Madam SPEAKERI have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of reports relating to the release on parole of Graeme William Burton. The release of these associated reports is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and deserves the immediate attention of the House. I therefore call on Mr Key to move that the House take note of the matter.
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. In 1999 Helen Clark said on the campaign trail that Labour had set new standards, in terms of both performance and behaviour. She said: “We will govern for the people and we will be accountable to them.” That is what Helen Clark said. She stated that the Labour Government would be accountable to the people and that she would set new standards. Well, no one—not the family of Karl Kuchenbecker, not the family of Liam Ashley, and not the family of the victims of William Duane Bell—thought that those standards would be lower. No one thought that those standards of accountability would be lower, but they are.
In the early part of 2007 Karl Kuchenbecker went out on his quad bike. He was guilty of nothing. He was an innocent family man who had children. He was guilty of one thing only—that is, of having relied on the Department of Corrections, the Parole Board, parole officers, and the Minister of Corrections, Damien O’Connor, to do their jobs properly. That is what he was guilty of relying on, and he paid with his life.
What have we heard about this whole affair? We have heard from the head of the Department of Corrections, Mr Barry Matthews, who stated that the parole of Graeme Burton was “well managed”. Let us get the facts right. This is a guy who had been in prison because, in 1992, he went out and killed Paul Neville Anderson in an unprovoked attack in a Wellington nightclub. Before he was released, Department of Corrections officers knew that he had been committing violent offences within the prison. But that information did not get to the Parole Board, because it was unsubstantiated. We knew that. When Graeme Burton was released the board knew, for a variety of reasons, including a psychiatric report, that he was high-risk. This was not somebody who had been picked up for shoplifting and had done a month or two, so the board decided he was going to be let out; this was a guy who had killed a man in New Zealand in an unprovoked attack and had had the book thrown at him. There were concerns but he was let out under a policy of zero tolerance.
What do we think Karl Kuchenbecker’s family thinks zero tolerance means? I think it means that when a prisoner breaches parole the Parole Board does something about it. Karl Kuchenbecker’s family would have thought that when Graeme Burton breached his parole, the Parole Board would do something about it. It kind of did do something about it. A month afterwards—after the parole officer had been on holiday—it finally issued a notice to recall Graeme Burton. According to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections of New Zealand, Graeme Burton’s parole was well managed.
Hon Tony RyallThat is right. That is not the only death that has occurred recently.
We found out today—and it is pretty interesting—that this is not the first time a parole officer has gone on holiday without someone overlooking the person whom that parole officer is responsible for, even though that person is in breach of his or her parole. This is not the first time it has happened. Exactly the same type of situation happened with William Duane Bell. So this is not the first time.
We are meant to be relying on Barry Matthews, who said that everything was well managed. According to the Prime Minister, he is a guy she can really rely on and who is an exceptional public servant. She said she thinks that Barry is our man if we have a problem and want it fixed. This is the guy who knew that William Duane Bell had been released and whose parole officer had gone on holiday. This is the guy whom New Zealanders are meant to take confidence from. Yet he is the man who says that the thing was well managed. The Prime Minister says he will fix it; according to Barry Matthews, there is nothing to fix, because it was well managed. So we are all meant to sit around and feel confident that it has been well managed.
There is, of course, a reason why the Prime Minister does not want accountability, and it is a pretty simple one. When Helen Clark says her Government is responsible and accountable, which is what she said in 1999 that she would do when there are problems, she knows it reflects on her Minister Damien O’Connor—and we will come to him in just a moment—and her Government. So the Prime Minister of New Zealand has decided that no one is accountable, because she wants to put her political agenda before the people of New Zealand. It is Labour first; everybody else comes behind. Labour members care about Labour; they do not care about us or innocent people and they do not care about Karl Kuchenbecker’s or Liam Ashley’s family.
