Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill

This bill is what is described as a cognate bill with the bill that we have just discussed, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. They have a lot in common in the sense that both are designed to provide for extraordinary detention or supervision of people who have completed their finite term in prison but are deemed to be at very high risk of reoffending if they are returned to the community. The difference with the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is this: it does not actually detain people in prison conditions; it allows people to live out in the community, but under close supervision. And for the first year of the extended supervision order, they may be under very, very close supervision.

This is a bill that, in fact, had its origins back in 2004—that is when it went through—when I was Minister of Justice. I introduced the bill, and I introduced the bill because a group of offenders had been released from care in the community under the old legislation dealing with mentally ill patients. They were found not to be mentally ill; they were found to be personality disordered, and because being personality disordered did not meet the requirements for detention under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, they were released. This came to my attention through a psychiatric nurse called Neil Pugmire, who worked up in the Manawatū at Lake Alice Hospital. He said: “I’ve drawn this to the attention of the Minister. I’ve drawn this to the attention of everybody I possibly can. I have worked with these people. I know these people. They are not capable of controlling or exercising control over their own actions, and they will almost certainly reoffend if not returned to custody.”

He was actually sacked from his job for doing that, which I thought was grossly unjust. He was issuing a public warning designed to enhance the safety of the community. The thing was that Neil Pugmire was absolutely right. These offenders went on to reoffend and to reoffend seriously. The offender who came to my attention was an offender who had a very low IQ—it was about 90. He was actually imprisoned again because he raped a child under the age of 2, which nearly resulted in the death of that child. I say that not for the value of shocking the Committee but to say this was the consequence in the case of a person like Lloyd McIntosh, who was totally incapable of controlling his urges, who had no empathy or understanding of the impact of his actions on his victims, and whose mother warned us would keep on reoffending if he was not under some form of supervision—and indeed, so did he. He was one of the group of people under extended supervision orders who said that they welcomed the supervision because it kept them and others safe from the actions that they would otherwise take.

I am not pretending that everybody welcomes the fact that they are subject to supervision, but I am saying there is this category of people, just as there was for the public protection orders, where the balance changes from the right of a person having completed their sentence to be released into the community to the right of vulnerable people in the community, such as children, to be protected from people who will almost certainly reoffend as soon as the opportunity arises. Every time, I come down on the side of the rights of the vulnerable, particularly children—and there are 335 people who have been restrained under extended supervision orders because they have offended sexually against children.

What does this bill do and why is it necessary? Well, the 10-year period under which a person can be confined under an extended supervision order comes to an end early next year, and the first of those prisoners, Lloyd McIntosh, will be released at that stage, and I know that the Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Justice will have the same nightmares about that as I had at the time when he was previously due for release. What this bill does is allow the indefinite extension of an extended supervision order beyond the 10 years. I understand that about a third—about 70—of the 225 individuals currently under extended supervision orders will probably have their extended supervision extended beyond a 10-year period.

Extended supervision orders are different from public protection orders because people are not detained in prison-like facilities; they are in the community but under intensive supervision. But, ironically, public protection orders are deemed to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because those are civil orders, whereas what we are doing here is deemed by the Attorney-General to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it is under a criminal regime. So they have far more rights, but this bill is seen as breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I have never breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or supported the breaching of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act lightly. I take the rights set out in that Act incredibly seriously.

But, as I said before, in the instance of these individuals, I believe that you have to consider the rights of those whom they will almost certainly offend against to be protected from them. This bill not only extends the period beyond 10 years but it is also extended to cover some sex offenders against adults and some very serious violent offenders. The numbers are much smaller, but they are equally categorised as being highly likely to reoffend.

My wish is, actually, that the judge in the first instance had simply sentenced them to preventive detention. That would have been a solution totally within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They could have been kept in prison indefinitely, and when released they could have been re-imprisoned at any time they breached the conditions of their release. But a judge at the time of sentencing does not have perfect information, and after a person has been in prison for a long period of time, those who have worked every day with that person, often as health professionals and psychologists, have a better understanding of the risks posed. These extended supervision orders will not be imposed on people other than those whom health professionals believe it is vital to have this form of supervision over to prevent them from offending again.

I do need to read to the Committee what the Attorney-General has said. He said in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet: “I conclude it appears to be inconsistent with the rights against … retroactive penalties and double jeopardy which are affirmed by [sections 26 and 22] of that Act.” He acknowledged that the extended supervision order will be imposed only on offenders who have committed serious sexual offences, and where the court that sentenced that offender is satisfied they pose a high risk of committing further such offences. He acknowledged also that there are two new safeguards against the extended supervision orders being imposed unnecessarily in two ways: extending the matters that must be addressed by the health assessor’s report, and the fact that the court has to be satisfied that there is a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending before making an order. Any risk of sexual reoffending must be high. The risk of violent reoffending must be very high, and these orders are reviewed by the Parole Board every 2 years.

