Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider the bill. This bill will increase the safety of the public by ensuring that offenders who pose a risk of serious sexual or violent offending are managed by the Department of Corrections. Extended supervision orders are currently used to manage child sex offenders—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Can I just ask members who are leaving the Chamber to do so with substantially less noise than is occurring at the moment.

Extended supervision orders are currently used to manage child sex offenders who have been identified as posing a high risk of serious sexual reoffending against children after completing a finite prison sentence.

Under current legislation extended supervision orders last 10 years and cannot be renewed. This presents a risk to public safety as those offenders who still pose a risk of serious reoffending after the expiration of their orders can no longer be managed. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The Speaker has already asked members for quiet in the Chamber while a member is addressing it. Remember that courtesy is contagious and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders.

Offenders will begin to reach the end of their current extended supervision orders in 2015. In order to ensure that extended supervision orders are used appropriately, the bill will allow extended supervision orders to be renewed for as long as they are needed.

The bill will also introduce mandatory 5-year reviews for offenders who have been subject to an order or orders for 10 years. To further improve public safety, the scope of the current extended supervision orders will be expanded to include high-risk adult sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders.

Finally, the enhancements will introduce a special condition of intensive monitoring for up to 24 hours a day for up to the first 12 months of an order. This condition will be set by a judge to give judicial oversight of the most restrictive form of monitoring on the orders. I consider that the proposed amendments strike the right balance between protecting the public from serious sexual and violent harm and the rights of offenders subject to these orders by ensuring that they have as much autonomy as possible.

Extended supervision orders are part of a wider Government focus on protecting the public from high-risk offenders, which includes the introduction of public protection orders. Public protection orders are the subject of a separate bill, which will place a very small number of individuals who pose a very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent offending into secure residences on prison precincts. Although detainment in a civil residence is an appropriate response to the severe risk of harm those individuals pose, there is a larger group of high-risk serious sexual offenders and very high-risk serious violent offenders who will finish a finite prison sentence but not meet the criteria for a public protection order.

The changes to the extended supervision orders in this bill will complement public protection orders, ensuring that offenders can still be safely managed in accordance with the risk they pose. As a Government, we have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable members of society. This bill will ensure that offenders who are a risk to public safety can be managed safely in the community.

I want to thank those parties that have indicated their support for these changes. It is a very serious imposition on a small number of individuals that we are proposing, and I have appreciated the sensible discussions with colleagues around the House. I commend this bill to the House.

I would like first to thank the Minister of Corrections for making an early copy of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill available to myself and Jacinda Ardern and for taking the time to consult on it. I have got to say that is a rare practice amongst the Minister’s colleagues, but one that I would encourage, particularly when we are looking at potentially controversial legislation that has quite dramatic impacts on the rights of a small number of individuals in order to protect the rights of a much larger number of individuals.

Labour is supporting the introduction of this legislation. Labour has consistently supported legislation for many years—as long as I can remember, in fact—that is evidenced based, that is likely to be effective, and that is designed to protect the rights of those who deserve to be protected. In particular, in this piece of legislation, I am thinking about the rights of our most vulnerable citizens, who are our children.

We do not offer that support lightly. We do not offer it lightly, because when I received a copy of the report of the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, he says this in the New Zealand Bill of Rights vet: “I have considered this bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I conclude it appears to be inconsistent with the rights against retroactive penalties and double jeopardy … which are affirmed by ss 26 and 22 of the Act.”

Whenever we have a piece of legislation in front of us in the House that is found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we have to give it particular attention, because we are cutting across rights that we would normally extend to all New Zealanders—the right not to face double jeopardy and the right not to have penalties imposed retroactively. Because of that, it will be incumbent on those of us who sit on the Law and Order Committee to scrutinise this legislation very, very carefully to ensure that we do get the balance between the absolute right of our children and others not to be subject to preventable sexual attacks, and the rights of all individuals not to face, as I said, double jeopardy and retroactive penalties.

The motivation and the timing of this bill are due to the fact that a particular individual is due for release into the community next year following the expiry of a 10-year extended supervision order. I have been following the history of this individual for 20 years. The individual’s name is in the public arena. His name is Lloyd McIntosh. Lloyd McIntosh was one of 35 people released from the Lake Alice Hospital by Jenny Shipley when she amended the mental health legislation in 1993. However well-intentioned she might have been in updating the legislation, the difficulty is that the result of the National Government’s legislation at that time was to put out into the community, without any supervision whatsoever over how they might behave in the community, 35 people with extensive histories of sexual offending against children.

