Parole Amendment Bill

It is my pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Parole Amendment Bill. I thought it would be helpful to backtrack slightly just to cover off—before I come to some specific clauses that the Law and Order Committee considered at greater length—the overall issue that this bill, as a whole, is seeking to tackle.

The Parole Act is, I guess, relatively speaking, a newish Act. Well, it feels new to me because I remember its introduction. It probably feels very new to the Hon Phil Goff, who, obviously, was the Minister in charge at the time. The Parole Act 2002, the Act we are seeking to amend, sets out some core principles that remain unaltered in the way that the Parole Board operates, the most key of which is that the Parole Board when considering parole for offenders will give paramount consideration to the safety of the community. Amongst all of the other competing issues that the Parole Board considers, the No. 1 consideration when determining the release of an offender, and, indeed, when determining when the board meets again to consider the release of that offender, is the safety of the community. So that continues to be the guiding principle of the Parole Board in that consideration.

Having said that, the Parole Board obviously has a number of offenders that it is continually having to review in order to determine whether or not they have reached that threshold. Under the status quo the board is required once every 12 months to give consideration to an offender who is eligible for parole—that is, once every 12 months for a general sentence, but if there is an indeterminate sentence for an offender, that is every 3 years. The bill seeks to extend this to 5 years, as a possibility for the Parole Board if it so chooses. That, however, does mean that we have a reasonable number of Parole Board hearings.

The regulatory impact statement sets out that in 2010-11 the board held around 5,000 parole hearings. However, given that this bill as a whole seeks to check the efficiency of that number of hearings, it is interesting to see that those are not all parole hearings where the potential release of an offender is considered. As the regulatory impact statement sets out, 500 are recall hearings, 200 are variation of condition hearings, and 500 hearings are where the board’s only role is to set conditions because an offender has reached their statutory release date. We now know, however, obviously with some of the additional bills that have recently been passed through the House, that a statutory release date does not now necessarily mean the end of supervision or necessarily the end of imprisonment.

Having deducted those hearings, you are then left with roughly 3,800 Parole Board hearings where we can assume that there is, potentially, the consideration of an offender for release. Not all of those hearings—and we heard this at the select committee, and I think it is an important point to make—will necessarily involve a victim. Of course, not all of the offenders who are serving in our prisons will have a victim in the traditional sense of the word; their victim may have been an entity—it may be white-collar crime, for instance. So not all of these hearings will involve a victim, but a number certainly do. And in considering whether or not we are using the Parole Board most efficiently, we must also consider whether we are, inappropriately, re-traumatising victims unnecessarily because there simply is no prospect of an offender potentially being considered for parole. I am sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Amy Adams, will correct me if I am wrong, but that does seem to be the primary driver of this legislation, and it is hard to deny that principle when that is at the heart of this bill.

But I think it is still important to note that some of these Parole Board hearings can, of course, be unattended—the Parole Board may make a decision that it does not require an offender to be there. That would, of course, from the perspective of a victim, change the nature of a Parole Board hearing. And there is the ability to delay a Parole Board hearing, but we heard at the committee that that can be litigated by an offender and that it can turn into quite a lengthy and drawn-out process, and one that benefits no one.

Also I think it is critically important to note that Parole Board hearings are not used by the Parole Board just to consider release. In fact, the Parole Board will often use hearings, when it views, itself, that an offender is simply not ready, in order to set down, for want of a better word, goals or milestones that it would like to see an offender achieve in order for them to be considered for release at the next board hearing. One concern we raised at the select committee regarding the idea of delaying adding lengthier times between Parole Board hearings was whether there would be a check against the goals the Parole Board is setting down for an offender to ensure that they were actually occurring.

