Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, the Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, and the Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This Government is committed to public safety and the protection of victims, and on this basis we are supporting the Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, the Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, and the Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, and that they now be read a third time. These bills honour the commitment that we have made to the people of New Zealand. They enable courts to impose electronic monitoring for a wider range of offences and orders than is currently possible, and they confirm that prisoners given permission to go outside the secure perimeter of the prison may be electronically monitored.

Electronic monitoring provides a means of actively monitoring the compliance of offenders in the community with conditions imposed by the Parole Board or the courts. This helps deter offenders from further offending by providing information on their whereabouts. It also enables police and the Department of Corrections to act swiftly when non-compliance is detected.

These bills were originally introduced as one bill, the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill, which was divided into three bills by the Committee of the whole House. The first bill, the Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, removes a legislative barrier to the use of electronic monitoring for offenders released after serving a short term of imprisonment and offenders sentenced to intensive supervision. Electronic monitoring plays an important part in deterring further offending and detecting breaches of conditions about where an offender may live and places they may or may not visit. Without electronic monitoring these conditions are less effective, because breaches are much harder to detect.

The Sentencing Act explicitly states that electronic monitoring may not be imposed by a court as part of a sentence of intensive supervision or as a release condition for an offender sentenced to prison for 2 years or less. This bill removes that barrier. It provides the courts and enforcement authorities with an additional tool to help ensure that an offender released from a short term of imprisonment complies with the conditions imposed as a part of that sentence. It will also help ensure that an offender serving a sentence of intensive supervision complies with the conditions imposed as part of that sentence.

Concerns were raised during the select committee process regarding the scope of electronic monitoring, privacy issues, and whether it is suitable for intensive supervision and release conditions. These concerns have been met by safeguards designed to ensure that the new powers are used in an appropriate manner, including specifying that suitability of electronic monitoring must be canvassed in a pre-sentence report defining the purposes of an electronic monitoring condition as deterring breaches of conditions that prohibit entry into specified places or areas and monitoring compliance with such conditions, and specifying the permitted uses of information collected by electronic monitoring.

The second bill is the Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill. This bill clarifies the Department of Corrections’ ability to electronically monitor a prisoner who is, during their sentence, permitted outside the secure perimeter of a prison. Most prisoners spend their time within a secure perimeter fence. However, on occasions it is necessary for a small number of prisoners to go outside that perimeter fence. Examples include where a prisoner goes to hospital for treatment and is escorted by a corrections officer, where a prisoner is working in a prison but outside the secure perimeter, or where a prisoner towards the end of a sentence is permitted to work outside the prison as part of the prisoner’s transition back into the community in a safe and controlled manner. Ensuring that prisoners outside the secure perimeter are electronically monitored will deter escape attempts, and, if an escape is attempted, it helps ensure early detection and a quick response from both police and corrections officers.

Thirdly, the Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill clarifies the special conditions relating to electronic monitoring of offenders following their release from prison or extended supervision orders. The new provisions make it clear that offenders are not only required to have electronic monitoring equipment attached to them but must also comply with written instructions including, for example, to regularly charge the equipment.

We are committed to reducing the harm and volume of offending. Electronically monitoring offenders in concert with a range of other measures can make a significant contribution to maintaining public order and safety, and, indirectly, to rehabilitating certain offenders. These three bills will enable better utilisation of the benefits of electronic monitoring by allowing it to be imposed, firstly, as a special condition of release from a short-term sentence of imprisonment and as a special condition of a sentence of intensive supervision, and, secondly, to monitor prisoners who are permitted to be outside the secure perimeter of a prison. They also clarify an offender’s obligations while subject to electronic monitoring. I commend these bills to the House.

The Labour Party too supports the legislation arising from the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. As the Minister of Corrections just said, it was divided into three bills at the Committee stage—so into the Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, the Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, and the Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill. I will touch on some of those three bills, hopefully, later in my speech.

The bills are to enable the electronic monitoring of offenders who are released from a sentence of 2 years or less, and offenders sentenced to intensive supervision. Intensive supervision is a community-based rehabilitation sentence. It targets offenders assessed as being at medium to high risk of reoffending or who have been convicted of more serious offences—although we do not really define what the words “more serious” mean—and offenders who have complex or severe rehabilitative needs. They would be subject to standard release conditions, and I will just run through those standard conditions quickly: that the offenders are not to reside at a specific address, are not to engage in specific employment, and are not to associate with specific people. In other words, it makes sure that offenders are at the right place at the right time and are associating with the right people.