I found out about this through a charge nurse at Lake Alice Hospital. His name is Neil Pugmire. I again pay tribute to him in this House, because he had the courage that is the courage of a whistleblower who says: “This is wrong. I must speak out to protect the public.” In doing so, he lost his job and was discriminated against by the then National Government. The truth is that Neil Pugmire was proven right and the National Government was proven wrong. Even the mother of that particular individual that I talked about, Lloyd McIntosh, opposed her son’s release into the community, believing that he was not capable of changing his behaviour.

Lloyd McIntosh had a condition known as a personality disorder. It is not a mental illness, but it is something that meant, for an individual like him with an IQ of around 70 and an understanding probably equivalent to that of a 9-year-old, that whenever he was released and whenever the opportunity arose he would offend. The history of his offending is too dreadful to go into in this House. Needless to say, one of the rapes that he committed was against a 23-month-old baby, who almost died, a 6-year-old child, and an intellectually disabled woman.

I opposed the releases of those individuals when I was in Opposition. In Government, I introduced legislation in 2003—the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill, which was designed to protect the community against people like Lloyd McIntosh. Again, in Opposition, I support the Government and the Minister of Corrections in what she is trying to do here. I want to quote from what I said when I introduced the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill in November 2003: “I do not lightly promote legislation which in part may conflict with Bill of Rights requirements. However in this instance the risk posed by such offenders is real, and the vulnerability of our children and the need to protect them must be our paramount consideration.” I said that a decade ago and I stand by that comment now. That is why I am prepared to extend, on behalf of the Labour Party, our support to the Minister of Corrections in this instance.

The extended supervision orders have been used to manage a relatively small number of child sex offenders who have a high risk of causing serious harm following their release from prison. The orders last, currently, up to 10 years beyond the end of the sentence, when corrections can continue to manage offenders. The reason we are looking at this piece of legislation today is that that 10-year period has expired for the people who were the earliest recipients of the extended supervision orders, and at least some of them continue to pose a risk. Most, after 10 years of extended supervision, will not, some will, and those who do will pose a serious risk to the safety and well-being of our children.

This bill therefore enables the orders to be renewed. It also expands the scope of the orders from high-risk child sex offenders to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk offenders at risk of violent offending. The numbers are relatively small. The regulatory impact statement says that probably between 29 and 41 offenders will be placed on extended supervision orders each year because of this legislation. The vast majority, 25 to 30 of them, will be high-risk sexual offenders against children. Four to nine of them will be high-risk offenders against adults, and one to two will be at high risk of violent offending not over a period of a year but over 5 years. It is a very small number, Minister Tolley, and maybe, as you point out, it is necessary for one to two people every 5 years, but we will be looking at whether this is a category that does justify being added to the legislation.

It is not a cost-free exercise. It costs on average $27,000 per offender per year to keep them on an extended supervision order, and—wait for it—for those who are subject to intensive management, which will be for the first 12 months of the sentence, the cost of that will be approximately $300,000 a year. For those who believe that is excessive, it might be a high cost but just consider the cost to a child who is sexually violated in a way that some of the victims of Lloyd McIntosh were violated, and then, I believe, that sort of cost can be and is justified.

There are safeguards in the legislation. The orders will be subject to mandatory reviews by the court. So an order will be judicially and independently reviewed by the court. It is an important safeguard. People subject to the orders will be subject to them only as long as the risk of serious harm to the public from the offenders warrants it, and the Parole Board will have to review every 2 years any high impact conditions imposed on the offender.

I believe that this legislation is justified. Consistent with our past position the Labour Party will be supporting it, but because of the effect on rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I think it really important that the Law and Order Committee examines these provisions very carefully to ensure that at each point of the legislation we have the balance right between protecting the rights of individuals against high-risk offenders and the rights that every New Zealander enjoys under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Our children deserve to be protected against sex offenders, whether or not those individuals have been convicted or not. That is the starting point for us as New Zealanders, and it is the underlying theme of this very good bill, the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I am pleased that Labour is supporting this bill at its first reading, and I agree with the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Goff, that one of the most important aspects that the Law and Order Committee does need to consider is the impact on human rights and the concerns raised by not only the Labour members but other members throughout this House about the rights of the victim weighed up against the rights of the perpetrator convicted of that crime. But due to the significant risk of serious harm posed by the small number of the worst sex offenders against adults and children, and the very small number of violent offenders who would be managed on an extended supervision order, it is believed by the Minister of Corrections and this side of the House—and, hopefully, the majority of this House—that extended supervision orders will be a vital tool for protecting our most precious citizens.

