7. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Corrections
Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) Link to this
Yes; much more so than I would have had when the department was underfunded and in crisis under the former National Government. Escapes are down to one-sixth of what they were under National. Drug taking has more than halved and effective action has been taken to secure prisons, provide effective programmes, and expand employment—to name just a few improvements.
Why was it that trainee prison guards were able to twig that one of the other trainees had served jail time because she “knew a bit too much about prison”, yet the Minister’s department had no idea of that, at a time when there is a year-long inquiry into corruption amongst prison staff at Rimutaka Prison that has already seen 12 officers suspended—and by the way, when is the report on that inquiry coming?
I guess one of the ironies of life is that the newspaper that ran that story had employed a journalist for a long time, and then subsequently found out he had been making up stories rather than doing interviews. Look, it is a sad fact of life that some people are very dishonest. That woman was dishonest. She changed her name, and she did not reveal, as she was required to, her criminal convictions. That matter was drawn to the attention of the Department of Corrections, which sacked the woman before she set foot back within a prison again. That could have happened to any Government department that follows the same lines as the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections behaved absolutely appropriately.
David Benson-Pope Link to this
What progress has been made in reducing the level of serious assaults in prisons?
I was surprised to see a beat-up on Television One on Saturday night on prison assaults, when the facts, as given to the television channel, were that serious assaults are down by 69 percent on the rate that occurred a decade ago, and that New Zealand prisons have one of the best records in the world, notwithstanding the fact, of course, that the people we put in prison are often dangerous, violent offenders—that is why they are there. Let me make one last comment. The corrections department is now recording every assault, however minor it is and even if it is alleged, with the help of 3,000 closed-circuit television cameras that have been put into prisons since 2001. So the department now knows exactly what is happening within the prisons.
Why has it taken a coroner’s hearing for corrections to reveal that it failed to pass on to the Parole Board genuine information that offending by Graeme Burton was occurring in prison and that his probation officer was overloaded with too many high-risk offenders for one person to manage, and for the department to admit, despite previous denials from Barry Matthews, that had it not lost a week then Karl Kuchenbecker may still be alive—or does the Minister disagree with Paul Kuchenbecker’s reported comments in the weekend’s Dominion Post that they “might [as well] have just pulled the trigger themselves.”?
I acknowledge that serious faults in both the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police led to Mr Kuchenbecker’s death. I think that it is absolutely unfair to say that was a matter of intent on the part of the department. A bad mistake was made. But if the member wants to worry about Mr Burton, I will tell him Pāremoremo prison’s security was so bad under the former National Government that Graeme Burton was one of the many prisoners who escaped from that prison. Nowadays nobody escapes from it.
What does he think of the former Minister of Justice who passed legislation through this House that allowed offenders to be paroled after serving only one-third of their sentences, which has meant that Peter McNamara will be freed after serving just over 2 years of a 7-year sentence, even though the Parole Board report indicates he has shown no remorse and continues to maintain that he is innocent?
What I think of the former Minister of Justice is that there were a great many things that were extraordinarily beneficial in the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. For example, somebody like Burton—to use that example again—would once have been given 7 years’ and then 10 years’ imprisonment. He is now serving for the whole of his natural life, as, indeed, William Bell is. I think the former Minister made a very wise decision when saying that safety needed to be the paramount consideration, because what happened under the National Government was that even if a prisoner was regarded as extraordinarily dangerous, the prison system was compelled to release that person at two-thirds of his or her sentence, regardless of the risk of reoffending. That risk is now the paramount consideration.
David Benson-Pope Link to this
Is the Minister aware of evidence of cellphones continuing to be smuggled into prisons and of their misuse; if so, what is being done to address that issue?
Cellphones have been a serious problem. In fact, the overall use of telephones has been associated with the commission or organisation of crimes from within prison. Not only has the prison system cracked down on contraband—I think that over the last 3 or 4 years it has probably quadrupled the amount of confiscated contraband—but also it is now bringing in a cellphone jamming system that will be progressively implemented in every prison in the country, which will prevent that practice happening. Again, that is something that never happened under a National Government.
Why did the Minister claim in the House last week that the current prison muster of 7,828 is “practically identical” and “tracking very close to those predicted” for December, when the Ministry of Justice has advised that it is actually 214 above the level forecast?
I have news for the member: not only is the prison muster tracking the level that was forecast very closely but it is now, actually, below the level forecast. The member is absolutely wrong in what he is saying, and he needs to put up the evidence instead of making opportunistic claims that very rarely ever see the light of day in terms of the evidence needed to back them up.