They will probably have special conditions applied that are similar. Those special conditions, as opposed to the standard conditions, may be that they restrict an offender to a specific address, they complete an assessment in various rehabilitation programmes, they are not to associate with certain people or groups of people—and, if we think of people whose offending was related around gangs, they would probably not be allowed to associate with gangs or go near gang premises. If, for example, they were child sex offenders, they would not be allowed near—you would hope—schools, playgrounds, or parks where children would be playing. Some other special conditions may be that they have to take prescription medicine that may help with any condition that they have, they may be prohibited from entering specific places, and, of course, the imposition of this electronic monitoring.

There was an issue around this legislation coming into conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There was concern that this legislation is an added punishment in that it restricts the freedom of movement of offenders, and, as Phil Goff so eloquently explained in the Committee stage—that is right. This bill is designed to restrict the freedom of offenders, because why would you not limit the ability of people to move, such as someone who is convicted of a child sex offence? Why would you not restrict their freedom of movement to go into a park or into a swimming pool area where kids may be playing or into a school or a kindergarten or a kōhanga reo? Or, as I said earlier, if their offending is related to gang activities, why would you not limit their ability to go and associate with gang members or go on to gang premises? So, yes, that is the point of this legislation. It is to limit the freedom of offenders and it is, as the Minister said, to keep New Zealanders safe and to prevent more victims from occurring.

There are issues, of course, around electronic monitoring. It is not without its problems. As Kim Workman, an adviser to the justice reform group JustSpeak, said “Every day, as I understand it, well over a hundred people who are on GPS monitoring breach the conditions. So they move outside the boundaries of the order, and so on.”, but the fact is that we do not have the resources to chase up all those hundreds of people in any given day who may have breached their conditions. Most of these people are not a serious threat to New Zealanders, but the fact is GPS monitoring is not a foolproof system, because also, back in 2014, a hacker exposed some flaws in the bracelets in that he was able to trick the bracelets into fooling the system, allowing the offenders to move outside where they were meant to be.

Recently, I visited a man who was electronically monitored in Ōpōnoni, up in Northland there, in the Hokianga. There was an issue around the satellite not being able to access his monitoring equipment or whatever, and it was a bit of a black spot. It would fade in and out. So the Department of Corrections had to shift him, funnily enough, down the hill into an area you would think would have worse reception, as he was perched up on a beautiful spot at the top of the Hokianga Harbour.

There were issues raised around the number of people who are off. In any given day it was stated that between 20 and 47 offenders may be loose. National said: “Look, let’s put it into context. That’s less than 1 percent of people who are on the bracelets.” We said: “OK, that may be right. They may be correct that it’s less than 1 percent of people, but that’s still 20 to 47 communities that may be living with an element of fear because they do not know where these offenders are and there’s very little information given out about them.” Also, Ruth Money, who is a victims’ advocate, said: “It’s completely disrespectful to [families] and actually the New Zealand public as a whole to make a comment, like it’s only 1 percent of everybody with a bracelet.” She said: “It’s absolutely disgraceful that they would make a comment like that when we have 47 people unaccounted for [in January of this year].” So I take her point. We should not downplay the fact that people do get loose and do cut off their bracelets.

Of course, that was the other flaw in electronic monitoring—the ability of offenders to cut their bracelets off. Even when the Government has bought stronger, tougher bracelets and the Minister infamously stated to the Law and Order Committee that offenders had a choice—they would have to use a chainsaw to cut it off and they had a choice of either a leg or no leg. That very night on television, the cameraman from TV3 Billy Weepu just got a pair of scissors and cut through the bracelet. Of course, the Government said “Oh look, he is the brother of an All Black.”, as if a brother of an All Black has these superpowers that the rest of us do not have.

The fact of the matter is that there is any number of people with the immense strength of Billy Weepu, the fine centre who plays for the Parliamentary “Golden Oldies” Rugby Team. He is not unique, and he is not the only New Zealander who would be able to get a blunt pair of kitchen scissors and cut off the bracelet.