Let me explain what I mean by that. It might be that the Parole Board does not consider an offender eligible for parole but sets out to the prison manager that its expectation is that the offender will be enrolled in a work-readiness programme or that they will undertake one of the many stopping violence programmes that our prison service offers. It is not a given that because a Parole Board makes that request, that programme will be undertaken. In fact, we heard a lot of evidence to suggest that many times the Parole Board would see that those milestones—although we are not using the word milestones because in the legislation we did not want to give the suggestion that if they were achieved it meant automatic release. We heard a lot of discussion about how, if those specified actions were set down, we would then check that they were completed by the prison management and ensure that they were taking place. That remains a concern. We even had a discussion as to whether we actually need an alternative mechanism that is not the Parole Board and is an independent body that ensures that the Department of Corrections is making sure that prisoners are fulfilling some of those milestones.

Some of us even had the opportunity to sit in on Parole Board hearings. A prime example: I sat in on a hearing where an offender had been before the board. The board had set down a number of things they wanted to be completed. They had all been completed bar one: appropriate housing had not been found for that offender. The Parole Board considered that offender to be ready for release but because no suitable housing had been found—and, of course, the Department of Corrections was involved in that—they refused to release that offender. It is not a good use of taxpayer resources to continue to imprison someone whom the Parole Board considers ready for release, because there are elements of the service that were just not being provided. That is something we continue to have a concern about; however, the principle of the bill, in terms of discretion for the board, we consider sound. Allowing that extra time delay between Parole Board hearings was, we think, something we could certainly support.

I want to look specifically at new section 21A, inserted by clause 10—in it we made an addition as a select committee. New section 21A says this: the board “(a) must specify a date (the specified date) by which the offender must be further considered for parole;”. This provision also gives the ability that where the date for the next parole hearing is beyond 12 months, if the Department of Corrections considers, or, as the bill states, if “the manager of the prison in which the offender is detained considers”—obviously, because the department does not run all of our prisons now—“that all of the relevant activities have been completed”, they can give notice to the offender that the board may consider hearing their application. So there is some discretion built into that. It is interesting that in new section 26, inserted by clause 11, again, we actually talk about the manager not of the department but of the prison, and there is no reference to the Department of Corrections. It does make you wonder whether or not this bill is in preparation for the further privatisation of our prison service.

We thought that was a sensible amendment for the select committee to make, and as I have already said, in those clauses it also sets out “relevant activities” rather than “milestones”, because it was certainly just too misleading to claim a milestone, because it does give the impression that if an offender were to reach it, it would mean there would be some kind of automatic release.

One of the other key considerations that came up as a by-product of hearing this bill—I see my time is possibly about to expire. I would happily take another call to expand on that issue.

This is one more example of how the National-led Government is working on reforming laws and legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to reduce the number of parole hearings where the offender has a minimal chance of being released. It is a fact that each parole hearing has a negative impact on the victims. We want to put victims at the heart of our justice system. By way of legislation, we want to ensure that we reduce the stress on the victims and their families.

The Law and Order Committee had good discussions on all elements of the legislation during its hearings. The committee felt that the words “risk milestone” should be replaced with the words “relevant activity”. Further, in the case of the Parole Board not specifying a time frame for standard release conditions, then the default time has to be 6 months. The committee recommended that the clause be inserted in the legislation. The committee also recommended that when a Parole Board application is declined, the board may specify a set of activities that an offender must complete before their application is reconsidered. In cases where the offender displays positive behaviour and completes the relevant activities, then the Parole Board hearing may be brought forward. By way of the above and other amendments proposed, this National-led Government wants to ensure less stress on the victims while also giving offenders an opportunity to improve their behaviour.

Other provisions in the bill provide that the victim, offender, or an authorised person can attend a parole hearing remotely, such as via video link or phone. It also provides that as with victims, the prison manager and police be notified of the hearing outcomes. They are also to be notified of the next parole hearing date and any other milestone the offender has set for them by the board. Based on the behaviour displayed by the offenders, the Parole Board may, of course, set an earlier date. Hearing dates can also be aligned with the completion of rehabilitation programmes. By way of making all the changes, we hope to save the Department of Corrections about $700,000. I am sure that this amount can be used towards improving the services elsewhere. Most of all, we are putting victims first, and our attempt is to reduce their stress in times to come.