At the Law and Order Committee I explored with officials whether it was possible to make this a civil rather than a criminal regime, which would not in any material sense affect the way in which the offenders were being treated but would bring us, technically, within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think in large part because it would have created a lot of work and there was a limited period of time before these orders had to be in place, the officials said no, it is not really worth the candle. I would have liked a longer period of time so that we could have explored that more thoroughly. If we could have avoided breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that would have been the better alternative by far. But in the end, I was persuaded that even if we had been able to get this new civil regime, as we have with public protection orders, actually it would not have affected in any material way the way in which people convicted of very serious offences would be treated, and it would not have, in practice, affected the rights they exercise. Although I express reluctance about the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I nevertheless support this bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill in the Committee stage. As the member who has just resumed his seat, Phil Goff, has explained, it is a bill that is worthy of our attention. It is certainly worthy of support across this Committee, and I am pleased to hear that many of the parties here are supporting it.

Of course, extended supervision orders are used to manage high-risk child sex offenders in the community, and that is for a period of up to 10 years, as the architect of the bill has just stated. Offenders on what they call ESOs, or extended supervision orders, are subject to standard conditions, that are set out in the current legislation. They include, of course, reporting to probation officers, special conditions that may be imposed by the Parole Board, and residential restrictions as well as electronic monitoring. This will ensure that the public are protected from these offenders who finish their terms.

The current legislation has a 10-year maximum time limit, and the amendments enhance it in two different ways. First, the amendments enable extended supervision orders to be renewed as long as they are needed, and that is the important part—as long as they are needed. This is not ad infinitum; this is only where a serious risk is in force. Secondly, the scope of extended supervision orders, which are currently for child sex offenders only, is expanded to include adult sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders, and it is important that we increase the scope to take that into account.

I want to thank the Law and Order Committee members, who received four submissions and turned round this bill in pretty speedy time in order for it to come into force for some dangerous members of our country before the current legislation expires. It is supported widely in the community. Some submitters commented on the implications around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I just want to say that the select committee did take those into account, and they included what I would call appropriate safeguards in that orders would be subject to mandatory reviews by the courts, which I think is an appropriate measure. Secondly, the Parole Board would be required to review those stringent conditions every 2 years. So those safeguards are in place.

I have to say to those who do argue for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and for human rights that I do not take lightly the fact that we do sometimes trample on human rights. But, on balance, I think that the protection and the security of New Zealanders is paramount, and that is why we are progressing this bill.

I have also put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that deals with three issues that I want to touch on. Firstly, it is about making consistent decisions about what is the most appropriate order for high-risk offenders when applications are made to the court. That really deals with, obviously, the bill we debated before this one. Secondly, it deals with interim extended supervision orders and where they can be granted when special circumstances delay a full extended supervision order application, and I will talk about that soon. Thirdly, it deals with contact between offenders on extended supervision orders and children and where that should be more strictly controlled, which I will also touch on.

In terms of the interim extended supervision orders, we know that public safety may be jeopardised when there is a gap in the options available to manage some of these high-risk offenders. While they are being considered—and that includes when an extended supervision order has expired and a court process is delayed beyond the expiry of that order—we may need to impose an interim extended supervision order. Also, it might be where an overseas offender, for example, is subject to a similar extended supervision order in a foreign jurisdiction and that person is released and may return to New Zealand, and there are no measures to protect the public from such an offender.

These provisions, in terms of the interim extended supervision orders, would mirror those provisions in the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill, which was talked about prior to this bill, and they provide for the court to make these interim measures where an application has been made for a public protection order and the individual is not otherwise subject to appropriate management. I think that is important. I think it minimises the risk around some of these offenders, and I am sure it will gather support around this Chamber.

Also, giving the court power to make an interim order with appropriate conditions until the court makes a final order would best, in my view, protect the public from harm, and having the court impose an interim extended supervision order would reduce the impact on the civil rights of offenders, and it would actually be less disruptive to them.

I just want to touch on the third part of Supplementary Order Paper 30, which I touched on. Section 107JA of the Parole Act lists standard conditions of extended supervision orders. Subsection (1)(i) refers to the fact that “the offender must not associate with, or contact, a person under the age of 16 years, except in the presence and under the supervision of an adult who—(i) has been informed about the relevant offending: [or] (ii) has been approved in writing by a probation officer as suitable to undertake that role of supervision:”.