The Corrections Act 2004 is amended. As the Minister has explained, it allows monitoring of persons temporarily released from custody and temporarily removed from prison. It allows for the electronic monitoring of prisoners employed in work or accommodated outside the secure perimeter of the prison. This legislation amends the Parole Act 2002 and requires an offender to submit to electronic monitoring and comply with release conditions or conditions of an extended supervision order. The offender may be required to have electronic monitoring equipment attached to his or her body. They must comply with written instructions of a probation officer—it clarifies that.

Also, this amends the Sentencing Act 2002 and creates conditions to prohibit an offender from being in specific places, also known as a whereabouts condition. The whereabouts condition means that they cannot go in certain places in the community. The electronic monitoring may be used to gather evidence of the wearer not complying with the conditions, such as being at the wrong place at the wrong time in the company of the wrong people.

So, as I said when I started off, the Labour Party members agree with and will be voting for this legislation in the third reading. Kia ora.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the legislation arising from the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill, which is divided into the three bills: Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, and Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill.

This legislation removes the legislative barriers to electronic monitoring of offenders released from an imprisonment sentence of 2 years or less and offenders sentenced to intensive supervision. It is very important that we amend our legislation from time to time to ensure that we are up to date. The previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, mentioned some of the lacks in the electronic monitoring legislation, such as that there are black spots where the electronic monitoring fails. But those are the things that technology keeps on improving, and part of this legislation is about going from radio frequency monitoring bracelets, because we are now into GPS, which gives us the exact position of the prisoner—where he is and whether he is where he is supposed to be or not.

Reoffending is reducing. Since June 2011 the number of reoffenders has been going down by 25 percent. The vast majority of prisoners are released back into our communities, which is why we are committed to ensuring that they do not create more victims. Through our commitment to prisoners’ education, mental health support, skill training, addiction treatment, working prisons, and reintegration, it ensures that they can be integrated back into our society and ensures that they do not create any more victims, and that is how we can progress in these areas.

There is no magic bullet for reducing reoffending, and we are tackling the drivers of crime in a number of ways. The prisoners have for many years been temporarily released or granted escorted absence from the prison for several recognised reasons such as funerals, medical treatment, and work experience. The amendment would clarify that such temporary release and removal situations may include a requirement that a prisoner submit to electronic monitoring for the duration of their temporary release or removal from the prison.

The Law and Order Committee recommended a new provision to provide that prisoners who are permitted to reside, or who are engaged in work, outside the secure perimeter of the prison—such as those residing in external self-care units and those employed on work parties—may be required to submit to electronic monitoring of their whereabouts so that we can monitor and see whether they are where they are required to be. This would provide exclusive authority for GPS monitoring of prisoners outside the perimeter and give an additional assurance that the prisoners are where they are supposed to be. It would also set out the purpose of the electronic monitoring and limit the use of the information obtained.

This legislation again emphasises that we are committed to making our society safe, and we hope that this legislation will be a step forward. I commend this legislation to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to speak in support of these particular bills. I want to take up some of the members’ comments around the steps, moving forward, with this type of legislation in the House, whereby it is no longer seen as a simple means of making sure that not just the offenders themselves do not go on to commit more crimes but that it is actually seen—and I think this is the bigger challenge—as being part rehabilitation tool, to make sure that their reintegration back into the communities is a successful one. So although we debate this and the rhetoric is generally about making sure that we can keep an eye on them so that we make sure they do not go on to reoffend, I think the bigger challenge is actually changing the rhetoric around how we are able to make this part of a rehabilitation and reintegration system.

My colleague Mr Davis has already talked about our support for these particular bills. This legislation has had its challenges throughout the entire process. My colleague spoke about the black spots and spoke about the herculean strength Mr Billy Weepu needed to cut through the monitoring bracelet. But from personal experience, I spoke in the earlier readings of this legislation about how the legislation will enable the attendance of some prisoners to tangihanga—to get that temporary release from prison to allow them to go. In the past that particular process has not been executed very well, and the hope is that through this type of legislation the ability for offenders to get temporary release for things such as tangihanga, and for things such as work that will help with their reintegration into the community, will be a lot more successful and will not be fraught with the kind of red tape that sees the public actually looking at that person with a bit of a frown or in a light that is not very good.