They blame Liam Ashley’s family. When we stood here on the last day of Parliament and my deputy leader gave an outstanding speech about Liam Ashley, Jill Pettis said it was Liam Ashley’s family’s fault that it went wrong. Labour has set down who is accountable; it is the victims’ families who are accountable, under Labour.
Let us get to Damien O’Connor. If people do not know, he is the Minister of Corrections. A lot of New Zealanders would not know that.
Dr the Hon Lockwood SmithWell, he is Taito’s mate, as well, but he is the man who is responsible for the Department of Corrections. One might not know that, because Mr O’Connor has had nothing to say about Graeme Burton’s parole and about what has happened. He has had nothing to say about Karl Kuchenbecker’s death. He sits there quietly. He is not allowed off his little leash when the three reports are released. He is not allowed to answer those, because, according to the Beehive sources—who will have conveniently leaked this information to John Armstrong in the weekend, when he wrote his column—Mr O’Connor does not have the personality and grunt to front up. John Armstrong said the view in the Beehive is that Damien O’Connor and Minister of Justice Mark Burton, who is also on the dead-wood countdown, lack the force of personality that previously saw Phil Goff—
Gerry BrownleeStraight out of the 9th floor. He does not want to front up.
When National members stood up and said that the Department of Corrections should have a higher profile round the Cabinet table, and that it should be wound back into the Ministry of Justice so we can actually get some things happening there and remove the culture of denial that operates under his watch and in that department, that was the first time we heard from Mr O’Connor. He did not have anything to say about Graeme Burton’s killings. He did not dispatch the duty Minister to do the interview for TV3. The night the duty Minister was on, TV3 had nothing to say about Karl Kuchenbecker’s death. Mr O’Connor did not come back from his holiday to do a bit of explaining to save his job. He was sunning himself while New Zealanders were being killed, and he was not allowed to front up because he does not have a strong-enough personality. That is obviously what a Minister of Corrections needs—not a well-run organisation, not a tightly run ship that closes down problems, and not a handle on what he or she is doing; a Minister of Corrections has to have a strong personality, because that is the only thing left.
And he does not have one, so he is not allowed out. According to Helen Clark, she still has confidence in him. I hope she does have confidence in him—
My goodness, there is room for improvement.
I hope Helen Clark has confidence in Damien O’Connor, because I tell the House that New Zealanders do not. New Zealanders do not have confidence in Damien O’Connor.
Sitting out there are members of the public saying that Graeme Burton was released on zero tolerance. They are relying on Damien O’Connor and on Barry Matthews—a man who said that everything was well managed. Well, no wonder they are worried.
What has the Prime Minister done? She has done what she always does when there is a problem. She gets out in front and makes a few noises to look prime ministerial and to look like she cares. But she does not care enough to do something about it. She just cares enough to be seen to be deflecting things and to try to take the heat out of the situation; she does not care enough to fix things, and she does not care enough to make her Minister responsible. She cares about the National Party attacking Labour’s record in this area, which is abysmal. That is what the Prime Minister cares about.
It is the same old story. The Prime Minister fronts up, she talks tough, she gives a few people a little bit of a flick along the way, and nothing changes. There is no accountability; the standards are lower, not higher, and they are very malleable, depending on what the polls look like—that is the truth of it.
I say to the people of New Zealand that they deserve much better. New Zealanders deserve to know that when people are released on parole there is a good reason why they are released, and they deserve to know that if people violate their parole, something will happen and they will be recalled. New Zealanders are pretty darned confused now. They do not know what zero tolerance means under a Labour Government, they do not know who is accountable, and they do not know who is responsible—according to the Prime Minister, it is nothing to do with her.