This clearly is inadequate because the standard condition allows only a probation officer to assure the quality of that person for supervision of contact. It does not provide the Department of Corrections the ability to prevent contact or limit the number of times there is contact, or the circumstances of contact, between that high-risk offender on an extended supervision order and that child under 16. So the current standard condition leaves open the possibility of some of the most high-risk child sex offenders on the most intensive form of management on an extended supervision order to seek regular contact with young children.

The amendment will require that contact between that offender and the child must be approved in writing by a probation officer. In my view, that will limit the ability of such offenders to access children. Where it is appropriate that an offender with an extended supervision order has contact with a child, or if an offender does not pose any risk to the child, such contact could then be approved by the department.

I think the measures in the Supplementary Order Paper are appropriate. They are about limiting the access of offenders to children as well providing for interim extended supervision orders to prevail where there are no other tools available to the Department of Corrections. This bill is widely supported across this House. I also want to thank not just the select committee but also the previous Ministers who are currently in the Chamber for their contribution to bringing this bill to the House. I look forward to it being passed in due course.

Thank you to the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga, and his predecessor, who did consult with us as an Opposition party on this bill. I think, particularly given that there was some urgency around it, it was very useful to be brought into the loop early on. It is a shame that that was not applied with the bill that we just debated, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill, but we did appreciate that early engagement on this particular bill.

It has been useful, I think, to have the contributions made by Phil Goff, who, as the Minister of Justice, introduced the original extended supervision order regime. Although it is very easy for us as members of the House to debate these bills with some distance and to discuss the raw number of individuals who might be covered by them, I think it is a very different thing when as the Minister of Justice you are presented with a specific case of a specific offender who is going to be released back into the community and whom the Parole Board has specifically determined to be unfit to be returned into the community. To be faced with that in the knowledge that that person, who poses an imminent risk, will reoffend unless something is done and that you have been briefed on it, then where does your responsibility in that lie? That is a very difficult position to be put in as an individual, and yet that is what any Minister of Justice faces. It was what Phil Goff, I recall, faced at the time when he introduced extended supervision orders, and it is likely that we may very well have a Minister in the chair who will face that again.

So although this bill removes the expiry, essentially, that existed when extended supervision orders were first put in place, it does fundamentally change the regime as well. We are talking now not just about child sex offenders, which is what the legislation was originally designed for, but about all those who are deemed to be violent offenders or violent sexual offenders as well. But there is an additional clause that I want to come to—new section 107C, which is being inserted into the Parole Act by clause 7 in Part 1. It sets out under subsection (1)(b) that an “ ‘eligible offender’ is [also] a person who—(i) has arrived in New Zealand within 6 months of ceasing to be subject to any sentence, supervision conditions, or order imposed on the person for”—and it specifies—“a relevant offence by an overseas court;”—so it does not specify in the schedule what that offence may be because, of course, you have to make an assessment of a relevant offence in an overseas jurisdiction—“and (ii) has, since that arrival, been in New Zealand for less than 6 months; and (iii) resides or intends to reside in New Zealand.”

A couple of questions—“has, since that arrival, been in New Zealand for less than 6 months;”. What if an individual was not brought to the notice of the Department of Corrections, has a relevant offence, and may actually be covered by and be a contender for an extended supervision order, but has come to New Zealand and managed to fly under the radar for 7 months before they have come to the attention of the Department of Corrections? Obviously, based on that section, my assumption is that they would no longer be eligible for an extended supervision order. Also, it stipulates that they reside or intend to reside in New Zealand. If an individual flags that they intend to reside in Australia but actually, for all intents and purposes, winds up being in New Zealand, would they too manage to skirt around the provisions in the bill? I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.

Functionally, also, I am interested in how this section will be enacted. Again, unfortunately, I was not on the Law and Order Committee, although usually I am a member, but I was not on the select committee for the consideration of this bill. Do we require reciprocal arrangements with every overseas jurisdiction for a returning individual to be flagged or brought to the attention of the Department of Corrections for this process to be triggered? Or is there some other mechanism that will be applied to make sure that we are considering anyone who should be eligible for this regime in order for that to happen? I think we have seen in recent times that sometimes the information sharing, even domestically, is not what we would want it to be, so obviously, if we are extending a regime across every international jurisdiction, then what mechanisms are in place to ensure that this process is triggered?

I do not disagree. I think it is the right thing to do—to allow ourselves the ability to apply this legislation to someone who has served a sentence overseas—and we have seen cases of those who have been the subject of child sex offences, where it would be appropriate. But I would be interested to see how that will apply functionally.