The provisions in this Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill include enabling orders to be renewed for as long as they are needed. Currently, supervision orders are extended for a period limited to 10 years, and then it is extremely difficult to maintain any form of control and check on convicted sex offenders beyond that point. The previous speaker has outlined a certain individual for whom we have grave concern about their future offending, and I will not dignify the individual by going over that evidence again. The bill will also expand the scope of orders beyond high-risk child sex offenders to include a small number of high-risk sex offenders against adults, because adults too need to be protected. We are talking about very small numbers here, and, again, I have referenced the concerns and share the concerns about the human rights of both the victims but also the offenders.

The bill will allow these proposed enhancements to apply to extended supervision order applications made to, and granted by, the court after the legislation is in place. So if there is an offender already subject to an extended supervision order, they would remain on that order under the existing regime, which is of a period of 10 years, but on application from the Department of Corrections they would be eligible to have a new order imposed upon them by the court under the new legislative regime. At that point, when the new order takes effect, the existing order would be automatically cancelled. So, on the passing of this bill and when it is enacted, there should be no gap between the existing protection orders and the new extended protection order regime.

Very recently, while in consideration of the Parole Amendment Bill, members of the Law and Order Committee attended a number of parole hearings throughout New Zealand. I attended a parole hearing in Mt Eden prison, and the prisoner wishing to apply for parole was a sex offender. He was trying very hard to convince the Parole Board that the fact that he was seen to be lurking around shopping malls and other places where he was forbidden to be and that he was trying to get his hands on a cellphone and send texts to targeted people was perfectly acceptable, even though this was against his bail conditions. It was a kind of incremental, creeping approach of saying: “It’s all right. I know I have offended in a shopping mall before, but I’m not going to do it again. It’s all right. I have sent texts grooming potential victims, but I have no intention of doing that again.” Well, the Parole Board, doing its job, saw through that kind of argument and declined parole in that instance, but it highlighted to me the danger that children and adults can be in from a determined, high-risk sex offender. It is that kind of danger that this bill seeks to protect our most precious citizens from. Thank you.

I rise to take a call on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I follow my colleague Phil Goff in confirming that the whole House is in the situation where we are finding our criminal justice system now dealing with a very small number of offenders whose offending behaviour might be otherwise described as extraordinary, certainly unusual, and behaviour that our criminal justice code has not found a way to deal with. Particularly when it comes to sexual offending and sexual violation in all its forms, there is one thing that must be paramount and that the House must give priority to, and that is the safety of our citizens—all citizens.

When the criminal justice system comes upon somebody who, having been convicted and having served their sentence, on any reasonable and objective assessment still constitutes a serious risk to the community, then it is absurd that the system, whether it is the prison system, the Parole Board, or any other part of the criminal justice system, is powerless to do anything about it. It would be absurd to allow people who meet this description and who have this sort of characteristic to be released back into the community. If we know that the chances of their reoffending and the chances of their seriously harming somebody else, whether physically, emotionally, or psychologically, are so great, then it seems silly that nothing can be done about it. It is for that reason that we support this legislation.

We need to make sure that as we scrutinise it, as it goes through the Law and Order Committee process, it does properly strike the right balance. The Hon Phil Goff talked about the expectations we are all under when we consider new legislation, with regard to how it relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Act’s requirement, in a sense, to ensure freedom, liberty, and all those sorts of things. But the problem we have in the human institutions we are responsible for here as part of the machinery of government is that we do come across people for whom the old sorts of conventional theories of correction and criminal justice simply do not apply. They are people who go through the system and, because of their own psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies, simply are not responsive to the measures that are exercised against them or that attempt to correct them, and they continue to pose a very serious risk. So we have to be able to do something sensible about that, and this bill allows us to do that.

As I said before, as the bill is scrutinised in the select committee process, obviously a number of things will have to be considered, such as the thresholds that might apply. I notice that in the list of crimes, or “relevant offences”, as they are described in clause 6, in the proposed amendment to section 107B of the Parole Act, one of the relevant offences is conspiracy to commit various offences. I am not sure that “a conspiracy to commit any offence”, which can apply to a broad range of low-level actions on the part of a person, would constitute a relevant offence given the type of behaviour we are trying to address here, but that is a consideration for the select committee.

I think I am reassured later in the bill, particularly by clauses 11 and 12, where it sets out the threshold that has to be met before an extended supervision order can be imposed on an offender. They are very high criteria that have to be satisfied. It states that “the offender has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending;” and either “there is a high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant sexual offence:” or “will in future commit a relevant violent offence.” But if a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending is evident and also, as a result of the person having spent time in prison, a sensible assessment is made that this person simply is not rehabilitated and their behaviour still poses a high risk, then it is right that action is taken to protect the public. I go back to the point that I made, which is that the priority for this House in its legislation on these sorts of matters must be to ensure that the paramount principle must be protecting innocent members of the public. Then in clause 12, in new section 107IAA in the bill, there is a further set of criteria or matters that the court must be satisfied with when assessing the risk.