The Labour Party supported this bill at its introduction, and it continues to support the bill. I think this bill makes small, but useful, changes to the major piece of reform legislation in this area, which is the Parole Act 2002, which I am very familiar with. I have got to say that when we look back over the period of 12 years that have elapsed since that legislation went through, I am very pleased with the results of the Parole Act of 2002.

The regulatory impact statement for this bill states clearly that consequent upon the passage of the Parole Act in 2002, the number of offenders who reoffended while on parole halved—halved. Mr Bakshi talked about the importance of victims. There is nothing more important than stopping a person from becoming a victim in the first place. The Parole Act 2002 not only halved the number of people offending while on parole but it also halved the seriousness of the offences that were committed. Both of those points were made in the regulatory impact statement. It was successful because we built into the Parole Act 2002 the principle that the safety of the community had to be the paramount consideration for the Parole Board. The Parole Board was not to act in a way that would subject the community to undue risk. I guess I copped a bit of flak from the Minister of Finance at the time that I passed this bill through Parliament, because the number of people in prison went up because people were staying there longer. But it did have an impact, and I do not think anybody would doubt that that Act has been effective.

The Act has also been effective because of the really good way in which the Parole Board has operated, first under Sir David Carruthers. I acknowledge the work that David Carruthers has done in this and so many areas. I think he has made a massive contribution to our justice system. But the select committee looking at this bill—Mr Chair, you will remember because you were on the committee—had Justice Warwick Gendall and former High Court judge the Hon Marion Frater before it. It was interesting that those making submissions on this bill, ranging from the Sensible Sentencing Trust at one end to people who wanted to reform prisons on the other, all had a good word to say about the way in which the Parole Board operated. I think most members of the committee actually had the unique opportunity, as outsiders, to sit in on the Parole Board’s hearings. I sat in on a couple of cases at Auckland Women’s Prison, where the people applying for parole were murderers, and I was incredibly impressed at the way the proceedings were conducted.

I think we have got a system that has worked really well—good people and good law—but after 12 years there was a need for change, and the predominant change that this legislation makes is to change the section in the original Act that requires parole hearings to be held within 12 months. It meant that, generally, they were held after 11 months. It also meant that there were a lot of people who were simply never going to be paroled the first or the second or the third time they were up for parole. The offender knew that, the victim probably knew that, and the system knew that. We wondered why we were putting people—particularly the victims—through the unnecessary trauma of fearing that perhaps the person would be released and might be a threat to their safety, and why we were raising false hope on the part of the offender. For about a third of the parolees, they had four or more parole hearings before they were released. It seemed to the Ministry of Justice, and it seemed to the members of the Law and Order Committee, that that was a sensible change to make.

Interestingly—and I refer to the Greens on this because the Greens’ minority report still opposes this legislation, although I do not think vehemently; I think they took a rational view on the committee—the interesting point that came out of the hearings in the committee and from the Parole Board itself was the statement by the Parole Board that the bill would probably result in people spending less time in prison rather than more time in prison. It would reduce the number of parole hearings by about 800. Yes, that does make a saving of $700,000-odd, but that is not the primary purpose of this legislation. The primary purpose of this legislation is to have a parole system that works more effectively and efficiently, and is fairer to all of the people who appear before it.

There are a lot of parole hearings. There are somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 parole hearings a year, and that obviously does impose a lot of pressure on the Parole Board and on the people who service that board. So the major change in this legislation, which is sensible, is to give the Parole Board itself the ability to extend the time between hearings to up to 2 years, and that will result, as I said before, not in people spending longer in prison but in people having to attend fewer Parole Board hearings before they are actually released. It did not make sense to have somebody who had not yet completed their rehabilitation programme appear before the Parole Board when they and the Parole Board knew that they had not completed the programme, that they had not dealt with the causes of their offending, and that they were not going to be released. It was just time consuming, it interrupted the rehabilitative programmes, and it served no purpose.