I do not think that is good enough. I do not think the people of New Zealand thought that that was what Helen Clark meant when she said there would be accountability in her Government. I make this prediction: Damien O’Connor’s days in Cabinet are pretty limited. Damien O’Connor will eventually be offered up as the sacrificial little lamb chop because Helen Clark can read the polls and she knows that her Government, with that man at the helm, has no credibility whatsoever. That is why, when my colleague Simon Power asked his questions today, not one of the little muppets on the front bench had something to say. Not one of the front bench tried to protect him. Phil Goff tried to protect the Prime Minister by defending the indefensible, but not one person wanted to be around Damien O’Connor, because he is gone. I will say this for nothing—the way the Labour Government manages things in New Zealand, including the Department of Corrections, it is gone too, and not a moment too soon.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
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 Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
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 ClarksonHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
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 Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
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 Link to this
Burton was allowed to breach parole for a whole month, and you say no one’s accountable for that.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am not saying that. The member should listen more carefully to what I am saying. The board also needs—
Hon Bill EnglishHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
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 SmithHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
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.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
Let me say from the outset that New Zealand First regards the death of Karl Kuchenbecker as not only a tragedy but a disaster, and our total sympathy is with his family and his friends. It should not have occurred. It is pleasing to hear that the Minister Dr Cullen, who has just resumed his seat, has said that the Government will take a fresh look at parole. New Zealand First has long been on the public record as saying that if we want to address law and order in this country, there are five areas to look at. The first area is prevention, the second area is apprehension, the third area is punishment, the fourth area is rehabilitation, and the fifth area is victim support. Although we say there are five areas, it does not mean that that area is the last one to be considered.
This country needs to address the problems that are occurring through society to do with young children, families, and the people who go off the rails in the first instance. This country needs to address the problems that the police are facing every day. Firstly, there are not enough of them, and, secondly, their morale, from time to time, for reasons I will not go into, hits rock-bottom.
I find it somewhat ironic that although John Key stands up in the Chamber and offers his party as the law and order party, when he was making his millions in London the National Party was solving our crime issues by advocating cardboard cut-outs and an INCIS computer. Simon Power can say “Oh, so?”. I can remember it; it was an absolute disgrace and it was disgusting. At that time New Zealand First was in coalition with the National Party and we were advocating more police, but National was saying it wanted fewer of them. Now we are in a confidence and supply arrangement with the Labour Government, and we want a thousand more police within this 3-year term.
Let me just reinforce the position we are in. We want police numbers, on a per capita basis, to be exactly the same as those in Australia. This will mean that if the country recruits a thousand police by the end of this term, we will probably want the best part of another thousand in the next term. This country needs police. It needs young people to put their lives on the line in order to fight crime and criminals. On top of that this country needs—and this is a sad testimony on our society—more prisons. We need more prison officers, and we need to educate them so that they know what the prisoners are in prison for—not to have the time of their lives.
Simon Power has frequently asked the Minister of Corrections—I have lost count of the number of times—whether he has confidence in the Department of Corrections. The answer has always been the same: “Yes, but there’s always room for improvement.” Unfortunately, the lack of improvement has resulted in the death of people in this country. We must take heed of what Dr Cullen said earlier. I know that New Zealand First will be pushing him, and that my colleague Ron Mark—unfortunately he is not here today; he is away on personal leave—will be having urgent talks with the Ministers to ensure that the rehabilitation programme is looked at.
New Zealand First believes that parole not only is a privilege but should be earned. It should not be automatic. These people should not serve so many years in prison then think that because they have done their time they qualify for parole; parole should be earned from day one in prison. If prisoners want their sentence shortened, then the onus should be on them to earn it.
New Zealand First accepts that things went wrong in the system in terms of Graeme Burton. We think they went dreadfully wrong. I cannot emphasise that enough. And although this sounds glib, we must learn from the death of Karl Kuchenbecker. We cannot bring him back. His family would dearly love him back, as I think would all New Zealanders. The only thing we can do now is to learn from the experience. We must take it very, very seriously. We must address the problems with the Parole Board and the granting of parole to prisoners, particularly to violent prisoners who have a track record of violence. I was appalled when Dr Cullen read out the criminal record of this guy Burton—absolutely appalled. We have to take this very, very seriously. Incidents like this have occurred far too often. It is senseless and useless to go around saying that this one or that one should be made accountable. Society is accountable for these sorts of issues and the onus is on us in Parliament to address these matters positively, fairly, and firmly.