This bill is very thorough in the steps that a court must go through on receiving an application from the head of corrections, before making an order of this nature. It will be for the select committee in its detailed scrutiny to make sure that these provisions, amongst others, are properly weighed against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act entitlements that we all have, but against the background that the paramount objective must be protecting innocent members of the public and preventing the nasty, violent, and insidious sort of offending that the bill is addressing.

It is sad and it is tragic, of course, that we have citizens in our midst who meet the descriptions and the criteria set out in this legislation. They have become known and they have been reported on in the newspapers and in the media. It is a tragic reality of modern life that people have descended into those sorts of dark areas and dark spaces in their lives, but we need to make sure that the State, in the management of those people as they have been brought to book, is not left in a position where, knowing there is a high risk of further harm and danger to people, it is powerless to protect innocent citizens. On that note, we will give our support to the bill and look forward to the detailed consideration as it goes through the select committee.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to begin by also acknowledging the courtesy shown us by Minister Tolley, who went to the trouble of inviting me and an adviser to a briefing on this bill, the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. Although a briefing from a Minister will never secure our support on its own, it certainly is helpful in terms of getting a good background to what is proposed. Given that there may be some—not haste, but certainly if this bill is to go through, then it would be helpful for it to go through sooner rather than later. The Minister’s courtesy certainly does nothing to impede that process.

The Greens will support this legislation, albeit with some reservations, through to the select committee at least. The bill, as we have heard, will extend the imposition of supervision orders beyond the 10 years that is currently possible. Any legislation that allows for a continued imposition of restrictions on a person’s freedom of movement beyond the term of the sentence imposed on them by the court is not a trivial matter. That is something we need to think very carefully about, in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and just basic natural justice. In this sense we are, to some extent, reassured by the fact that this legislation, we know, will affect only a very small number of people. The legislation as it is drafted does set a very high bar to have these further restrictions imposed on any individual.

I read with interest, as others obviously have, the Attorney-General’s report in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications and consequences of this legislation. I was interested to note that the Attorney-General found, in terms of section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which deals with arbitrary detention, that this bill improves the situation over what exists currently. It brings it into the criminal regime, rather than the civil. I think that is a useful thing for it to have done. The Attorney-General obviously, though, does unequivocally state that the legislation as it is drafted is inconsistent with section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in terms of retroactive penalties and double jeopardy, and, as I say, that is no trivial matter. It is something we need to consider very carefully before we give final sign-off to this legislation.

The Attorney-General also looked at the relationship between this bill and the public protection orders legislation that is currently going through the House, and considered, in a sense, the hierarchy of those. I think, again, we would need to think very carefully about what relationship this legislation will have with the public protection orders, which, of course, are significantly more restrictive than what is proposed in this, which will be the default in these circumstances. I do think we will need to look very carefully to ensure that, by intent or by unintended consequence, we do not end up somehow muddying the waters in terms of giving the judiciary difficult decisions to make. There will be a level of work that is required to be done on this legislation to ensure it does achieve what it is intended to do, and that it does not create any unintended consequences further down the track.

I would have to say that my own thinking on this bill, in terms of us supporting it or not, has been influenced by the fact that I had a conversation, I suppose a month ago, with a person who is currently under a supervision order and who, with an admirable level of self-awareness, recognises that he and the wider community are probably better off while he is under some form of supervision. I think that is a compelling influence on my own thinking through this bill—to have somebody recognise that there are circumstances where individuals, even with the best will in the world, are nevertheless compelled to keep offending. Unfortunately, that is a reality and a piece of legislation like this, if thoughtfully drafted and appropriately applied by the judiciary, will plug a gap in a sense. It will ensure continued public safety in the appropriate management of some of these individuals.

As I have said, we will support this bill to go to the select committee. The Law and Order Committee is an interesting committee in many ways. We are fortunate in that we routinely get very good advice and input from the judiciary, from lawyers, from the Law Society, from individual members of the public, and from NGOs that are well informed and have an interest in this sort of justice legislation. I am quite sure that the Law and Order Committee will give this bill quite rigorous attention. I think we need to be very careful to see that we do achieve what we intend to achieve, while imposing the least restrictions by doing the least harm to our shared commitment to human rights and natural justice. We will continue. We will support this bill. I look forward to the select committee process. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is an honour to take a call on this, the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge Mr Phil Goff firstly, because obviously he spoke about his own involvement in bringing the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill to this House.