I then want to just come to the amendments to section 107F in clause 9, which talk about the process that the chief executive must go through in order to apply for an extended supervision order. I think the select committee did some good work here in making sure that the criteria were not quite as prescriptive as what would apply for a public protection order. The threshold test, again, is different. We are talking about a lower threshold. These are individuals who will be released into the community. What, essentially, we are doing is really extending the ability for us to supervise, rather than to detain. But I wondered—because I could not find any specific provision and I may have overlooked it—what process there was in place for the notification of victims when an extended supervision order is being applied for.

I imagine we would have a similar regime to what would apply for parole with a public protection order, which is very explicit. Reference is made to the Victims’ Rights Act. I am imagining we have got a similar regime for notification for victims, but that is something that I wanted to be specific, and I would ask the Minister how victims are brought into the regime when an offender is considered for an extended supervision order. I think it would be of great relief to a victim to know that an offender would have that continuation of supervision upon release.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister on those points.

Again, as a brand-spanking-new member on the Law and Order Committee I was not aware of the genesis of extended supervision orders, so it has been very valuable for me to sit here and listen to the Hon Phil Goff talking about his concerns in 2004 around the imminent release of offenders whom he believed would probably go on and reoffend sexually against children and young people. It has been really interesting to hear also his angst about that situation and to hear that that is why the extended supervision orders were put in place in 2004 and were to last for 10 years. That 10 years now is about to expire.

It is interesting to know that even after 10 years of extended supervision, we have come to the realisation that there are people who just will not get over their urge to reoffend, and therefore there is a need for the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill, so that, in effect, extended supervision orders can be extended as often as is needed. I think it is really, really important that we recognise that there are just some people who, regardless of the amount of help and rehabilitation that they get in their time in prison during their sentence, will still come out of prison and reoffend, and the Hon Phil Goff gave a sad example of that. The scope has been expanded, as others have mentioned, to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk violent offenders.

It would be remiss of me to stand and talk on a bill that involves sexual abuse and sexual offenders without reiterating to the country and to the Committee just how prevalent sexual abuse and sexual offending are. I raise the example of when I was the principal of a school up north. In the space of 15 school days—in the space of 3 weeks—13 instances of sexual abuse were brought to my attention. They were not all immediate; some of them were historical, but I was having to deal with them as a principal. So it would be remiss of me to not bring up the fact that sexual abuse is rampant and that members of this House must do everything in our power to stop it and to prevent people’s recidivism. The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is one of those instances where we are doing something proactive to protect boys, girls, men, and women from sexual abuse.

I also just want to raise another instance of a letter. A number of us may have received a letter from this man who is in Christchurch Prison at the moment. He wrote a letter to me and said: “Kelvin, I’m in prison because I did some bad stuff, but the bad stuff, the genesis, was in the sexual abuse that I suffered as a boy when I was raped every night by my father.” We have got to acknowledge the impact that sexual offending has on the lives of New Zealanders.

This bill does conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I would like to read some parts of the commentary from the bill. “Extended supervision orders are designed to protect the community from high-risk offenders, not to punish for past offences. However, the Parole Act 2002 treats extended supervision orders as a criminal justice process; therefore an extended supervision order could be interpreted as a form of penalty, and thus in breach of the protection against double jeopardy.” We spoke about this in the previous bill, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill—that we do not want people to be punished for the same offence, and that there is tension between the rights of people and public protection. For me, knowing now what I know about sexual abuse and violent offending, I err on the side of protecting the rights of the public, even if that does upset other people.

I want to draw attention to new section 107(2) in clause 7. It says: “To avoid doubt, and to confirm the retrospective application of this provision, despite any enactment or rule of law, an offender may be an eligible offender even if he or she committed a relevant offence, was most recently convicted, or became subject to release conditions or an extended supervision order before this Part and any amendments to it came into force.” So this is looking at not just those people who have offended after the commencement of this bill but those who are already in prison now, making sure that as they start being released in the next few months—the first people who came under the extended supervision orders—they are included under this bill.

I also want to raise a local situation from up north. We are talking about people whom we do not think will ever be rehabilitated. We think that there is an imminent risk of them reoffending. Up north we have the instance of James Parker, the deputy principal of a school up there. In my opinion, although he got preventive detention—and I am grateful for that—he could well have been given a finite sentence and at some stage in the future be released. This is a guy who is symptomatic and an example of the sort of people whom I just do not think will be rehabilitated. This guy was cunning and manipulative. He took advantage of people. He really worked the system and played with people’s minds so that he was able to offend at will. In fact, so bad was his state of mind, in my belief, that when an accusation was made against him and the charges were dropped, his offending actually increased and got more intensive and more bizarre. I believe that this is the perfect case of somebody—and, again, I reiterate that he did get preventive detention—who, if he was not on preventive detention, must come under these extended supervision orders for the rest of his life, because any young person, any young boy, such as boys of the same age who were in his charge, would for ever be in jeopardy if they were around James Parker, were he ever to be released into the public.