Dr Cullen said the Government is prepared to look at parole and rehabilitation in its widest form. New Zealand First will strenuously support that move. We believe that parole and rehabilitation should be earned, and if they are not earned, then prisoners should stay where they are. We want some assurances that when these guys come out of prison they will fit into society—and we want those assurances to be as cast iron as they can possibly be. It is a sad day that we are standing up here debating this sort of issue. It is a sad day for New Zealand. It is a sad day particularly for the Kuchenbecker family. All we can do now is to ensure we do our very, very best to rectify this matter and to do so with some sort of priority and urgency.
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) Link to this
I think this House really has to look at two different but related issues in this case. The first relates to what accountability Government departments have when events like this happen and the second to how we can ensure they do not happen again. When it comes to accountability, I have to agree with Dr Cullen that the primary responsibility in this case does lie with Burton. He is the man who did the killing. Nevertheless, that does not absolve Government departments from their share of the responsibility in contributing to the circumstances.
That is one of the reasons the Green Party has long advocated for a rigorous and reliable independent complaints and investigations system when it comes to the Department of Corrections. It seems to me that when we have these kinds of cases—and we have seen a number of cases within the Department of Corrections—we cannot rely on internal investigations to get to the bottom of them and to hold people accountable. We cannot rely on the Department of Corrections to investigate itself, then advocate who is to be held accountable or what the solutions should be. We need an independent prison inspectorate system in this country that has the ability to independently investigate problems, complaints, or incidents. It also needs to have the ability to proactively fulfil an inspectorate function, which would investigate both in prisons and in the parole system, look at what systems are in place and at how they might fall down, and identify pre-emptively where the problems are so that we can avoid these kinds of tragedies from happening in the first place.
I hope very much that the National Party will support the position of the Green Party on that. We are having discussions with the Government, working through as per an agreement we have with it, for an independent prison inspectorate. I think that is something there is broad agreement on—around the country as well as in the House.
The other issue I would like to come to is what we do about the matter in the future. I think the greatest tragedy when it comes to criminal justice policy is the politics around it that we often play in this House. I do not believe that anyone in the Government, in the parole system, or in the Department of Corrections does not care that someone has died. I do not believe there is anyone who does not care, and I think it is unhelpful to hear those allegations being made. We need to ask how we can solve these problems. If we follow the Finnish example and start working together on evidence-based policy rather than having reactive knee-jerk responses, then we might actually get somewhere in reducing, or even preventing, some of these kinds of tragedies. Unfortunately, emotions become an easy button to push when it comes to tragedies of this kind, and I think we have to restrain ourselves in order to get to the right outcomes, because it is really about how to reduce or prevent offending and reoffending.
Parole, in particular, is one of these areas. I think we all understand the hurt of victims and their families, but we as legislators must focus on how to reduce these incidents. I think that the attacks on the parole system as a whole are misconceived—for example, the idea that life means life. I am pleased to see that the National Party has backed away from that position. There are very real problems in the parole system in the way it is administered, but we also know there is very good evidence that parole does reduce reoffending. The Department of Corrections’ Recidivism Index demonstrates that clearly, as does international evidence. There are huge benefits in having proper reintegrative programmes for people coming out of prison. Parole has to be a part of that reintegrative measure, but it has to be properly administered, and all of that simply highlights the incredible failings in this particular case.