In the original legislation, we recognised that there would be some people who simply were not going to be ready for release on parole, and therefore we allowed for the existence of what was called a “postponement order”, which meant that for people serving determinate sentences there could be a 2-year postponement between parole hearings, and for people on indeterminate sentences, life sentences, or preventive detention, it could be up to 3 years. Consequential upon the change to give more flexibility to the board to vary the period between hearings, postponement orders will now largely deal only with indeterminate sentences and with determinate sentences of more than 10 years, and in this case the bill allows for the period between parole hearings to be extended by as much as 5 years.

I have got to say that having been through every prison in the country and thinking that there is hope in most prisons, that people can change, that people can be released, and that the people there are not necessarily ogres, there was one prison where I had a totally different view, and that was Pāremoremo maximum security prison. Frankly, for the people I saw in the maximum security wing who were psychopaths, it did not actually need to be 5 years; there are people there who ought never to be released. I am not a person who says: “Lock ‘em up and throw away the key.” I think there is redemption in most people, but in some people there is no prospect of it and they will always be a threat. That is why it is important to have that postponement order, and that can and will be used, I am sure, for periods of up to 5 years.

The select committee did not make a lot of major changes to the legislation. We did replace the term “risk milestone” with the term “relevant activity”. That might seem a bit esoteric to those listening. The real problem with the term “risk milestone” was that it implied that if you said a person had passed the risk milestone, they had succeeded in all of the objectives, and the Parole Board itself said that that was not the right term to use, because it could be misleading. So we have changed that term.

In respect of the major recommendation—I bring it to the attention of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Amy Adams, because she was not the Minister whom we referred the initial advice to—the information we got from the Parole Board was that its decisions could only be as good as the information it received, and quite often it was not being given information on civil protection orders, which, because they were civil orders, were not within the criminal system, and it was not aware of things it should have known about when it was considering a person for release on parole. So if I can use this opportunity, Minister, just to draw that specifically to your attention—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: In my speech.

—as Jacinda Ardern did—and say that, really, across the board in the select committee—it was not a partisan issue—we felt that that was an issue that needed to be addressed by your ministry, and we hope that action is taken on that.

Apart from those two things, there were no major changes that were made. I draw to the Committee’s attention that there can be early consideration for parole. You can bring parole hearings forward in cases where that is justified.

I have much pleasure in speaking on behalf of New Zealand First, the party for all New Zealanders, including those of Indian descent such as me. We are quite surprised that National seems to have come up with a bill that is, in the most part, logical—logical to the point that we support this bill, the Parole Amendment Bill. The intentions behind this bill are good. Even National has good intentions sometimes. However, there is not enough logic and there is not enough focus on the rights of victims. We want to see more of that.

Although we agree with the changes to sections 4, 13A, 14, and 15, we would like to see changes to section 17. Short-term sentences should be in full. It seems ridiculous to give someone a 12-month sentence and, by law, they serve only 6 months. What sort of deterrent is that? The chances of reoffending add stress on the victims and it is dangerous for other New Zealanders. We have had too many examples of this and it needs to stop. Although we agree with the changes to sections 18, 19, and 21, we especially agree with the new section 21A. In fact, we would go so far as to say that the first parole date should be determined at sentencing so that the offender is completely clear about expectations. That would be a logical addition to the Act.

We agree with the amendments to section 26, the replacement of section 27 with new section 27 and 27A and the renumbering of old section 27A as 27B, the replacement of old section 29 with new section 29 and 29AA, and the replacement of section 29B(4)(b). We agree with the amendments to sections 43 and 49 and we like the new sections 49A and B. It is interesting to see that sections 45 to 48 are to be repealed, but we are not overly upset about it. Although we agree with the amendments to sections 50, 50A, 50B, 60(5)(b), and 67, we would like to see changes to section 84(1). Non-parole periods should be a minimum of 2 years for long-term sentences. That is logical. Currently, the non-parole period is one-third of the sentence. If someone is sentenced to 4 years, that means they can be out in 2 years. That is not acceptable.