I support this bill. I have seen the effect, the damage, that sexual abuse and violent offending do. I have got no doubt that Mike Sabin across the way there, also from up north, as a former police officer would have seen the effects of them in even more graphic detail than what I saw. I just saw as a principal the effects on the kids in the school and the difficulties that a lot of children had in learning.

A final point is that one thing we have got to realise is that offenders are not necessarily the strange or weird-looking guy walking down the street. Too many young people, too many people, tonight will be abused by somebody they know, they love, and whom they should be able to trust—in other words, members of their families. I do not think that we identify and out these people enough. I believe that by the nature of their offending—and it is often fathers who offend against daughters, granddaughters, and nieces—these are people, too, who will be constantly recidivistic. It is almost like they feel that it is their right to actually behave like this. Again, I would be remiss if I did not raise these sorts of issues with the Committee. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I am pleased to make a contribution at the Committee stage on this bill. I have been listening very closely to the contributions on both bills. Although I am not a member of the Law and Order Committee, and I have not really had firsthand experience with this bill or, indeed, with the aspects of the criminal justice system that this bill regulates, I do hark back to my criminal justice system course days back at Victoria University. Warren Young was his name. The fundamental rules around the sentencing were that the aims of sentencing were to punish and deter the offender, general deterrence, rehabilitation, reformation, reparation, and protection. All of those different considerations come into play when a sentencing decision is made. But, in this case, we are dealing with a very, very small group of very, very bad people. There is the saying that the punishment should fit the crime. Well, here we are imposing restrictions on the offenders when no crime has actually been committed, but the risk that these individuals pose and the impact and the harm that they can cause from their offending is so great that there needs to be some extended supervision imposed on these individuals.

I support the intent of this legislation because, as my colleague Mr Davis has mentioned, sexual and violent offences are prevalent in our society. It is very regrettable and it is something that we as a Parliament and as a nation need to stamp out. Taking measures such as this legislation is very important. We are dealing with only a very small percentage of extreme offenders. I liken them to the most grotesque movie character you can think of, and there are probably numerous movies that we have sat through and, you know, shivered over while watching them. These people are out there. Unfortunately, they have committed crimes, they have served their time, but rehabilitation has obviously not worked for them. They are troubled individuals, they are sick people, and, therefore, they have to come under more stringent supervision when they do get to the end of their incarceration. So this is a welcome piece of legislation. Although I do note the fact that it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and it is also—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Just prior to the dinner break I was explaining how the report of the Attorney-General—clearly in the Hon Christopher Finlayson’s opinion this piece of legislation is inconsistent with provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, so that is serious obviously. We do not want to be putting through legislation that contravenes or is at odds with the rights of everyone under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but that has to be balanced, I guess, against the subject matter and the nature of this legislation. At the start of my speech I was talking about the different aims of sentencing. Clearly this piece of legislation is very much on the side of protection and on the side of public safety. Those considerations are paramount, and they do supersede the rights of the individual. But it is not to say that the extended supervision under this legislation is going to be handed out willy-nilly, because as we look through the provisions of Part 1, the tests that the court has to apply to determine the high-risk nature and the seriousness, I guess, of granting these extended supervisions are actually very, very hard, mandatory tests. There are about four or five mandatory tests that the court has to basically convince itself of before it will grant this extended supervision.

What I do want to move on to now is that it is not only the Attorney-General who expressed concerns around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but there was a working group of the United Nations here earlier this year and it had a look through our criminal justice system. The bills that we have been considering today were one area where it did express concerns. So I think it is right that we do take heed of a body of the United Nations that has considerable weight. Ultimately, some of the obligations that we enact through legislation derive from international law. Some of them derive from our obligations there. So again I think the work of this working group in a way is consistent because, although they did express concerns, they said that these provisions are justified if there are compelling reasons and regular periodic reviews. As I have mentioned, there are stringent tests that have to be applied to justify the reasons for the granting of the extended supervision, and also there are periodic reviews that are built in.

Just to conclude my contribution, I wanted to touch base on the contributions of a whanaunga of mine. He is very much an outspoken person in the criminal justice area. It is none other than Kim Workman, who has been around for many years. His thinktank group, Rethinking Crime and Punishment, has also expressed concerns around—I guess it is more to do with the application of the operational side of granting the extended supervision. I can actually see his point because in some ways there are a lot of operational decisions that are made, but we also want to ensure that with whatever conditions or stringent restraints are imposed upon offenders there is also an element of, I guess, rehabilitation. That is why the use of voluntary groups that specialise in these areas, which he notes through circles of support and accountability—those sorts of programmes are very beneficial. So it is not about just imposing stringent, rigid rules on the offender; it is also about ensuring that they do get proper support so that they, hopefully, do turn the corner and will be able to go back into society fully.

