Parole Amendment Bill (No 2)

I start by thanking members around the Chamber for agreeing to this accommodation. I think that when the matter that led to our needing to do this was discussed, we all described it as MMP in action, and this in itself is a continuation of that.

💬 Simon Power: Oh, how history is rewritten.

Oh, indeed! Heather Roy’s amendments removed the clauses that would have changed the position of the rights of victims in relation to the Parole Board. We had that discussion when the Committee last sat. This involved the deletion of amendments to section 50A, which deal with the position of victims whose addresses have not been previously notified. Following the passing of Ms Roy’s amendments, further technical and cross-referencing amendments are required.

Clause 105 concerns the notification of victims, and makes consequential amendments on the basis of the deleted amendments to section 50A. These references will now be incorrect. Clauses 115A(2) bars reviews of decisions made under what is now, following the deletion of new section 48B, something that does not exist after Ms Roy’s amendments, and clause 138 also now refers to something that has effectively been removed from the Act.

My tabled amendment simply amends these clauses to reflect Parliament’s intention when it agreed to Ms Roy’s amendments. I commend them to the Committee.

The National Party was happy to give leave to the Minister to make sure that these consequential amendments were made in a way that would not cause the Government further embarrassment after the Committee stage on Thursday, given that only on the Wednesday I had risen in the Chamber to raise concerns about the fact that victims would no longer have the same rights to appear before the Parole Board panels as they previously had. The Minister assured me, as his officials had assured the committee, that that would not be the case, and we were all left wondering. It was not until the Close Up programme investigated the issue a little further and Heather Roy tabled amendments on behalf of the ACT party that it all started coming unravelled.

Despite the best efforts of Charles Chauvel and Lynne Pillay in the Chamber to convince the Committee that they should vote against the amendments, their legs were taken out from under them when not 5 minutes later the Minister rose in the Committee and said that the Government would be voting for the amendments. He had taken his socks off, done the numbers, and worked out that the Government would lose the amendment. At that point I was sitting here listening to the Minister’s comments and they all sounded very reasonable and conciliatory, but my, how history changes in the space of one sitting day. The Minister said it was a matter of MMP moving forward and other such sorts of conciliatory clichés. It is a shame he did not approach the electoral reform legislation with the same open-mindedness. But no doubt, given this Minister’s record on this bill and on the Evidence Bill, we will be having a similar conversation about electoral reform matters, probably in 3 or 4 months’ time.

But I want to say that the National Party will not stand in the way of these matters being dealt with sensibly. Instead we take this opportunity to remind the Committee and the Parliament that a good idea is worth consideration by the Government and should not be dismissed out of hand in the first instance. We look forward to voting on each of the separate bills at the third reading stage.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Mark Burton be agreed to:

to omit subclauses (1) to (3) of clause 105;

to omit subclause (2) of clause 115A; and

to omit the expression “, 48B(2),” from clause 138(2).

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 105, 115A, and 138 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.