Our suggested changes will give greater certainty to the victims and offenders and will also act as a further deterrent to crime. Our suggested changes will focus on the rights of victims. After all, we all want to feel safe. Thank you.

I call Kris Faafoi. I am calling you, but just for new members, if you stand and you want the call, you must call, because the person who calls gets the call.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for your wise ruling. It is a pleasure to speak to this Parole Amendment Bill because I believe, having been a former member of the Law and Order Committee, that there were lots of variables that the select committee and, of course, the Government were trying to balance up—one of them obviously being the rights of the victims. We have heard of many, many cases. One of the considerations given under this bill was the revictimisation of victims who were made to go through what may be unnecessary Parole Board hearings.

On the other side of the equation, of course, were the rights of the offenders and their right to be heard for parole and to be assessed for their eligibility for parole and whether or not they were ready. Of course, there are some efficiencies trying to be gained here with trying to get rid of the unnecessary parole hearings that were being held, where there could have been instances where they were either unattended or there was absolutely no chance that an offender who was up for parole was going to be granted parole at all. So with those factors, and I am sure a number of others were considered by the Law and Order Committee, I think my former colleagues on that committee have come to the right balance in making sure that we do get the efficiencies right, and that the rights of the victims—we have heard some harrowing stories of many families. As Jacinda Ardern has pointed out, many organisations that have been offended against have had to go through the horror, or the pain, of the offending, and have been through that because of the process of the parole hearing. Also, I guess it is about making sure that the rights of those who are seeking parole are met as well.

This bill, in its purest and simplest form, gives the Parole Board the ability to increase the maximum time between hearings for parole hearings from 12 months to 2 years. I think I am right in referring to clause 10, which inserts new section 21A. If the Parole Board does not give an offender parole, it then has the ability to set a date for the next parole hearing if it does decline that parole. If that date is 12 months beyond the hearing that has taken place, I think what you do give there is an incentive for that offender—I guess, you know, in a crude way—to shape up and to have these activities that they are given as targets. This is to ensure that if they do come back at a later date—and I know the word “milestones” was not used in the legislation; it was changed to “relevant activities”—they have taken some action to get back on to, I guess, what you could call the road to redemption.

If some of those activities were fulfilled, then I guess the Parole Board would say: “Yes, you can come back to the Parole Board to have your eligibility assessed.” In some cases, if by some miracle someone before that date came forward and came through with these relevant activities well before 12 months, there is the ability for the Parole Board to bring that parole hearing forward. So I believe—and that is why we on this side of the Chamber are supporting this legislation—that the balance between those three main factors has been struck. I understand from some of my other colleagues that it was a relatively good working relationship between members on this side of the Chamber and members on the other side of the Chamber. I know there is some dissent from the Green Party, but all in all most members around that select committee table believe that the balance that was struck is the right one.

I know that there will be some people out there who would say that the offenders really do not deserve any more rights. As Kelvin Davis has said, that is probably the view of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. But we would say that the balance has been struck because there will be a lot fewer—

As we clearly understand from people giving commentary on this bill, the primary purpose of the bill is to extend the permissible period between parole hearings when it is the judgment of the board that offenders are highly unlikely to be proven to be eligible for parole. I would just like to put a little bit of context around that, and it picks up on some commentary I heard a few moments ago.

I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the value of parole and of the importance of having parole available as a management tool, in a sense. It has been highlighted in recent days by the phenomenon, if you like, which has now got some public traction, of people who have offended seriously overseas—New Zealanders who have been sentenced internationally to long jail terms, in many cases—who complete their terms, who are put on aeroplanes, and who are then dropped back in New Zealand. That is something that has existed recently. There is one particular case that has excited some public commentary. Actually, I share the concern of those people who think it is entirely undesirable that a person does a long term in prison, is literally taken from their cell to the airport, and is, effectively, dropped in New Zealand with no further controls, no constraints on them, and no ability for the State—for the community—to impose any management on them.