Lastly—my very last point—I do want to go back to the working group of the United Nations on this bill because although it might be not directly relevant to this part in the bill, I think in the overall context it is very important, and that is the overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system. Māori make up more than 50 percent of the total prison population, even though we are only 15 percent of the population. In the case of Māori women, they account for more than 65 percent of the prison population. So the reality is that offenders who fall within the ambit of this legislation will be Māori. The statistics are there and plain to see, as sad as it is. Therefore, I think I would encourage the Government to take heed of the working group’s recommendations around looking at the inconsistencies and systemic bias against Māori at all the different levels in the criminal justice system. Although I think this piece of legislation is a necessary piece of legislation that we are enacting, we must not forget the overall context, where Māori are very overrepresented in our prison population. I think we definitely need to work to make sure that we can reduce those numbers significantly.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am going to call Jenny Salesa, but before I do I just want to give a warning that the last speech was actually quite a long way away from the specific clauses of this bill. We have done the general principle debate at the second reading. We have accepted that. Now we are saying whether these particular clauses give effect to what we have already decided.

I stand to take a brief call in support of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Parole Act 2002 as far as it relates to extended supervision orders. 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 sentences. These orders can last for up to 10 years. Beyond this period 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.

This bill enables orders to be renewed as often as they are needed, and it expands the scope of orders beyond high-risk child sex offenders to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk violent offenders. Under the current law, extended supervision orders last for a period of 10 years and cannot be renewed. We are debating this amendment bill because there is a risk to public safety from offenders who still pose a risk of serious reoffending after the expiration of their extended supervision orders and they can no longer be supervised or managed by the Department of Corrections.

Extended supervision orders were established to protect children under 16 from a small group of convicted child sex offenders considered to be at a high risk of serious reoffending after they complete their sentence. The sexual and violent offenders to whom these extended supervision orders would be extended are likely to be people with behavioural and intellectual disabilities who could not remain in the community unsupervised. It is estimated that the number of offenders affected is likely to be small. We are discussing this piece of legislation today because the 10-year period for some of these people, who were the earliest recipients of the extended supervision orders, will expire soon, and at least some of them continue to pose a serious risk to the well-being and safety of our children. This bill will enable extended supervision orders to be renewed. It also expands the scope of orders to include those who are adults.

I have to say that the regulatory impact statement states that only around 29 to 41 offenders will be placed on extended supervision orders every year because of this legislation. The vast majority—25 to 30—will be high-risk sexual offenders against children, one or two will be high-risk violent offenders, and it is estimated that around four to nine will be high-risk offenders against adults. This bill would allow extended supervision orders to be renewed without limit, as required. At the moment, an order ends after 10 years and cannot be renewed. People on extended supervision orders live in the community under a standard set of conditions, as well as under any special conditions the Parole Board puts in place for that individual. It may be that a carefully considered extended supervision order with clear ongoing management of the offender will decrease the risks for the offender in the community and increase the possibility of the reasonable living conditions that support rehabilitation.

The Law and Order Committee was presented with an assessment by officials of 10 years of experience of extended supervision orders, and it found that extended supervision orders work effectively to achieve the primary objective of protecting our community. I have to note that the proposed changes to the Privacy Act 1993 may be of concern to some. The committee recommended amendments to clause 25 of the bill, which would amend the Privacy Act 1993 and expressly authorise the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police to receive information from each other about offenders subject to an extended supervision order. Under the original bill, the department could not share information with the police when an offender subject to a protection order, restraining order, or non-contact order also became the subject of an extended supervision order. Furthermore, the police could not receive information from the Department of Corrections about an offender subject to an extended supervision order. This proposed bill will address that.

There have been some serious issues of human rights to consider under this bill. In the written advice from the Attorney-General about this amendment bill pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, Chris Finlayson stated: “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 the imposition of retroactive penalties and double jeopardy which are affirmed by [sections 26 and 22] of that Act.” So the major issue for the Attorney-General was whether or not this bill breaches section 26 of the Act, which offers protection against double jeopardy—effectively, punishing someone twice for the same offence. However, it does seem that such orders can be seen—and, indeed, are seen by some offenders—as rehabilitative, helping the offender to live in a community.