So these types of bills—and I mentioned it in terms of the previous bill that was debated in the House—are a step in the right direction. They will make the legislation fall in line with technology to ensure that we use that technology better. Sadly, I reiterate my point, as I did in the last bill, that too often the House fails to keep up with that technology—because in the passage of this particular legislation, I dare say technology has already moved on and, in fact, is far more advanced than it was when this legislation went through in its first reading. But we support that change. We want to make sure that we are able to protect the community.

I also spoke in respect of the last bill, the Evidence Amendment Bill, about how the public perceive parole and the parole office, and how the public perceives the corrections facilities and the institutions that are put in place to make sure that those who go through the particular system—through the justice system—serve their sentences and do not exit prison and go on to reoffend. That happens only if the integrity of those processes is solid and the processes are robust. I want to echo the point of my colleague Mr Davis, who has already spoken about the good intentions within this legislation, yet also pointed out the lack of resourcing to make sure that we are able to monitor properly, correctly, and also effectively, to make sure that people in the community at large are looked after and also that that particular person who is under surveillance and monitoring is able to get on with, I guess, their reintegration back into the community.

I will not speak too much longer, other than to say that we do support this legislation. We will be looking further into some of the means by which we will be able to ensure the proper reintegration of offenders back into the community, one that will, of course, take into consideration their rights through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as mentioned by my colleague Mr Davis. I will conclude by saying that we support this legislation, and we hope that the outcome and the intention of these particular bills will be exactly as they are intended, so that you get better monitoring, the revictimisation does not occur, reoffending does not occur, and we are able to see a safer community for one and all. Kia ora.

I am very pleased to stand in support of this legislation in its third reading. There are a number of bills that it has been broken up into now. I just want to acknowledge the comments of my colleague Peeni Henare across the House and say that he has identified some very positive aspects around this piece of legislation.

It would be obvious to see, even for any casual observer, that there is a tremendous amount of work being done by the Department of Corrections around the reintegration and rehabilitation of offenders. We see that the levels of literacy and numeracy are increasing. We see that there are a number of working prisons where prisoners are being trained in all sorts of good occupations and trades.

This piece of legislation is enabling a number of, I think, very positive measures. One of the things it means, of course, in terms of being able to have surveillance around offenders or prisoners who have been released from prison sentences of 2 years or less—prior to that they would not have been able to have electronic monitoring—and those under intense supervision and post-detention conditions that may apply at the end of a home detention is we will see a reduction in the number of ongoing victims of crime. We will see and know where offenders are, and there will be areas where they cannot be, and instead of finding out about that later, when they break those boundaries they will be seen sooner and there will be a response by the authorities around that. What that will do is not only will it keep people safer but also it will engender a higher level of compliance with those conditions.

One of the things that we know in New Zealand society is that, except for a very few, every person who enters a prison will come back out and live on the streets of our cities and towns and in our neighbourhoods. So it is very important that there is this developing behaviour of the respect of law. This legislation will enable that.

Another very important and positive attribute of this piece of legislation is that with the availability of electronic monitoring under intensive supervision, this could in fact reduce restrictions on offenders and improve their opportunities for employment and participation in our communities, simply because there is greater and closer contact between the probation service and offenders. In the past that level of contact and observation may not have occurred, and because of that there would have been tighter restrictions placed upon these people. But now, because of this, those restrictions, without compromising the safety of the public, can be relaxed to a measure so that there are greater employment opportunities and a greater ability to interact and engage and reintegrate in our communities.

So I am very grateful to be able to stand in support of this legislation. I am very grateful to hear that parties across this House, by and large, are supporting this piece of legislation, and I think it will progress the work that the Department of Corrections does in reintegrating people into our society. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to take a short call on the legislation arising from the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. What this legislation does is provide an extra option when decisions are being made around sentencing, parole, and bail. In that sense we support it as a management tool, particularly if it helps people to stay out of prison. Obviously, as a management tool it can be used either fairly and appropriately or not.

What we expect is that this management tool will be used fairly and appropriately. In particular, we would hope that this would enable the early release from prison for some prisoners who qualify by providing extra reassurance that parole conditions will be observed and by also allowing for sentencing to electronic monitoring instead of the very restrictive home detention that is often imposed when there is no other management tool available.