I think that the previous speaker, David Clendon, raised a very good point, and that was around the Attorney-General’s report and his raising the concern around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and double jeopardy. But the thing that I took great encouragement from in Mr Goff’s contribution was that this same issue was raised when they were taking the extended supervision orders bill through the House and they obviously found a way through it. That provides great encouragement to me.

I hope that I am sitting on the Law and Order Committee in the next term if I am lucky enough to be returned to this House, because I think that this is a very, very good bill. I think that, although we always have a very open mind of course when these bills come to a select committee and we have access to a lot of very, very good advice, the default setting for me is the point that Mr Goff made and that was around the fact that we saw serious sexual offending—as in one case involving Mr Lloyd McIntosh—of a 23-month-old child. The default setting must always be in terms of making sure that we do everything we possibly can to make sure that a 23-month-old child—the most vulnerable in our society and community—is protected.

I would also like to acknowledge the Minister of Corrections, Anne Tolley, who has brought this bill to the House and through the select committee process, and has given us the opportunity now to wrap more protection around, and provide more protection for, the most vulnerable in our society.

With that, like I have said, I hope that I am a member of the Law and Order Committee next term, and I look forward to receiving this bill. Thank you.

Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a mai oe?

Manuia fa’afetai.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Fa’afetai lava.

Kia ora and warm greetings. I would also like to acknowledge the Minister of Corrections and the efforts that she made to talk to us about the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. This morning I received a message from one of our community members. I am saying “our” because you and I come from the same electorate, Mr Assistant Speaker.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: But he won the seat.

I hear somebody trying to be smart on this side, and I am sure he cannot remember or understand a single word he is saying. The message goes: “The problem here in this country is that the law has given younger people more authority, which leaves parents hopeless and they can do so little to discipline their kids. Now they can commit more crimes knowing they can get away with it. What will the Government do—allow more laws for rehabilitating the criminals and nothing for the victims?”. Then there are 12 question marks and then the word “sucks” at the end. These words represent frustration and anger, and it is not the fault of the person who sent it, but the fault of this House. This House is responsible for the words of frustration and anger.

It was 2009 when the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Act was passed through a rather rushed process, from its introduction to its third reading. It is interesting because New Zealand First was not here at the time. There was no formal debate during its second and third readings, because leave was given for the bill to be introduced and read on the same day. New Zealand First was not part of the process during that time, and what a shame. What a shame. If that bill had been debated in a considered manner, then members of Parliament during that time may have considered whether the bill was not just about fixing a technical error. We are here today debating the matter because of those who sat in this Chamber in 2009 and did not carefully scrutinise the bill. We are here today to fix up legislation that failed to protect victims of sexual assault and the most vulnerable in our society, our children.

The band-aid approach of a 10-year limit was not enough. It was not enough. The first extended supervision orders handed down in 2005 are due to expire early next year, meaning that the Department of Corrections will lose its ability to manage those child sex offenders in the community. I am glad the Minister of Corrections has decided to address the issue of protection for our communities. I am also glad the Minister has accepted the need to address the issue of protection for the public against these high-risk sex offenders.

We need to ask why it has taken recent cases of serious reoffending to finally decide that it is time to do something about it. We all remember Stewart Wilson—and it is a public case out there—who was released in September 2012, back in jail in April 2013, had 20 years for sexual and violent offending, and whose sentence expires on 1 December next year. We are talking about the $27,000 it cost for this area to be fixed per person, per year, and the time has come for it to be addressed. The ostrich mentality of locking them up and throwing away the key does not work for such offenders, as we all know. The Department of Corrections needs to redirect its attention to serious rehabilitation programmes. It must put protection plans in place so that victims can be confident that they are protected. We are talking about victims. They need to be assured that they are safe to live free of fear, and that offenders under supervision orders will not reoffend after serving their 10-year parole period.

This legislation will expand extended supervision orders for child sex offenders beyond their current 10-year time frame. This is for those who pose a high risk of serious offending. It will also expand their use to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk violent offenders. Managing those high-risk sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders is imperative for the safety of our communities. There is no room for error. This bill must ensure that, given the threat of serious harm posed by offenders, the rights of New Zealanders to be free from sexual harm and violence is upheld. The bill provides for the courts to order the imposition of special conditions allowing intensive monitoring of offenders for the first 12 months of the extended supervision orders.

