(dissenting). I dissent and I would hold that a person convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder must be sentenced to mandatory, nonparolable life in prison.
MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) provides in part:
Any person who conspires together with 1 or more persons to commit an offense prohibited by law, or to commit a legal act in an illegal manner is guilty of the crime of conspiracy punishable as provided herein:
(a) except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) if commission of the offense prohibited by law is punishable by imprisonment for 1 year or more, the person convicted under this section shall be punished by a penalty equal to that which could be imposed if he had been convicted of committing the crime he conspired to commit and in the discretion of the court an additional penalty of a fine of $10,000.00 may be imposed. [Emphasis supplied.]
MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4) provides:
A prisoner under sentence for life or for a term of years, other than prisoners sentenced for life for murder in the ñrst degree and prisoners sentenced for life or for a minimum term of imprisonment for a major controlled substance offense, who has served 10 calendar years of the sentence is subject to the jurisdiction of the parole board and may be released on parole by the parole board, subject to the following conditions .... [Emphasis supplied.]
MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) became effective on March 10, 1967. MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4), as it pertains to the nonparolability of those convicted of first-degree murder, has been in effect since 1948. Although MCL 791.234(4); MSA *49028.2304(4) has been amended since 1948, including 1978, this language has not been altered.
While the majority argues that MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4) is unambiguous, I believe other rules of statutory construction are more properly applied to this case. First, I note that the Legislature is charged with knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject when it promulgates new laws. See, e.g., People v Buckley, 302 Mich 12, 21; 4 NW2d 448 (1942). Second, an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute is given great weight due to the expertise of the agency with respect to the subject under its jurisdiction. PSB State Bank v Comerica Inc, 151 Mich App 452, 460; 391 NW2d 371 (1986). Third, the Legislature’s reenactment of a statute which was interpreted in a particular manner gives rise to an inference that the Legislature approved that interpretation. See, e.g., Wayne Co v Auditor General, 250 Mich 227, 237; 229 NW 911 (1930). Fourth, the primary goal of statutory construction is to determine the intent of the Legislature; therefore, it is important to consider the general purpose sought to be accomplished by a statute in determining its meaning. PSB State Bank, supra, 460.
As defendant concedes, the present conspiracy statute was enacted following the Legislature’s dissatisfaction with the lenient penalties previously provided. At the time MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) was passed, the penalty for first-degree murder was mandatory, nonparolable life. The Legislature must be charged with knowledge of this penalty. See, e.g., Buckley, supra. Furthermore, the parole board has consistently interpreted the penalty for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder as mandatory, nonparolable life. In amending MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4), the Legislature did not specifically state that conspir*491acy to commit murder in the first degree was a parolable offense despite its chargeable knowledge of the parole board’s interpretation. See, e.g., Buckley, supra; Wayne Co, supra. Finally, I believe that the Legislature intended to punish conspiracy to commit a felony at least as seriously as the commission of the felony itself. MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1). I note that conspiracy may be more severely punished because the defendant must plan the crime with another. Id. For these reasons, I believe that defendant is properly sentenced to mandatory, nonparolable life. I further note that I do not believe that defendant should benefit merely because the hit men he hired were unsuccessful.
I further believe that this decision is a restatement of existing law and, therefore, is entitled to full retroactive effect. People v Szymanski, 102 Mich App 745; 302 NW2d 316 (1981), lv den 411 Mich 863 (1981). I would affirm.