I do not think the solution to that is a registry. I think that, as I say, the phenomenon, for want of a better word, does highlight the importance of parole and the value of parole as a means for us to facilitate the transition from custody back to reintegrating people into the community. In respect of what our colleague Kris Faafoi has just stated, the Greens would disagree, actually, that the correct balance has been struck in this legislation. We are not convinced that the provisions in it are actually the optimal provisions. Frankly, we think that there are three key drivers of the bill and of the technical provisions that are contained in it. One is cost saving, and, yes, it is expensive to run the parole process. Another is the importance—the value—of keeping people optimally managed, if you like. And, of course, there is the protection of victims to prevent the re-victimisation of people—and I do think that that is overstated.

Dealing with the first point first, I think the cost-saving argument is the argument that is put forward least often in respect of this legislation, for the reason that it is actually a very weak argument. I investigated this with some questions for written answer at an earlier process. I asked what the methodology was behind establishing the numbers we were given and determining what the cost savings were and the reduction in the likely number of parole hearings. Frankly, there was no methodology. The answers we got back indicated that there was a best guess made as to the percentage reduction in parole hearings that would be facilitated by this legislation. Then, as is beloved of economists, from that point on, having established a very shaky assumption, there was some sophisticated formula applied to that assumption, which generated what looked like some defensible numbers.

I think the matter of cost is a very weak justification for this legislation. It is not proven. If you save the cost of a hearing, which we think is around $1,000, give or take—it varies depending on circumstances—then for every 90 hearings that are not held unnecessarily, that is $90,000. You only have to end up, as a result of that process, with one inmate serving 1 year longer in jail than they might otherwise have, and that cost has gone away. It is in round figures, but I think the current cost of keeping somebody incarcerated is $95,000 or $97,000—that sort of figure.

The argument that we are protecting victims is a very powerful argument, and, yes, we do want to protect victims. We do not want people constantly revictimised. We have heard from individuals of the stresses imposed on them because they feel obliged to attend these parole hearings, which in some instances are coming around fairly regularly. In fact, it is only a very small percentage of people who take the opportunity to attend the hearings or to be involved in them. There is, I think, a popular misconception that the victims are obliged to face the person who offended against them, and that simply is not the reality. At no point is a victim obliged to confront an offender. The Parole Board is much more sensitive. It manages these people very carefully. But I think the key point is that, from memory—and I am relying only on memory; unfortunately I do not have the note here—something like 3 percent of victims actually attend Parole Board hearings. With all due respect to those people—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: 7 percent.

—7 percent, thank you—and their obvious concerns, I think it is possible to overstate the extent to which their attendance at those hearings actually influences the decision of the Parole Board. I do say that with the greatest respect to the board and to the victims. Clearly, the Parole Board will expect that somebody who has been the victim of a horrendous crime, or the loss of a family member to a murder, or who has themselves been assaulted or grievously harmed, will, of course, want that person to stay in jail for the longest term possible. I do think the assumption that that carries significant weight with the Parole Board is possibly overstated.

I guess our compelling concern about this legislation is the process that is set up around what we no longer call milestone events but relevant activities. The bill rests on an assumption that inmates will be motivated to complete the various programmes, whatever they are, that the board says they need to complete before they can be considered for parole. We know, because the Department of Corrections has told us that it is already struggling to schedule inmates on available programmes. I have many letters on my files, and I am sure other MPs have similar letters, from inmates who are saying: “Look, I want to get on to this programme. I know I need it.” There is a benefit to the inmates and to wider society for these people to do these programmes, and they simply cannot get access to them because the programmes are oversubscribed. The scheduling difficulty, the Department of Corrections has said, is partly a technical one. It does not have the IT facility, and it is not on the horizon that it will get the technical IT capacity to facilitate that scheduling.