The intentions of this bill are in line with a similar bill introduced by New Zealand First to amend the Sentencing Act. In fact, the two bills work hand in hand. Both bills are focused on protecting victims. Where the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment bill maintains the safety of victims after offenders have been released, New Zealand First’s Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill acts as an additional deterrent for potential reoffenders post-release. Our bill makes potential reoffenders think twice about re-entering a life of crime after they have served their time. Children and minors are involved in a significant proportion of total crimes and our bill is about keeping them safe. Would-be offenders cannot escape the fact that criminal activity and criminal behaviour almost always have an impact on children at some point, whether it is in the home or on the street.

Both bills are especially relevant for combating paedophilia, child abuse, and other such crimes where victims require ongoing protection. Both bills acknowledge that victims suffer long-term mental, physical, and psychological effects from the crimes committed against them, which means that the law should support victims as much as possible. Both bills are not just about preventing criminals from reoffending; they are also about protecting the rights of victims and potential victims to live fair and free lives. It is also about protecting our communities. It is crucial that communities are at the core of our role when introducing legislation that is meant to address criminal activities. This Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and our bill go hand in hand. Supporting our bill would double the effectiveness of this bill.

This is an opportunity for the Government to do some serious consideration of the New Zealand First bill. It is important that the correct measures are put in place not only to protect the victims but to allow reintegration into communities at a safe and monitored level. Parliament must have the ability to change in order to validate the measure of intelligence, and intelligence is what we need right now for the sake of our community and our country. New Zealand First supports this bill at its first reading. Thank you.

Before I call the member, I just want to advise the House that we have a split call. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a call in support of this particular piece of legislation, the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill, in particular because the group of offenders that we are talking about are really at the highest end of sexual offending and are the highest risk to the community.

For the specifics of the bill in terms of its genesis, we go back to 2004, when the extended supervision orders were put in place. The situation that the community and legislators are now faced with is the pending release of some of these people and the ongoing risk. That must always be the benchmark upon which we as legislators reflect, or the lens that we look through, to ensure that the safety of the community is held paramount with this particular subset of offenders, which is a very, very small group but capable of absolutely destroying the lives of victims. Usually, in my experience, they are very, very troubled individuals, so extending supervision orders beyond the 10-year time period originally discussed as part of the initial legislation, but also looking to extend them to those adults who present a serious violent risk or sexual offending risk, is very sensible. I am very happy to commend this legislation.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I agree with the previous speaker, the honourable Mike Sabin, and I hope that the members of the Law and Order Committee can, as they do, ask searching questions about whether the system of extended supervision orders is working as intended and whether it can be strengthened and improved. Those questions can be asked during their scrutiny of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I support the bill. It looks to deliver on the determination of the New Zealand Independent Coalition for safe children, safe whānau, and a safe society serving New Zealanders.

There have been some very good contributions already on this bill, the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill, and, as my colleagues have said, Labour supports this bill. There are some very important and difficult issues that the Law and Order Committee in considering it will need to consider.

Before I talk about the bill specifically I do want just to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Phil Goff. Phil outlined a little of the work that he has done in this space, but as he was leaving the Chamber earlier he referred to the fact that he, at times, prior to the earlier legislation, had lain awake at night worrying about what might happen with some of the individuals who are covered now by these extended supervision orders that were not, at that stage, in place. That was because the crimes that those individuals were likely to commit were of such a horrific nature. As a very responsible member of Parliament, he was very concerned and troubled by that. He obviously has put in a lot of work in this area over many years, and I just think that it is worth putting on the record the work of the Hon Phil Goff. As I say, this bill flows on from the work that Phil Goff has undertaken. We do have some concerns around some of the matters in this bill, particularly in regard to the definitions used for violent crime, but that will be, no doubt, considered in the select committee.

As has been already outlined, the bill amends the Parole Act in as far as it relates to extended supervision orders, which are used at the moment to manage a small number of child sex offenders who pose a high risk of causing serious harm after being released from prison at the end of their sentence. This bill will enable orders to be renewed as often as they are needed. Certainly, my understanding is that in one particular case a person covered by one of these extended supervision orders understands enough that he himself is a risk to the community when his current order expires, and he would seek to make a submission to that effect to the select committee.

The bill also changes the legislation to the extent that it also then moves on to include higher-risk sex offenders against adults, and we are talking about a small number, apparently, of very high-risk violent offenders. That is the area we have flagged. As the Hon Phil Goff has said, there are some concerns that will need to be looked at in the select committee.

This bill is part of the area of how we manage particularly high-risk offenders. I was interested to read in the regulatory impact statement about the highest-risk offenders—there are three main areas—and how we as a country try to manage that very, very difficult situation. There is preventive detention, which is, effectively, a lifetime sentence. There is the current extended supervision order, which this bill seeks to amend. There are going to be public protection orders as well. They all play slightly different roles, but they all have in common a primary purpose of protecting the public from further serious sexual and/or violent offending. So that is the common thread throughout them. This bill really is looking at a gap where somebody who has been on an extended supervision order post-release is coming to the end of the current period, and at the need to be able to further put orders in place.