An extended supervision order is also seen by some offenders as offering them an element of protection. The danger, however, that such offenders can present for the community needs to be carefully and sensitively managed to balance both community safety and the important human rights of an offender. There have been instances when community outrage has occurred and there have been threats of vigilante action—for example, in my very own electorate in Ōtara, when a child sex offender was placed under parole in a location near a school and a kōhanga reo without any consultation with the local community. It may be that a carefully considered extended supervision order with clear, ongoing management of the offender will decrease the risks and that, possibly, reasonable living conditions will support rehabilitation.

I would like to say that I am pleased with the fact that the police in South Auckland have been proactive in this area of protection and prevention. For example, there is now a Counties Manukau child exploitation team building a proactive approach to prevent offending against vulnerable children. This team takes a proactive approach to what it calls the traditionally reactive field of child sexual abuse investigation. It works to protect children from becoming victims of child abuse. This team holds child sex offenders to account for the hideous offences that they commit against children. It has tried to put in place more effective monitoring of known child sex offenders and to create offender management plans for high-risk sex offenders. It is not a perfect system, but it is a proactive and preventive system that has been put in place.

Labour supports the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou katoa.

That was a great speech from Jenny, and it outlined a lot of the problems we face in our society at the moment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Oh—Jenny Salesa. What I would like to talk about is new section 107I, inserted by clause 11, and new sections 107IAA, and 107IAB, inserted by clause 12.

Basically, a lot of what we do in society is assessing risk, and the ability to assess risk and make a sound judgment based on that assessment has a very strong determination on where we end up and the actions that are taken. This is in business; this is in life. You know, we decide whether we are going to walk home or whether we are going to have a couple of wines and drink, etc. What this section talks about is the ability to assess risk and what defines high risk and very high risk.

Mrs Salesa talked about the fact that there are only 25 to 30 people under these extended supervision orders. I find it very difficult to believe that there are so few people who have committed these crimes. But what we need to do is have a look at this, and what the court must do when it looks to make an extended supervision order following the hearing of an application—I am talking about new section 107I(2) here—is look at a couple of conditions.

The first condition is that the court has to be satisfied that “the offender has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending;”. What we are talking about here is the most insidious people in our society—those who have committed the most heinous crimes. Part of this is that the court has to be satisfied that “there is a high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant sexual offence:”, or, in fact, that there is a very high risk. So the bill makes a distinction between high risk and very high risk. It sets out a series of conditions under which high risk and very high risk are assessed. I find it a little strange, to be honest, that we are talking about people who have committed the most heinous of crimes, and I would have thought that all of these people fall under the category of “very high risk” anyway. But let me just go through the differences, if I may, and I seek the Committee’s indulgence on that.

New section 107IAA, “Matters court must be satisfied of when assessing risk”, talks about high risk, so this is high risk as opposed to very high risk. Subsection (1) states: “A court may determine that there is a high risk that an eligible offender will commit a relevant sexual offence only if it is satisfied that the offender—(a) displays an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence;”. So, again, we are talking about someone who may have a physiological disposition for this and whom I assume has quite a low mental capacity to assess their own behaviour, let alone what society thinks is right and wrong. In fact, they may even have a blurred perception of what is right and wrong anyway. They also have to have: “(b) … a predilection for”—oh, they have to be serious sexual offenders. The third one is that they have to have: “(c) … limited self-regulatory capacity;”—i.e., again, they do not have the ability to determine the difference between right and wrong—and they have to display: “(d) … either or both of the following: (i) a lack of acceptance of responsibility … for past offending: (ii) an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of [their] sexual offending on actual or potential victims.”

That is pretty serious, I would argue. But that is only the high risk category. Believe it or not, there is another category above high risk—and this goes to subsection (2)—and this is very high risk. So there is a difference, believe it or not, between high risk and very high risk.

The conditions that have to be satisfied for the offender to be very high risk are that the offender “(a) has a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of each of the following characteristics: (i) intense drive, desires, or urges to commit acts of violence; and (ii) extreme aggressive volatility; and (iii) persistent harbouring of vengeful intentions towards 1 or more other persons; and (b) either—(i) displays behavioural evidence of clear and long-term planning of serious violent offences to meet a premeditated goal; or (ii) has limited self-regulatory capacity; and (c) displays an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of his or her violence on actual or potential victims.”

I would have thought that people who display the sort of behaviour that is listed in the very high risk category would actually be on, what is it called—life—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member means preventive detention.

Sorry—preventive detention. That is what I meant, sorry—preventive.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just did not want to wait too long.

The sort of behaviour that we are talking about here is the sort of behaviour where the offenders have done their chips. They have committed the most heinous of crimes, which our society really does not accept. This is the sort of crime where you do not get out. We are talking about premeditated—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Where the person does not get out, I think.