I support the work that has been done by the previous Minister, and I am sure the current Minister will continue it, to broaden the range of programmes available. I am pleased that the Government, over the last term particularly, actually started talking more the language of rehabilitation and reintegration. There is more goodwill being displayed towards dealing with these people, healing them, and dealing with the underlying causes of their offending. There is no point in putting these relevant activities requirements into legislation if, in all good conscience, inmates are being denied access to them because there is simply not the infrastructure behind them. Build the infrastructure, create the capacity within the system to deliver these very positive and helpful programmes, be they for drug and alcohol issues, mental health issues, basic literacy, or work skills, whatever they might be. Create that infrastructure first, and then put the obligation on inmates to pursue them.

We think that although there is some well-intentioned aspects and provisions in this bill, underpinning it are some false assumptions, we believe—some false expectations. We do know that the requirement that inmates must first accept guilt is one of the provisions before they can get into some of these programmes. On the one hand, yes, it does oblige people who have offended to confront their offending and to honestly accept that they do have a debt to pay. But there is also such a thing as people in prison who are innocent and who continue to express their innocence and, as a number of submitters have pointed out, the provisions in this bill put those people in a very difficult position. They are actually forced to lie, despite the fact that they genuinely believe themselves to be innocent, and there are examples we know of where we have incarcerated innocent people. It does not happen that often, but it does happen. It puts those people in an untenable situation. It is also contrary to our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which says that people ought not to be compelled to make those sorts of false confessions, if you like, or to implicate themselves when they know very well they have not offended.

As a new member on the Law and Order Committee, I would like to acknowledge the current and former members who have sat on the committee and considered this bill. I understand from hearing the contributions that have been made today that they have done a great job of trying to strike the right balance of interests from an administrative perspective, an offender’s perspective, and a victim’s perspective. However, the contribution of Green MP David Clendon tended to put more of an emphasis on the minority of offenders who may well be in an innocent position and who are being forced to go into some form of programme that they do not necessarily agree with. I think I would like to make my contribution more focused on the victims because this Government puts victims at the heart of the justice system, and our plan to reduce unnecessary parole hearings for offenders will reduce stress for the victims of these crimes.

As a party we take a strong stance on law and order, and the Parole Amendment Bill implements our post-election action plan to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings where the offender has little prospect of release. Each year there are about 5,000 parole hearings and, on average, offenders have about three hearings before they are granted parole. The Parole Act will be changed to extend the maximum postponement period for offenders serving life sentences, or indeterminate sentences, and determinate sentences of 10 years or more, from 3 years to 5 years for the most extreme cases. It will also extend the maximum interval between parole hearings from 1 year to 2 years.

I want to go back to victims because this is the main crux of my contribution tonight. The next point I want to make is around the fact that this bill provides for victims, offenders, and other authorised persons who attend parole hearings to do so remotely, such as via videoconferencing, because it is not a comfortable experience for all victims to appear before the Parole Board. I appreciate that it is not a requirement in all cases, but whether or not they are there in person, they are certainly there in emotion, knowing that the hearing is taking place. So, for victims of crimes, should they be faced with the very stressful prospect of parole hearings year after year when an offender is clearly not safe to release into the community and has made little or no effective rehabilitation? They should not be faced with this stressful prospect, and that is what the intention of this bill tries to bring forward.

This Government was elected to improve the justice system for those who find themselves in it through no fault of their own. We have received a clear mandate to do so, and over the last 6 years we have made a number of significant improvements to the justice system. We have put 600 extra police into the front line, we have seen a 155 percent increase in foot patrol police officers between 2011 and 2013, and we have given our police new tools such as Tasers, lock boxes in police cars, DNA testing of offenders, and smartphones and tablets. Just the rolling out of smartphones and tablets alone is saving more than half a million police hours each year, which is the equivalent of about 345 extra police officers. As a result we have seen the lowest crime rate in 35 years. Reoffending is down by more than 12 percent. This is partly because more prisoners are receiving drug and alcohol treatment before they leave prison, and it is also partly because all prisoners are now receiving education, with individual learning plans designed individually for them.