As my colleague Andrew Little said, there are some provisions in the bill to try to get the balance right. One of the difficulties we face as legislators is the fact that the Attorney-General, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, has indicated that this bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He says so because of the imposition of retroactive penalties and double jeopardy. These are serious matters, so this will mean the select committee will need to look very, very carefully at the provisions in this bill and get it right. As others have said, we have traversed this ground previously, and I am confident that it is not beyond the ability of this House, in this particular circumstance, to get it right and to do what is in the best interests of the public and, in particular, of children in New Zealand.

I do just want to take the opportunity at a more general level to talk about the issue of violence, and particularly sexual and domestic violence. There is no doubt that we have a significant problem in this country. It is one that is currently under quite a lot of scrutiny. We have had the Glenn Inquiry report into domestic violence. We have had the Family Violence Death Review Committee report just last week. We have had some announcements from the Government just this week, and, certainly, Labour will be making some significant announcements in this area. There is a serious problem with a violent culture, and although the bill that we are talking about covers very severe situations and offenders who are at extreme risk of causing damage to the public, particularly children, the context in which that happens is interesting, and I cannot help but wonder whether some of those people are part of what we know to be that intergenerational cycle of abuse.

The damage that is done to our children is not only by abuse of them directly but also as witnesses of violence in their families. Seventy-two children were in their homes—in the period that the Family Violence Death Review Committee was reporting on, which was a 3-year period from 2009 to 2012—when either a sibling or a parent was killed by another member of their family. You can only begin—sorry, not you, sir. Members in this House can only begin to imagine the damage that that would do to a child, and all of the evidence says that in fact that damage is probably worse than the damage of the physical violence and the psychological damage to that child themselves, which is quite interesting. I just say that and note that it is overwhelmingly women and children who are the victims of domestic and sexual violence in this country. We do need to make sure that we take that matter and finally start to address it.

We need to be world leading in this area, and our statistics are appallingly bad. To be frank, one death or one rape is one too many. We need to look at issues around prevention and issues around how we provide support and services to those who have been victims of violent crime, particularly sexual and domestic violence, and how we hold the perpetrators of that violence to account. But we cannot do any of those things in isolation from the others, and certainly the announcements this week by the Government seemed to focus very much on the criminal justice end and not so much on the prevention end. It seems obvious, does it not, that we should actually try to stop the crime rather than being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and dealing with the consequences of the crime—either dealing with the consequences to the victim or dealing with the perpetrator of the crime.

So I just say that we need to be much more aware of what we can do to change the violent culture that we have in this country and to prevent sexual and domestic violence from occurring. It is a human behaviour, so we should be able to change it—maybe not ever completely eliminate it but certainly seriously reduce the incidents that we currently have in this country. So it has got those three elements. It needs real leadership and it needs real commitment. This is not something we can do overnight but it is something that as a Parliament we need to address.

I am wearing the White Ribbon. The White Ribbon is worn by men who stand against violence towards women and children, and I am very proud of the work this Government has done in this space over the 6 years that we have been in office. I refer to the work that has been done and the plans that were announced just yesterday—further efforts to address domestic violence. They were greeted with absolute delight by the chief executive officer of Shine, an organisation that works with women who are at the very highest risk of suffering domestic violence. I am very proud of the work the Government has done there. I want to give credit to Paula Bennett and her work for children and on the violence that is directed against them.

I would just like to commend this bill, the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill, which sets out to allow the renewal of extended supervision orders for as long as they are needed, with regular mandatory review by the courts, for the very worst of offenders who are very likely to reoffend should they be released from prison without an extended supervision order in place. Thank you.

Just before I call the honourable member Kelvin Davis, I advise the House that this is not a split call.

It is a pleasure for me to speak on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill, which touches on one of the priorities I set myself upon my return to Parliament; that is, the elimination of sexual violence in New Zealand. I just have to take issue with my own colleague Carol Beaumont on a couple of things. She said that maybe we cannot fully eliminate sexual violence from New Zealand. I believe we must do everything in our power to ensure that we aim for the total elimination of sexual violence within New Zealand. It is not going to be an easy task, but we need to have that as our focus and not deviate from it.

I also want to just touch on the acknowledgments of the cross-party collaboration on this bill. It is good to see that on something as serious as sexual violence we can come together and put aside our party differences, for the betterment of the most vulnerable in New Zealand.