I am dubious about the Government’s announcement of policy changes to make sure that the law allows the Parole Board the ability to hear unsworn evidence and to call witnesses. As the Prime Minister confirmed today, the Law Commission’s report clearly confirms that the Parole Board can already hear evidence, whether it is sworn or unsworn. If we look at the Act itself, we see it is clear that decisions must be made on the basis of all the relevant information that is available to the board at the time, and there was evidence presented about unproven allegations in Burton’s case. The board has the ability to determine for itself who it will hear and under what circumstances. And again it has been confirmed that the Parole Board has very broad powers to hear the evidence it needs to hear. There are difficulties in making decisions on unproven allegations, but the board has the discretionary power to determine what it will or will not take account of.
The Government also says it will give the Parole Board the power to call witnesses. Well, on reading the Parole Act I think that that power already exists, as well. The problem, I think, is not the legislation; it is the legalistic and timid approach that the Parole Board has taken to its job, and that is actually where we need to start to focus if we are to do something about it. One thing is very clear: in these kinds of things we cannot rely on a legalistic and bureaucratic approach. It is not going to cut it. We have to get back to the principal thing, which, when it comes to the Parole Board, is that the board’s primary issue has to be the safety of the community. That is supposed to be the paramount consideration for the board.
Even more important than the issues around release on parole, I think, though, are the issues around monitoring and enforcement. Graeme Burton himself—and I realise he is not a disinterested party—said: “It is not my initial release that the community should be worried about but the lack of support and monitoring once I was out that led to such a tragedy.” As I say, he is not disinterested, but we would be stupid to ignore his comments—we would be stupid to take no account of the comments of the man at the centre of this. It is very clear that monitoring, enforcement, and support are sadly lacking. That is something I have been saying since 2004, and we are still not seeing the matter sorted out.
The issues are the same across a whole bunch of areas of the criminal justice system. In family group conferencing—which comes under some criticism—the issues are the same. In restorative justice the issues are the same—the lack of monitoring, and the lack of enforcement of the conditions and agreed outcomes of those processes. We are seeing—and this particular case highlights it—that breaches of those conditions were not being picked up. No action was taken when they were picked up, for far too long, and there was a lack of continuity in the monitoring—and that, I think, is at the heart of the tragedy. We know that if people on parole can breach their conditions with impunity, why would they not do so?
It is absolutely critical that we get this right. It is the same when it comes to crime. What affects people’s decision making when it comes to offending and crime—and there is very good evidence to support this—is not so much the length of sentence when they get caught but the likelihood of being caught. This is the same thing. We have to make sure that when people breach their parole conditions, they will be caught and action will be taken. If we do not get that right, the fine words we say in this House will not matter; we will not get to the heart of the problem.
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
Dr Cullen came to this House very concerned about Karl Kuchenbecher’s death, but just not concerned enough to tell the public of New Zealand who is going to take responsibility—not concerned enough to offer an apology on behalf of those departments and statutory agencies that let this man and his family down. Dr Cullen came to this House and said that Graeme Burton is responsible for this tragedy. The real question on the minds of the New Zealand public, though, asks why he was in a position to pull that trigger. The answer to that question is that his parole and his probation had been mismanaged and completely inadequately taken care of, to the point that he was in a position to pull that trigger.
Although Dr Cullen is happy to tell the House that Mr Burton is responsible, let us not forget how he got there. Let us also not forget that while the Government takes a moralising tone over this issue, Helen Clark and Damien O’Connor are those same people who skewered Denis Marshall in this House over the systemic failures surrounding the tragedy at Cave Creek. So those members should not come to this House and take the moral high ground on issues relating to systemic tragedies.
When those reports came out last week, the Prime Minister fronted but Damien O’Connor was nowhere to be seen. Today in the House, in a snap debate on this issue—when Parliament has stopped its work to debate this crucial matter of systemic failure in corrections’ parole and probation—Dr Cullen has fronted the debate, and the Minister of Corrections has once again sat on his hands and let a senior member of the Government mop up the mess that his department has made yet again. In the meantime, the victims’ families are sitting at home asking themselves who is going to take responsibility for this tragedy.