So we do support it, but we do want to be able to be reassured that it will be used wisely, because if it is not used wisely it could be counter-productive. We do acknowledge the concerns that some submitters made around the fact that it could actually be counter-productive. For example, we do not want to see minor technical infringements resulting in a mass sending back to prison of offenders. So it is important that how this law has been used and applied is reviewed, because what is really important is to see whether it does actually end up with assisting with the reintegration of prisoners back into society and with reducing reoffending. If it has these outcomes, it will have been a really positive effect, but if it does not, then we need to review it.

What we really want to shift to is true restorative justice, rather than just simply locking up everybody in prison where they do not learn the skills for becoming part of a wider society and building a safer community. It is only through restorative justice that we will we see that outcome, and that is the long-term focus for us in the Green Party. We support this legislation, but we do not see it as the full and final answer to the problems that face us around addressing crime and injustice. There is a lot more that needs to be done, and we have a long way yet to go. Thank you.

Time and again we have warned this Government against the dangers of this failed electronic monitoring system. We have warned this Government that this system has failed and continues to fail. It has failed 15,500 times and over. We have always—always—warned this Government that New Zealanders have been hurt, New Zealanders have been raped, and New Zealanders have been killed by offenders who have breached this electronic monitoring system. There have been several instances—some very, very sad ones; some very tragic ones—where our citizens have been killed by those offenders who have been on electronic monitoring release conditions and have breached those conditions.

I think that Government members should rise up now, take this challenge, and do something about it, but they refuse to. Why do they refuse to? Because there are savings, in dollar terms, in relying heavily on this system. I know for a fact that, on average, between $77,000 and $99,000 is spent per prisoner every year. What this Government is looking at is saving those dollars—just buying an electronic bracelet and sending those dangerous criminals out into the communities and hoping that they will be all right—“People will be all right. It is an electronic system—nothing will happen. Do not worry about it. You are saving $77,000 per year.”

Public safety is not about dollars. It is about being honest about putting in systems where people can actually feel safe, and New Zealanders do not. New Zealand First is the only party that has stood up against this electronic monitoring system, because we know for a fact that it has been breached thousands of times. Now, with this system coming in, there will be an additional 5,400 more offenders who will be monitored by it, which means that there will be 5,400 ticking time bombs in our community. We cannot afford that. When this Government claims that it is all about protecting New Zealanders, it does not back it up with actions. This legislation goes against the Government’s claims.

As was said in the previous speeches, at any given time there are about 40 to 50 offenders who have breached their electronic monitoring conditions, which means they have actually cut their bracelet and are on the run—40 to 50 offenders at any given time. That costs $2,500 per breach. Multiply that by 15,500 breaches and you get the answer. However, the Government thinks that it is still a cheaper option than keeping those people in prison, where the Government has to spend $77,000 a year. This Government is all about taking cheaper options, not keeping New Zealanders safe. The law enforcement agencies do not know—they do not know—the whereabouts of those 40 to 50 offenders. Probably the offenders’ colleagues do, but this Government does not. The law enforcement agencies do not know where those people are, and those people are ticking time bombs. We have always—always—warned this Government against that.

The dangers of relying on this electronic monitoring system is that every time an offender cuts the bracelet or breaches the system by any other method, there is a time bomb in the community. Such a time bomb was one Tony Robertson, who callously raped and murdered Blessie Gotingco. But for this system—this failed system—Blessie would still be living in our community and Blessie would still be with her family. So we have actually failed her family. We, as lawmakers, have failed Blessie Gotingco and her family. We cannot afford to have any more Blessie Gotingcos in our communities. I am really, really passionately against this system because I know the dangers, I know the bottom line, and I know the intention behind this electronic monitoring bill being pursued so vehemently.

This Government is not very clear about how it is going to manage those 5,400 additional offenders in the community. There is not a murmur about any resources being given to the police. There is not a murmur about any additional resources being given to the Department of Corrections. There is no mention of any staff ratios being maintained according to what the additional number of offenders in the community is going to be. There is nothing at all.

For the many New Zealanders who have been hurt and who have been raped and killed, we stand up. We put New Zealanders first. This Government, unfortunately, does not. This legislation is all about saving $77,000. This legislation is all about saying one thing and doing just the opposite. We have always opposed this legislation and we will continue to do so. Thank you.

I feel sorry for those blokes, getting out of bed on the wrong side every morning, year after year after year.