The extended supervision orders are used to manage a small number of child sex offenders who pose a high risk of causing serious harm after being released from prison at the end of their sentence. These orders can last for up to 10 years, beyond which the Department of Corrections is not able to manage these offenders, even if they continue to pose a high risk of serious harm to the public. The bill enables orders to be renewed as often as is needed and expands the scope of orders beyond high-risk child sex offenders to include high-risk sex offenders against adults, as well as very high-risk violent offenders. It is really important to note that sexual violence and other types of violence often go hand in hand, in particular in domestic situations.

The regulatory impact statement says: “If a sex offender against adults or a violent offender does not meet the stringent criteria for a public protection order, there are currently no other tools available to manage them at the end of a finite sentence. They would be unmanaged in the community as they have finished their sentence.” This bill addresses that. In other words, there is another tool with which to manage the behaviour and manage the sexual offenders.

I note that there is the concern that this bill may not be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of the retrospective penalties and double jeopardy, so the Law and Order Committee does have a duty to really consider this bill, to take it seriously, and to try to maintain that balance between upholding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and also protecting the most vulnerable in our society; that is, our children, and also I include our women in that.

I also have to make the point here that we often talk about sexual violence and domestic violence as being only man against woman. I just want to make the point, because people have had me up about it in various hui, that we must remember that men are also victims of sexual and domestic violence. We should not downplay that. But it is a fact that about 90 percent of offences are committed by men.

The Labour Party believes that public safety should not be put at risk as a result of extended supervision orders’ expiry. We need long-term options for managing the risk of serious harm caused by high-risk groups. It is good to see this bill taking steps to achieve that.

Labour is deeply concerned about the high incidence of family, domestic, and sexual violence in New Zealand. Since 2008 there has been a 36 percent increase in the number of recorded sexual violence offences. It is now at the highest level ever recorded. It is a pretty well-known fact that one in eight men in New Zealand over their lifetime will experience sexual violence, one in six women will experience sexual violence, and for Māori women it is one in three. At a recent hui I attended at Hoani Waititi Marae in west Auckland, an organisation called Tū Wahine Trust presented research on sexual violence. It came out with this pretty astounding set of figures that said in west Auckland, central Auckland, and on the North Shore there are between 8,000 to 10,000 young men and 15,000 to 18,000 young women who have experienced sexual violence. That is just sexual violence. Between 23,000 and 28,000 young people under the age 24 have experienced sexual violence. That is not including domestic violence, that is not including witnessing domestic violence, that is not including Northland and Tai Tokerau, or South Auckland, or Waikato, or the Bay of Plenty, or the rest of New Zealand; this is just central and west Auckland and the North Shore.

We talk about the number of people who are not achieving in school to the best of their potential. When we think about that number of between 23,000 and 28,000 young people who have experienced sexual violence in just those areas of Auckland alone, those young people are in classes each day, trying to learn, trying to focus on what the teacher is saying, but at the same time their heads are probably filled with what happened to them last night, quite possibly in the apparent safety of their own homes, by somebody whom they know, love, and trust. And here we are; we are wondering why we have so many of our young people who are not managing to achieve their potential in school.

There was a recent report I read that says sexual violence drives women into poverty. It says that sexual violence inhibits their sense of agency. “Agency” is a term used to describe how people rise above their own circumstances and the situation, and achieve regardless. You think about it: the number of women who are sexually abused or are victims of domestic violence—they have this reduced sense of agency. They cannot raise themselves above their circumstances. They do not achieve as well as they could. They do not get the qualifications that they maybe should, so they do not earn as much as they should. This has an impact on the economy, in that, if we think about it, most women are mothers who do the shopping for their families, and they have less money. But also what this does is it drives their families into poverty. So we can talk about feeding the kids as much as we want and for as long as we want, but maybe what we need to consider is that if we want to feed our kids, we need to look after their mothers first. We need to protect their mothers and the women in society.

This House and the men in this House—I think we owe it to our wives, and to our girlfriends, our partners, our daughters, our mothers, our sisters, our friends, and to our colleagues around the House, to really take seriously this issue of sexual violence and domestic violence. It is for the good of the whole country. This bill is a small step to protecting our women and our children, our most vulnerable. I am proud that Labour not only supports it but its genesis was back when Labour was in Government and Phil Goff kicked things off. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to associate myself with the opening remarks of the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, and also to thank all those who have contributed to this debate for their very constructive contributions. It is very good to see the consensus that exists in the House for such an important measure. As it is unlikely that a party vote will be taken I do want to indicate that the usual support would have been coming from our confidence and supply partners and also from Brendan Horan. I too am very pleased to support this measure.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.