The thing here is that this department continues to operate in what can be described only as a complete culture of denial. This is a department that, my sources inside it tell me, worries only about risk management. There is never any forward planning, never any strategic thinking about how these systems work; it is all about covering backsides and risk management—short-term, issue by issue. Well, someone died in the hills of Wainuiōmata, and the Parole Board chairman has had what can be described only as the decency to come out publicly and say that he has taken some of the responsibility: “I am the chairman of the Parole Board; I am responsible.” What was the reaction of the Department of Corrections in stark contrast to that of the Parole Board? Its reaction was that the chief executive came out and said there was no blood on his hands: “This process has been well managed—no blood on my hands.” That is the difference in culture and humanity of those two agencies.
A culture of denial exists in the Department of Corrections. But, worse than that, the head of that department apologised for the statement that there was no blood on his hands only after I wrote to the State Services Commissioner and asked him to investigate it. Worse still, the apology was made not to the families of the victims, or to the public of New Zealand, but to the State Services Commissioner—and those families are still waiting for an apology from Damien O’Connor and Barry Matthews.
The Prime Minister did not front on this issue because it is multi-ministerial; she fronted because she does not believe that Damien O’Connor can do the job. Sure enough, when the Speaker granted a snap debate this afternoon, what became apparent? Dr Cullen does not believe that Damien O’Connor is up to the job, either. So this is a Prime Minister who fronted the Criminal Justice Law Reform Bill launch, got separate opinions from the Law Commission about the issues surrounding parole, and then disagreed publicly with the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections with her own separate legal opinion. She went off and got a legal opinion that was separate from the advice offered to her by the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections. This Prime Minister not only has no confidence in the Minister and the chief executive but has no confidence in those departments.
The Law Commission is now doing the work of the Ministry of Justice, so what does the Ministry of Justice do these days? Well, when separate opinions are sought by the Prime Minister, that makes us wonder. The Law Commission is actually drafting all the Government’s law reform at the moment; it is not the Ministry of Justice. Why is that? The Prime Minister does not have any confidence in that ministry or that Minister, either. There are two second-bench, second-rate Ministers who will not take responsibility and stand up; instead, the Prime Minister and Dr Cullen do it on their behalf.
What has the Government learnt since the tragedy at the Panmure RSA?Because, we discovered in question time today that William Bell’s probation officer had also gone on leave just prior to the murders at the Panmure RSA just like Burton’s probation officer was on leave for a week. Let us just think about this. By the time that probation officer went on leave for a week it was known in early October that Burton was not returning calls to the probation officer. It was known in late November that the police had told the probation officer there were concerns over his living arrangements and if the probation officer did not do something, Burton would kill someone. On 5 December, Burton does not report for parole and the probation officer goes on holiday. The officer did not say to the person at the next desk: “Would you mind looking after this file while I’m away for a week? I think I have a bit of a problem on my hands.” The officer just walked out the door, in the same way that the gap occurred with William Duane Bell. And what happened as a result when he got back on 13 December? He thought: “This is a problem. I had better send a letter.” So we can all visualise Graeme Burton walking down to his letterbox, opening the letterbox and saying: “That’s right. I’ve missed my probation appointment. I must get on to that.” This is laughable.
Why did the Department of Corrections not get an independent external inquiry into the shambles, like the Parole Board said? This House will not accept the Minister and the head of corrections saying the matter has been well managed. It has not been. Bell, Ashley, Burton—when will this department learn? When will this Prime Minister finally give up the ghost on a Minister who has lost not only her confidence but the confidence of this House and the confidence of New Zealanders, and the victims and their families all over this country.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
I disagree with the description of the situation as laughable that was given by the last speaker, Simon Power. It is actually tragic. It is tragic that the system has failed the Bell family, the Ashleys, the Burtons, and all of the victims. It is tragic that the Parole Board has been shown to be manifestly inefficient—to put it at its most polite—in the exercise of its duties. It is also tragic that we are now having a debate about accountabilities and about some of the issues that lead to people being put in this situation in the first go-off.
