1. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Corrections
Does he stand by the statement from his department yesterday that it accepts the findings from the coroner’s inquest into the murder of Karl Kuchenbecker at the hands of Graeme Burton?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) Link to this
Yes, the Department of Corrections does accept the findings of the coroner. Also, the department, along with the Parole Board and the police, acknowledges the mistakes that were made that contributed to Graeme Burton remaining at large, which in turn resulted in his murder of Karl Kuchenbecker. All three agencies have expressed their deep regrets and apologies and, just as important, have moved to remedy the deficiencies in the system.
If the Department of Corrections accepts the findings of the coroner, why did it put out in a press release yesterday statements that downplayed the coroner’s view, by saying “there was only one occasion in … October and then in late November that Burton did not fully comply with the rules”, and say that it “worked extremely hard … to get him back on track.”, when the coroner makes it clear that he was supposed to be on a zero-tolerance regime and that the Department of Corrections should have locked him up; if the department accepts it was wrong, why it is making excuses?
The department is not making excuses, and I am certainly not making excuses on its behalf. Mistakes were made that should not have been made. They were made across three agencies. It is, rather, a tragedy that human error resulted in what occurred because of the mistakes that were made. I would, however, point out to the member that the coroner in his report identified those mistakes as things that should have been done but were not done, but did not accuse the department of carelessness or negligence.
Martin GallagherWhat recommendations did the coroner make regarding remedial actions that needed to be taken by the Department of Corrections?
The coroner made no recommendations, because he said that the Government had moved quickly to enact a raft of amendments to the Parole Act, and that both the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police had taken what he described as firm steps to deal with the systemic deficiencies made apparent by the circumstances of Karl Kuchenbecker’s death.
Has he seen the statement in the coroner’s report that had the Department of Corrections taken enforcement action against Burton’s parole breaches earlier, “the prospect of an early arrest would have been considerably advanced.”; if so, does he now think the statement of his chief executive in March of 2007 that “I don’t think there’s a nexus between the tragedy and the management of his parole.” indicates an attitude in the department that contributed to Karl Kuchenbecker’s death and, in fact, leads to the responsibility for his death lying with the department?
The direct responsibility for Karl Kuchenbecker’s death, of course, lies with Graeme Burton, and no excuses should be made that anybody other than he is directly and squarely responsible for a senseless murder. Having said that, had actions been taken in a different way, as they should have been, by the Department of Corrections, the Parole Board, and the police, it is likely that the circumstances would not have arisen where Karl Kuchenbecker was murdered.
Why should the public of New Zealand believe his department’s acknowledgment of failure now, when during the coroner’s inquest the department continued to argue that it had no basis for charging Burton with breaches of parole by the end of November 2006, and does that not indicate that routine lenience on parole conditions still operates in the department?
No, but a series of mistakes were made, each of which contributed to the tragic result that we saw. The Department of Corrections accepts its share of responsibility for that, and, more important, has moved to remedy the deficiencies that were pointed out, as was stated explicitly by the coroner in his report.
If his department accepts that it was wrong, does it also resile from the key message of the communications plan for the release of its own internal report in March 2007, which stated it “cleared Corrections of allegations of wrongdoing or incompetency.”, and the plan also advised the department to “Find a sympathetic reporter and give them a scoop.”, and further stated “Provide the Minister with all the information necessary to refute Mr Simon Power’s claims.”?
I am not familiar with that document. If there is such a document—and I am somewhat reluctant to take the member’s word for it, because he often gets things wrong—it would have been created before my time as Minister. I make no excuses for those who made mistakes. I can convey to the member, and to the House, the deep regret of the Department of Corrections that those mistakes were made and a determination to remedy those deficiencies, which the coroner reports the department has, indeed, done.
Does he admit that his department’s response to the Kuchenbecker tragedy merely reflects a culture within the organisation that not only tolerates frequent mistakes but then seeks to deny responsibility, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary like that today, where a corrections file has been found in a street and corrections staff are able to say only that a file is missing but cannot say whether it is actually the department’s file?
The department, of course, has to front up for any error on the part of an employee that might be made, and it is important that that should happen. What I want to say about the Department of Corrections is that at least the department did not do what it did under Nick Smith, which was to allow Graeme Burton and four others to escape from Pāremoremo. The department has brought down by 84 percent the level of escapes from our prisons, and reduced by two-thirds the abuse of drugs. The department still has improvements that can be made, and it and I are determined that it will make those improvements.