My reaction to that comment is that the frequency with which the probation service will meet with the person who is on parole will depend on the risk that that released inmate is deemed to pose and also the amount of time that that person has been out in the community. The probation service sees every released person within 72 hours. That is what I am informed. It will then see the person weekly then fortnightly then monthly but that will vary according to the circumstances the perceived risk and the situation that the parolee is in. 
Tim Barnett 
: What actions have been taken around the ability of the Community Probation Service to carry out its role in terms of the implementation of Parole Board decisions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In Budget 2003 the Government voted more than $19 million over 2 years to boost the number of community probation officers by over 100—that is 22 percent—and to increase the training budget for Community Probation Service officers by over 80 percent. That resourcing was particularly important after many years of neglect of the service by the previous National Government. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister accept that it is the Government’s responsibility to appoint the Parole Board in terms of section 111 of the Act; and bearing in mind that the chairman of the Parole Board now says that he acts on the basis of taking risks when the Act itself makes it clear that risks should not be taken what steps will the Minister take to dissolve this board and appoint a new one? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Board is appointed by the Attorney-General for a term of office. I saw the transcript of the interview that the member refers to. The only form of risk that the Parole Board under law is able to take is to make an assessment as to whether the person to be released constitutes or not an “undue risk”. Anybody who constitutes an undue risk cannot by statute be released and I would be very concerned if the Parole Board were releasing any such person. But I do not think that that is what the judge was trying to say in the interview. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why should the Parole Board not insist on knowing that the probation service will reliably enforce and administer parole conditions before granting parole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The role of the Parole Board if I can repeat it is to make an assessment as to whether the release of the person concerned would detrimentally affect the safety of the community and as to whether that person constitutes an undue risk. That is where the Parole Board’s responsibilities begin and end but there is nothing to stop the chair of the Parole Board asking the question of the Community Probation Service as to whether it is able to deal with the conditions set down. I would imagine that the Department of Corrections would advise the Parole Board if it were not able to do that. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand public have been given any reason at all for maintaining confidence in New Zealand’s parole process given that we have an 86 percent recidivism rate in 5 years that recently there was an admission that the legality of 220 parole hearings needs to be reviewed and that we now hear from the board chairman—in a confirmation of our worst fears—that the board takes risks about whether the people released on parole are properly monitored; and does he think it is acceptable that the victims of the crimes involved are left without any reassurance that their concerns are being given the respect they deserve? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly the Parole Board must take into account whether the release of the inmate would affect detrimentally the safety of any individual. That usually means the victim. Indeed the Parole Board will often set in place an order that requires the offender not to go anywhere near the victim. With regard to the oversight by the Community Probation Service of the person on parole I say that that is the role of the service itself. Although that is not my responsibility as Minister of Justice I am informed that the probation service believes that the extra resources that it has and its additional training will make a huge difference in how the service is able to look after people on parole. 
But I go right back to the beginning: the Parole Board should not release anyone who is deemed to be an undue risk. The statute is absolutely clear in contrast with the previous statute which just said the Parole Board could release anybody it thought should be released. Now the board is given a very clear direction by this Parliament. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: With reference to the Minister’s answer to my first supplementary question in which parts of the Parole Board or its performance does he not have confidence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The area that the Minister of Corrections and I have already drawn attention to is the ability of the Parole Board to communicate with the public. It very much needs to be improved so that there is transparency and accountability. That is what the review is about. 
Stephen Franks 
: Referring to the Minister’s answer previously—that the Parole Board need not satisfy itself about the performance of the probation service—how can the board be confident about the risk presented by any offender given that it moderates that risk with conditions and if it has not inquired about and does not know the reliability and performance of the probation service? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Board will of course be informed by the Department of Corrections if there is anything that is set down as a condition of parole that the Community Probation Service is not able to carry out effectively. Obviously with the additional resources the service will be able to do that job much better than it has ever been able to do in the past. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In light of the fact that the vast majority of offenders released on parole reoffend how does monthly contact with a parole officer stop an offender on parole committing more crime? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member looks at the annual report of the Department of Corrections for the last year—the most recent that is available—he will see that those people who are released on discretionary parole have the lowest rate of reoffending of any category set out there. Corrective training the one area that people used to be sentenced to and which the member insisted on keeping in place when he was in Government had a reoffending rate of about 92 percent I think it was within a year. That is how good the National Government was! 
Heather Roy 
: What proportion of paroled offenders fail to comply with all the conditions of their parole as it is easy enough to find out what happens after parole according to the Minister? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Looking at just one aspect of where the Parole Board directs people to—that is home detention— 
Stephen Franks 
: Not all of them. What proportion? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member wants to ask a question I suggest he takes the call instead of interrupting the answer I am trying to give to his colleague. If she looks at the question of home detention she will see that the reoffending rate on home detention is about 1.9 percent. Let me make this point clear to the member who asked the question: if somebody breaches the conditions of his or her parole that person would be immediately recalled as Justice Ellis said yesterday. The board would recall that person “at the drop of a hat”. That was the term used by Justice Ellis. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear but was not addressed at all by the Minister. It was: “What proportion of paroled offenders fail to comply with all the conditions of their parole?” and then I followed it with a comment that he himself had made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister responded with a comment that got to the first part of the question. I invite him to continue. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I point out that I am not the Minister of Corrections so I am not responsible for parole matters. Therefore I cannot give those specific answers. If the member wants those answers she should direct the question to the appropriate Minister. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Minister more concerned about the spin that the Parole Board puts around its decisions than he is about explaining the very poor and sporadic level of supervision of quite serious offenders on parole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not in the least concerned about the spin the member alleges the Parole Board puts out. What I am concerned about is that when the Parole Board is asked why an individual has been deemed not to constitute an undue risk a clear answer should be given. What I have to say about the supervision aspect that the member raised is that we increased staffing by 22 percent and training by 80 percent—so what does that say about the state of the department that that member left to the successor Government? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How long has the Minister himself known that parole for most offenders amounts to sporadic contact with their parole officers? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I said in my initial answer to the member that depends on the level of need and risk that the Community Probation Service deems to exist in relation to the particular individual. Can I say further that one marked change that will make a real difference—and is in a bill before this Parliament—is electronic monitoring which will certainly help with the surveillance of people released on parole. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a specific question. The Minister wants to address that part of the answer. I would appreciate it if he did so. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was under the impression that I had answered the member’s question but if there is some aspect that he wants to ask again then I am happy to hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can restate the question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How long has the Minister himself known that for most offenders on parole their parole amounts to sporadic supervision by the authorities? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I answered that question. I said that the degree of supervision depends on the nature of the person on parole and if that person needs regular contact he or she will get it. That is the answer I gave the member the first time. It did answer his question. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order—I am sorry was Mr Ryall about to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member called a point of order and he was the first to call. 
Ron Mark 
: Mr Speaker you know that it is customary that if one is seeking to table documents then one does so after the final supplementary question. I was not sure whether Mr Ryall was seeking a further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member have another supplementary question? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No Mr Speaker it is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In that case I was correct. 
Ron Mark 
: In light of the Minister’s comments that if offenders who breach parole or home detention are recalled at the drop of a hat I seek leave to table answers to written questions from Ministers that show quite clearly that people who breach home detention and parole are not necessarily charged and that some who are charged and convicted are given community service. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those answers. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I seek leave to table the record of Justice Ellis who said that one of the important things to remember is that a significant part of the parole system is the ability to recall and that that is done at the drop of a hat and on very slight misdemeanours. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.