I want to put on record my sympathy for the Kuchenbecker family and the tragedy they suffered when Burton went on his rampage in the Wainuiōmata hills. Any New Zealanders out enjoying a ramble on that bush track have the right to do so in confidence that their safety is not going to be compromised by some mad criminal out on a rampage as Burton was that day.
As the situation has unfolded subsequently—and I have some sympathy with the point of the previous speaker about the linkage of cases—a number of issues have arisen that need to be addressed. For instance, when Burton was finally apprehended he said that he was the one who had been pleading for assistance and not getting it. Why was that? It might have been that his probation officer was on leave. It might have been that the process by which the Parole Board dealt with the case in the first place was ineffectual. But, whatever it was, it is totally unacceptable that a deranged killer who says he wants help does not get it, let alone the families of his victims and the people in the Wainuiōmata and Hutt Valley area being put on notice for several days that he is loose amongst them and out of control.
The question arises as to what has to happen to prevent repetitions in the future. Accountabilities need to be exercised, be they at the Parole Board level, at the department level, or at the Minister’s level; responsibility has to be accepted.
I think the first point that needs to be stressed here is that violent criminals of Burton’s type should not be eligible for parole. I think a very large part of the problem emerges because a violent criminal of this type becomes eligible for parole.
Next, the process by which that parole hearing takes place does not take sufficient account of the circumstances. It is not too long ago that there was a debate in the community about whether the victims’ families had any right to be involved in a Parole Board hearing, or even to be made aware of the fact that a hearing was taking place, that might see someone released into the community. We have moved a little beyond that—thankfully—but I think this case shows that the evidence tests that the Parole Board applies in determining whether to release someone early are not appropriate to the circumstances. This is not a court of law. This is not a body that needs the highest test available to it. This is a body that needs to be able to determine whether a person is a risk to the community, and whether it is safe to let that person have his or her freedom. It is not a question of the old principle in the Scottish court of “not proven” applying; it has to be absolute. If there is any doubt at all, then parole should not be given. I think that is one of the first lessons to be taken from this case.
The second issue—and I am conscious time is almost up—is what happened in terms of follow-up. It is simply not acceptable that someone is released without adequate follow-up.
The final point I want to make is that we can wallow all we like in the aftermath of the Burton case, but the test will be the extent to which departments, Parole Boards, Ministers, and Governments learn the lesson and make sure we have no repetitions in the future. I look at the family of Karl Kuchenbecker and ask what right they have to their safety and their protection. Why did their innocent loved one pay the penalty for these tragic events? This cannot continue, and, therefore, we have to take responsibility and make sure that adequate steps are in place to prevent repetitions of this type of situation ever occurring.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) Link to this
Firstly, I must acknowledge the Kuchenbecker family. The tragedy that they have had to face is something that very few of us will be able to imagine. We have to almost apologise to them, also, for dragging their family into this House for cheap politics. We have to apologise to them, but I know their question is a simple one: what can be done to prevent this tragedy ever occurring again? It was Graeme Burton who murdered Karl Kuchenbecker—let us not forget that reality. The question is why that occurred, what could have been done to try to prevent it, and what we can do to prevent it happening in the future.
There were three reports on this terrible tragedy. They were independent reports and they were technically and legally correct in their conclusions. However, I have to say that I would not call the management of Graeme Burton on parole “appropriate” or “well managed”. I could not say that we could not have done more to prevent this tragedy. I am committed as Minister to ensuring that this cannot happen again.
There were mistakes made all the way through Graeme Burton’s sentence. He escaped in 1998. He came before the Parole Board. There was uncertainty over the information that was put before the Parole Board and the analysis of it and what could happen. There were many mistakes that must be prevented from ever happening in the future.