It is in the interests of taxpayers, prisoners, and victims that these prisoners will be integrated into society through these added social systems that are being put upon them while they are in prison to try to help them get back into a system where they can enter the workforce and enter society without feeling like they are ostracised before they enter back into society. So this Government is putting victims at the centre of the justice system with tougher punishments on offenders, new laws, and new services for victims. Although we can never legislate away the pain and suffering faced by victims, the changes proposed in this bill will certainly help ensure that victims are not revictimised by their participation in this process. Thank you.

I just want to pick up on a couple of points to concur, in some respects, with my friend and colleague David Clendon, but also to disagree in other respects. First of all, the critical thing about parole is that it is absolutely necessary in terms of reducing the risk of reoffending by those released from prison. We have had the phenomenon of people being returned from Australia who are not subject to parole conditions and about whom we do not have sufficient information. That is a real concern. That is something else that I hope the Minister can pick up. Good luck with that. I struggled with the state and federal level of the Australian Government to try to get that information—they said nice things but did very little—but it is something that we absolutely need to address.

I am saying that to highlight the fact that although some people say: “Truth in sentencing—if you’re sentenced to 6 years, you should serve right up to the last day.”, all of the evidence that is available to us, as David Clendon also pointed out, is that where people are released at the end of their sentence without provisions for parole and the conditions associated with parole, the level of reoffending by those individuals is much higher. The two huge advantages of parole are, one, that there are a lot of people in our prisons who when they have served a large part of their sentence and done the rehab courses are not going to reoffend. At that point, keeping them in prison serves very little purpose at a very high cost. If we abolish parole tomorrow, as sometimes the ACT Party and sometimes the right wing of the National Party recommended, that would come to hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps the reason the National Party is a little bit more reform-minded is that the Minister of Finance is conscious of how much the prison system costs to run.

The much more important thing is that when a person is released on parole, they are released on conditions. They must report weekly, for example, to their local parole office. They talk to their probation officer. They are under the oversight of the probation officer. They may be subject to conditions as to where they live, as to where they work, and to whom they can associate with. So the point about parole is that it actually enhances the safety of the community. And if you did not have parole and there was the so-called truth in sentencing, actually our reoffending rates would be higher, people would be less safe, and the system would be a whole lot more expensive.

Where I still have trouble coming to terms with the Green Party minority view is that I am not quite sure specifically what it is that the Green Party is objecting to in this legislation. As I pointed out before, the Parole Board, and the people on the Parole Board whom we would respect, very much supported this legislation and made the point, for any law and order warrior, that if you extend the period of time between parole hearings, this was not likely to result in longer periods in prison and, indeed, may well result, Justice Gendall said, in less time in prison.

I want to note too that the Parole Board does have the ability, and the inmate has the ability, to bring forward their parole hearing, within the flexibility that this system provides. Where a person has met the objective set for their rehabilitation, either the manager of the prison or the offender can apply to have an earlier parole hearing, and that makes sense as well. So flexibility works both ways, but the important thing about it is that with that flexibility there is one of the new requirements on the Parole Board, as set out in this bill, which is that the Parole Board must set the date for when the next hearing will be heard by and must also identify the activities that the offender needs to address. When they do that, they provide that information to not only the offender and the prison manager but also the police and the victim. So the victim is kept better informed about where the offender has got to and what they still need to achieve before they can be considered for release. I think that that is very positive.

I think that the other things that are set out in the bill are largely not designed to disadvantage the offender; they are designed to make the system more effective. So attendance at hearings can be by phone or video conference, and that applies more and more in the justice system, and that is a good thing.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.