It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak briefly on the legislation that was the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill, which is now split into three different bills. I suppose, if you were a minimalist, you would say we have got rid of one piece of legislation and we have tacked some amendments on to three others, which from this perspective is a pretty good thing.

The legislation will make a couple of key differences to what goes on in New Zealand. Much has been talked about already in this respect, but it will give offenders being monitored a much better chance of successfully reintegrating into society. If they are let out into the community and they are in some way or other monitored, and they know that they are controlled, or that people understand where they are at, I think we will be much better off and they will be better off. I think it will give them a better chance, as they go through that process, of not reoffending and of reintegrating into society and into the workforce.

It also makes a contribution to public safety, by putting a boundary on the offenders that they will respect by at times protecting victims, and at other times by restricting movement. There are a lot of options that this legislation gives the Department of Corrections and gives the courts as to the manner in which they implement it.

It is positive legislation. It is a small piece of legislation, but, like many other bits of legislation the Government has put in place around law and order in the last 8 or so years, it will make a difference. The two differences I have just spoken about are two of those.

At the moment there are about 4,000 people on electronic monitoring around New Zealand. It costs about $3,500 per person, so in that respect Mahesh Bindra, the last speaker, was right—it saves us about $90,000-odd if you do not lock them up. From my perspective, I think that is a very positive thing for New Zealand. It is very positive for our communities, and, as I said earlier, it does help reintegrate those prisoners in a much better and more stable manner.

The other thing I just want to talk briefly about—and this has been raised by a couple of speakers—is the concern around the technology. The advances in technology that we are seeing, not only in law and order, of course, but right across our community, are immense. Inevitably, as we introduce technology and use different forms of technology for monitoring or for whatever else we might use it for, there are always going to be challenges around that.

The Law and Order Committee did have an opportunity to go and visit the company that manages this technology for the Department of Corrections. I think, like any other technology that is being introduced into a system, there will always be some challenges around it, but we were quite impressed with the way it works. We got to understand how it operates and what that technology enables the Department of Corrections to do.

To get back to the point that two Labour speakers made, I think our major objective—in fact, the Green speaker Mojo Mathers made the same point—is to get these people who are being electronically monitored back into the workforce and back into our community, and allow them to reintegrate into our community without reoffending. With those few words, I commend these bills to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the third readings of the bills arising from the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. As we have heard, the bill was divided at the Committee stage into the Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, the Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill, and the Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill. Labour does support these particular pieces of legislation.

I think it is worth reiterating why this legislation was required, and whom it is actually relevant to. Electronic monitoring is about providing for people who either are exiting prison or, under this legislation, have had intensive supervision imposed on them. It will also now cover people who are being released from prison who have a sentence of 2 years or less. Currently those people are not eligible for electronic monitoring, and, in fact, that represents 5,800 prisoners in our justice system. Currently we have 2,000 people who have electronic monitoring devices in the community, so this piece of legislation could potentially double, if not treble, the number of people in our community who are undergoing electronic monitoring.

The extension of the eligibility is really about transitioning people out of prison and enabling us to feel secure as a public that those people who may have had to stay in prison for a little bit longer are actually monitored in some form. The definition of electronic monitoring is really interesting, and I will read it. It is: “a general term referring to forms of surveillance with which to monitor the location, movement and specific behaviour of persons in the framework of the criminal justice [system].”

I would particularly like to draw to the House’s attention in this, the third readings, someone whom I have tremendous respect for, and that is Kim Workman, who made a submission on behalf of the Robson Hanan Trust for the Rethinking Crime and Punishment project. He did have some reservations about electronic monitoring and the expansion of electronic monitoring as a tool for releasing prisoners into the community. From his perspective, if electronic monitoring became an end in itself and we did not ensure that prisoners who were released were released with a proper reintegration strategy and adequate support, then this legislative measure was actually not going to help with reducing the rates of reoffending.

What we do know, particularly for Māori, is that 5 years after release, unfortunately, 81 percent of Māori who have been in prison actually reoffend and end up in prison again. If this piece of legislation and electronic monitoring serve to address that issue, then, obviously, we, as parliamentarians, would have thought that this piece of legislative reform is exactly what we want to achieve in terms of setting some aims and objectives of reducing reoffending. The stated objective is to reduce reoffending by 25 percent. So what we hope is that in addition to electronic monitoring, when people are released they are actually released to a home—that they have somewhere to go to.