—where the person does not get out—after how many years? After 24 years, or is it 28 years—27 years in the House—in the big house; the really big house.

Maybe the Minister can help me on this matter. Why are we looking at extended supervision orders for parole for people who have “an absence of understanding or concern about the impact of his or her sexual offending on actual or potential victims. Why are we looking at parole, no matter how extended it is, for persons with “severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of … (i) intense drive, desires, or urges to commit acts of violence; and (ii) extreme aggressive volatility; and (iii) persistent harbouring of vengeful intentions towards 1 or more persons”, and where the person displays such clear evidence of antisocial behaviour that basically they are going to commit a crime? This is what this says.

The thing that I am not too sure about, I suppose, is who assesses this? I am assuming that a trained criminal psychiatrist is the person who comes up with the assessment distinguishing between high and very high risk. I do not know of a court in the land, or of a learned member of the judiciary, that would have the ability to determine whether someone is a high or a very high risk. The sort of behavioural conditions we are talking about here are those that can be assessed only by a registered and highly trained medical professional.

I was looking through this bill and I could not find anywhere in it a description of who actually came up with the determination of whether such a person would be high risk or very high risk. But there must be some sort of criteria. I am assuming that before a person like this goes before a court there is a psychiatrist’s report given and the psychiatrist says: “Your Honour, under section 107IAA, I deem this person to be of a very high risk.”

But the thing I have learnt when debating a law like this is to never make an assumption, because you can often be wrong. This is the sort of bill that cuts to the heart of what we judge is a civilised society and what we need to weigh up in terms of human rights versus the expectations of communities that they will be safe. Perhaps the Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, could just enlighten me slightly on who will have the ability to assess what constitutes high risk versus very high risk.

The other thing, also, is that I suppose we get to a certain point where this person is on extended parole and they are not living with the person from the Parole Board 24/7. My real concern is that if they are showing such antisocial behaviour—and they are obviously doing this 24/7—and they commit the type of crime that we are talking about here while out on parole, there is not only harm to the community but massive political risk, and the Minister himself knows this. If someone out on parole who shows this sort of behaviour commits a crime, well, then we know the sort of stuff that Garth McVicar and his characters will go on about. But if you have got any comments to make, Minister, I would love to hear them. With that, I will sit down. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill in its Committee stage. I rise to speak because I just want to seek some clarification on some of the clauses in this bill. Because of the nature of what we have heard about the reasons why we are having to put this sort of legislation in place—and I think no one in this Parliament feels happy about having to debate such issues, because these are the sorts of things that exist in our society that we would prefer simply not to exist. But they do, and so we need to make sure that the legislation that we have got in front of us is fit for purpose and actually does what we think it does.

I have been reflecting on what the Justice and Electoral Committee found with this bill, because that select committee in fact made a number of amendments to this bill and I am very pleased that it did. In particular, and the Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, may be able to clarify this for me, when the select committee amended clause 30(1) in relation to the words providing that the person placed under a public protection order was going to have access to newspapers—that clause was actually amended at the select committee so that they would have access to news media. The select committee has made the statement that the amendment refers to a resident receiving a news media item and does not include, by reference, media representatives.

I have had a look at that clause and when I initially read it, it sounded to me—and this may be a drafting issue—like they are actually going to be given access to news media. That is actually what it says in the clause. It says that a resident must be given access to news media. That sounds to me like they have got access to being interviewed by the news media, rather than just to reading information in the news media. I am quite confused because those two things are quite different from each other. Have they actually got the right to have someone come and visit them and interview them, maybe one of the TV programmes? Maybe they could become part of a reality TV show—who knows?

I am not sure that the drafting of that particular clause 30(1) does do what the select committee in fact asked to happen. The select committee wanted it to be made quite clear that they were going to be, in the committee’s words—“For the sake of clarity the amendment refers to a resident receiving a news media item and does not include, by reference, media representatives.” But what the law actually says in clause 30(1) is: “A resident must be given access to news media (for example, newspapers, television, or radio) and, if Internet facilities are available in the residence, to Internet sites approved by the manager.” It then goes on in subclause (2) to say that that “… does not entitle a resident to unsupervised access to the Internet or to the use of email.” However, it does not seem to me that that actually excludes what the select committee wanted it to exclude. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about how they will ensure that that clause is going to be enacted in the way that the select committee wanted it to be.

I also wanted to quickly visit the management plan that is in clause 39.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can the member just confirm that she is speaking to the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill?

No, I am not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It took me a while to get that point, but I think the member might be speaking to a bill that we have passed through the Committee of the whole House.

OK. I hope that these matters were traversed in the previous bill. The Minister obviously cannot answer my questions, and I will leave it at that.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.