There must be a more appropriate and a more timely response when information is received regarding behaviour of parolees, especially those on the offender warning system. We need firmer guidelines for action when likely breaches of parole have occurred or when we think they have occurred.
We need to ensure that there is an appropriate transfer of responsibilities when a probation officer might take leave. The reality is that in any system people may not turn up from day to day or will go on leave. It is not acceptable that serious areas of responsibility are left to lapse because someone has gone on leave.
We need closer oversight of probation officers by service managers. Many probation officers are relatively new. They do not have the experience we would like in dealing with serious offenders. We have to make sure that the oversight is at the very highest level so that mistakes, if they should occur, can be identified and we can step in and make changes.
We need clearer lines of communication between the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections. That point has been made, and we accept that. We need a better understanding of the information that can be put to the Parole Board. We need to update the information and the reports that go from prison officers and Department of Corrections officers to the Parole Board so that it has the most up-to-date information.
Could we have done better? Yes, we could. I am sure that every person involved in the Parole Board and in the corrections and prison systems who in any way played a part in the management of Graeme Burton or was in any way linked to this terrible tragedy in some way feels responsible for this. I do also. I have a responsibility to make sure that this does not occur again.
We have made changes. We accept that the system is not perfect. We have made changes, and we are looking to make some more. We have formalised the system and the process of providing the Parole Board with all the relevant information so that it can make the right decisions. That information regarding Graeme Burton was before the Parole Board, through the psychologist’s report. But the uncertainty over how the Parole Board could have used that information, and whether more information could have been provided, must be eliminated. That is why we are looking to make changes in legislation where necessary.
We need to reassure the Parole Board that immediate action is immediate action when the probation service is managing parolees, particularly those on the offender warning system. We have issued instructions so that if breaches occur, within 24 hours action will occur. Existing protocols allowed for a delay of up to 7 days. That is not acceptable. That must be changed. I think—and I am having discussions with the Chief Executive of the department—that personal contact should be made within 24 hours with a parolee if he or she breaches in any way the conditions of the parole. I think that is what the public expects, and that is what we must do.
Those on the offender warning system—those on parole who are at higher risk—are currently required to report weekly. They then move on to a fortnightly system. We have changed the protocols so that life parolees or those on the offender warning system will have to report every week until they have met all the terms and conditions of their parole. Those are clear changes we have made to address some of the mistakes and deficiencies that have been exposed through these three reports.
We are looking at other changes. Michael Cullen, who is the Minister responsible for the Parole Board—if Simon Power did not know that—and the Prime Minister have flagged the possibility of allowing the police to apply directly to the Parole Board if they are in receipt of information that causes them to consider that a parolee is an undue risk to the public and should be recalled. The process at the moment is that the information goes through the corrections system and back to the Parole Board. The police need the ability to apply directly to the Parole Board, and that is currently under consideration.
Again, we will make changes to legislation that will ensure that the Parole Board has the ability and the power to access all relevant information, be it suspicions or reports from within the prison system of possible incidents that have occurred and have been noted in the system. The incidents may not have been proven, but they may form part of the sensible consideration that the Parole Board must go through to ensure that we do not let out on parole people who will be dangerous or a threat to society in any way. The system has to be revamped so that the onus of proof is on people applying for parole to show quite clearly, beyond doubt, that they will not pose any threat to society while they continue with their sentence on parole.
Anyone and everyone in the corrections system and on the Parole Board feels absolutely distraught about the outcome of this tragedy. The accountability is in a commitment to ensure that this does not occur again. I respect the Kuchenbeckers. It is a sad situation that their family has to be dragged through Parliament for cheap politicking. They expect, rightfully, that we will take accountability for this tragedy and make the changes in the system to prevent any mistakes occurring in the future. This is a sad and tragic outcome for a family in this country. We have to ensure that the system of justice in this country, from start to finish, does not allow such a tragedy to occur in the future.