There have been some pilots recently—and I did not realise that 20 percent of prisoners actually are in there because of driving issues. Whether it be licensing issues or whether it be fines that they have not paid—for some of them it is dangerous driving—20 percent of our prison population is there because of driving issues. We would hope that when people are released into the community, having an opportunity to get their driver’s licence is something that we would also provide, as well as drug and alcohol counselling if that is what they need, and education and employment opportunities. It is worth noting at the third readings that these were some of the discussions we had at the Law and Order Committee, particular in respect of submissions by Dr Kim Workman.

I would also like to note that there was a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue about this piece of legislation, and that related to people who had been released on extended supervision orders. That particular terminology is really important, because the people released on extended supervision orders have been released after they have completed their sentence. These are high-risk sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders who have to be released back into the community. We have to release them because they have served their time. For this particular group, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act contention was that we were actually limiting their freedom of movement, and, in some ways, requiring them to then be electronically monitored was double jeopardy. However, the Law and Order Committee and this House have seen fit to say that that limitation for this particular group was justified because of the threat that they pose to the community.

People have talked about a few instances in this House. I think the bigger issue, really, is about sentencing—whether people are being sentenced adequately—and the other part of the equation is about whether people are being rehabilitated adequately. Those will be the continued challenges, I believe, to the justice system within that specific context. But overall I think we have had a fairly robust debate and discussion about this piece of legislation. I think there are still challenges about the actual bracelets themselves—how effective they are. Obviously, some of my colleagues have highlighted members of the public who have been able cut through those bracelets.

I think that, overall, as a Parliament, we are supporting the use of technology. But from our perspective—and I think this is a good point to restate—technology has to be coupled with rehabilitation, with reintegration strategies, and, actually, with supporting prisoners when they are released into the community to make sure that if that is their first time in prison, then it is actually their last. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure to take a call on these pieces of legislation. I have not been part of the Law and Order Committee, so I have not been able to hear the submissions as we have gone through, but I have been listening to what has been happening tonight. I really would support what the last speaker, Louisa Wall, said in terms of actually helping these people rehabilitate back into the community. This is one of the tools that we can use.

Having been at the corrections facility recently in Te Awamutu, looking at some of the projects that some of those people are starting to do in our community, I would certainly support this as part of their rehabilitation. It is about keeping our communities safe, but it is actually about how, when our offenders are back in our community, we want to support them to stay away from the drivers of crime and help them to become rehabilitated. Often it is temporary release. They are people who want to attend funerals, or they need to attend medical treatment or, as I mentioned before, work experience. It is partly about temporary release, but it is also about people who are permitted to reside outside the perimeters of the prison. It is giving that extra effective tool to those people so that we can help them keep safe.

Monitoring can improve public safety by making authorities aware that offenders have failed to comply with their conditions, as it relates to their whereabouts. There are a lot of things that we can do now with GPS that we were not able to do in 2000, 2002, and 2004, in these old pieces of legislation. It really makes sense to use modern technology to help our prisoners rehabilitate. So it is my pleasure to commend these bills to the House. Thank you.

The main purpose of the legislation is to remove legislative barriers to the electronic monitoring of offenders released from a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years or less, and offenders sentenced to intensive supervision. This largely constitutes the offender participating in special programmes and interventions from 6 months to 2 years. Intensive supervision is recognised as a community-based rehabilitation sentence, although I suspect many of us question whether that actually provides rehabilitation back into the community or whether people end up reoffending. It is given if the court deems that extra rehabilitation and reintegration assistance is needed in order to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and, consequently, according the Department of Corrections, those who receive intensive supervision are generally offenders who are assessed as having a medium to high risk of reoffending, who have been convicted of serious offensives, or who have complex and severe rehabilitative needs. This would mean that the courts have the ability to impose electronic monitoring on such offenders. It does not mean that in all cases such conditions would be imposed. If it was chosen to enforce electronic monitoring of an individual, this would allow the Department of Corrections to monitor compliance with offenders’ whereabouts restrictions in certain areas.

The amendments also allow probation officers to impose reasonable administrative obligations on offenders in regard to their monitoring equipment—for instance, that the offender regularly charges the equipment or does not interfere with its monitoring capabilities.

