9. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Corrections
Does he agree with corrections assistant general manager Bryan McMurray that “people don’t go to prison to be punished”; if so, why?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) Link to this
No; imprisonment serves a variety of purposes: to keep society safe from serious offenders, the deprivation of freedom as a punishment for crimes committed, and exposure to programmes to help stop reoffending.
Does the Minister stand by the statement of his predecessor in July last year that the ability of inmates to continue to send threatening mail to victims from behind bars is “untenable”; and can he confirm that since corrections said it would monitor all of inmate Glen Goldberg’s mail from last April, that inmate has reportedly continued to send threatening mail to at least two of his previous victims?
Yes; the corrections department has monitored Mr Goldberg’s correspondence out of prison since April last year. Goldberg has also been sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for his offence in sending out that correspondence, and given the high risk that he presents to society, I would expect he would serve every month of that time. The member will also be aware of—and has agreed to support—legislation that is currently before this Parliament that would widen the powers of the Department of Corrections in terms of scrutinising all correspondence that goes out of prisons.
Can the Minister confirm that in January this year Detective Dave Pizzini received a letter from Goldberg that threatened one of his victims, who had already moved to Australia to escape his harassment, stating that when he got out he “will be picking up a piece when I get to Brisbane” and signed the “Grim Reaper”—forcing her to move yet again and to change her name, because corrections has been unable to stop this correspondence?
Hon Dr Nick SmithThat member, as a former Minister of Corrections—“corruptions” was actually closer to the point—had one-third of all inmates in prison actively taking drugs while he had the portfolio. He made excuses that the fences were not there to keep the prisoners in but were there to just slow them down as they escaped. That member would do well to shut up when I am answering a question from his colleague. I will now answer the question. Firstly, I will say again what I have just told the member. Goldberg has been convicted for what he has done—for the sort of language that he used and the threats that he issued in that correspondence. Secondly, he will stay in prison because he constitutes a risk. Unlike what occurred in the old days of the former National Government, a prisoner does not get out automatically whether or not he or she is a risk to society. Thirdly, I have to say that although we can stop Goldberg from directly communicating, we cannot stop him talking to third parties who might then communicate on his behalf. If the member has any suggestions in that regard, I would like to listen to them.
Hon David Benson-Pope Link to this
What progress has been made towards strengthening prison security in order to keep the public safe from serious offenders?
I mentioned that as one of the core purposes of imprisonment, and I am very proud to say that escapes to date, in the last financial year, from prisons were one-sixth of the level that pertained at the end of the failed last National Government’s term of office, one decade ago. I tell the member that far from well over 100 prisoners escaping each year, that number has been reduced to 20. And most of those were not active break-outs; they were walk-aways from work parties.
Madam SPEAKERWhy should victims believe Mr McMurray’s claim that the department would take “appropriate action” if they came forward in cases such as this one, yet in April last year staff saw “no cause for concern” upon the interception of police scene photos that Goldberg sent to one of his victims relating to her partner’s sudden death, when that victim had already received over 200 letters from him since he was jailed in 2004, had a protection order against him, and had asked the prison to stop him sending mail to her?
I repeat, again, that this man has been convicted for behaviour that is absolutely intolerable. The system has come down hard on him and will remain hard on him. That man, while presenting that form of behaviour and threat, will not get released from prison. If he engages in such behaviour through a third party and there is evidence to convict him again, he will be convicted again, and he will stay indefinitely in jail if that behaviour persists. We can stop him. We can stop him by scrutinising every aspect of the correspondence that he sends out. We can do that actually under the existing law. What we cannot do is to stop him communicating to another person, who communicates to another person outside, and who can send correspondence in that way. The assurance I can give to that member is that whenever an inmate behaves in a grossly unacceptable way like this, the system will beat him. But let me tell that member as well that I can table half a dozen different examples of people doing the same thing when his Government was in power.
Does he stand by the statement of Public Prisons Service northern regional manager, Warren Cummings, that prior to last April: “There was nothing in the prisoner’s list of convictions that would have provided us with reasonable grounds to monitor his correspondence as a matter of course.”, when over nearly 20 years this inmate had amassed 191 convictions for harassment and threats?
I am sure the regional manager was not setting out publicly to mislead people. The fact is that this inmate has a track record. It has caught up with him; he has been convicted. He will continue to be punished, and he will be punished as long as that behaviour persists—if he is able to persist in it by new and inventive means that the Department of Corrections has not yet found a way to stop.
Why does the Parliament have to wait for a law change to stop cases such as this, when section 107 of the Corrections Act already enables prison staff to open an inmate’s mail where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the mail may be threatening; and in the instance outlined by the Minister relating to passing that correspondence to other inmates, has the Minister given any thought to instructing his department to take away the pen and paper from the inmate?
I do not know what it is about the previous answers that the member has not understood. Firstly, I have told the member already that under the existing legislation the department has that power where there is reasonable cause to suspect there is such behaviour, and it is using that power. Secondly, when there has been evidence of the inmate doing that, he has been taken to a court and convicted and punished, and he will continue to be punished for it. Thirdly, as I understand it, the letters that have gone out can go by third-party means, and not necessarily in his handwriting by his pen and paper.
Ron MarkPutting this particular case to one side, is the real problem not that all too often when inmates break the law they are dealt with internally by the Department of Corrections through internal disciplinary processes, and are rarely brought before the courts and sentenced by the judiciary, and that when they are they most often get a concurrent sentence, which is served at the same time as the sentence they are already serving; if that is a fair assessment of the current situation, would the Minister support New Zealand First’s view that we need to pass legislation to make it mandatory that prisoners who break the law whilst inside prison be charged in a District Court and that their sentences not be served concurrently but that they be cumulative?
When an inmate commits a serious offence, that inmate will be charged, will be brought before a court, and, if the evidence stacks up, will be convicted. Unless the inmate is serving a life sentence, if he or she offends in a serious way—as Goldberg did—the sentence will not be concurrent but will be in addition to the existing sentence. Goldberg’s sentence is certainly that.