I note that in the Law and Order Committee report and the amendments that it offered it says that “Prisoners have for many years been temporarily released or granted escorted absences from prison for several recognised purposes, such as funerals, medical treatment, and work experience. The amendments would clarify that such temporary release and removal situations may include a requirement that a prisoner submit to electronic monitoring for the duration of their temporary release or removal from prison.”

In the Labour Party, we support the legislation because we want to be able to give some confidence to the community in terms of providing safety, in terms of ensuring that for those prisoners who are released back into society there is a tool that the Department of Corrections can use to help monitor them. I have now heard, a couple of times, members of the Government say that this keeps offenders away from the drivers of crime. In fact, Mr Bakshi himself said earlier that the Government was working really, really hard on the drivers of crime. I am not sure whether I agree with that, because when we look at the drivers of crime that have been recognised by the police over years of experience, they name families as one, particularly when families are dysfunctional. They name youth as one, particularly when vulnerable youth and children are involved. They name road policing as another driver. They name alcohol, and they name organised crime and drugs. When Mr Bakshi said that this was part of the Government’s efforts to tackle the drivers of crime, you almost get the feeling that, somehow, it believes its rhetoric that it is reducing crime and it is reducing the drivers of crime.

I am not sure whether the Government can confidently say that, because when I look at the statistics that it released from the Department of Corrections that show we have a total number of offenders released into the Auckland region of about 12,000—and here are some numbers for the Parliament to entertain. In Auckland the total number of offenders released as of 31 July 2016 was almost 3,000—2,932. The number of offenders with violent offences was 491. The number of offenders with sexual offences was 46. In Waitematā the total number of offenders was over 3,000—3,129. The number of offenders with violent offences was 497, and the number of offenders with sexual offences in the Waitematā region was 45. In Manukau we had 80 offenders with sexual offences. The number of offenders with violent offences was 1,080, and the total number of offenders released into Manukau was over 5,000. This is one of the reasons why you will hear people in Manukau banging on the drums and saying that South Auckland seems to be a dumping ground.

This Government seems to think that having the electronic monitoring is going to reduce crime. I do not believe that. When it says that it is addressing the drivers of crime, I am asking myself what it is doing about the poverty that families are facing. What is it doing about the growing numbers—the 300,000 children living in poverty? What is it doing about the growing homelessness of many families? Under that heading of “family”—the police are saying that is a driver of crime. I heard Mr Bakshi and his colleagues say that they are addressing that, but they are not. Under the driver “youth”—we have now got more than 70,000 young people who are—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Back on the bills.

—not yet in employment, education, or training.

I am only addressing what that side has said—that it is doing something about the drivers of crime and that, somehow, electronic monitoring is going to reduce poverty, reduce homelessness, and reduce the number of young people not yet in education or employment.

Another driver is alcohol, the Government has said. But this is a Government that refuses to be hard on the liquor industry—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Focus on the bills.

—and is making it really, really difficult.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to the bills.

My colleague Louisa Wall made mention of people who had been released on extended supervision order. We have a case in Māngere, but it is really a case out in South Auckland. It is a case that I believe touches many, many communities, where a person who has rightfully served their time has been released into the community. But this person has been identified by the Department of Corrections as having a high risk of reoffending. The community was told that this person would be under 24/7 supervision, and I suspect—I believe he also has electronic monitoring. But the reality is the difference between this person and every other offender that we have mentioned earlier is that the department recognises him as having a high risk of reoffending. In fact, it felt that his was so serious that it applied for a public protection order so that he would be accommodated within the boundaries of close accommodation next to a prison. But it failed to do that. I keep asking myself, why is it?

One of the drivers of crime is road policing, and organised crime—and it involves the police. It involves the police. We are dependent on the police, yet this Government has underfunded police by $300 million. How can we then expect to solve crime, reduce the number of people who are reoffending, and provide proper, sound, in-depth rehabilitative measures if we refuse to properly fund Government departments? Yet that is what we pay our taxes for. So I do not have any confidence, as others have raised.

I hope that the Government does not think that this is going to be the answer to everything. The answer to everything is not electronic monitoring. The answer to some of the drivers that it says it is tackling is to provide jobs, to provide higher incomes, and to make housing more affordable. Those are the real issues that we should be debating. Those are the real issues that that Government ought to be focused on, but that is not what we are hearing, and it is certainly not what my community is hearing from this Government.