Third Readings

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the final stages of the legislation arising out of the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill. Before I continue with my contribution, I think the member who has objected to the personal explanation should go and get testing done. The purpose of the legislation is to amend the Bail Act 2000, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Parole Act 2002 to enable the Department of Corrections and the police to require community-based offenders and bailees who are subject to the condition of a prohibition on the use of drugs or alcohol to undergo drug and alcohol testing.

We know that drugs and alcohol are two of the biggest contributors to crime in our country. Two-thirds of prisoners have substance abuse problems and half of the crimes committed are committed by someone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Also, this is often a major factor in reoffending. We need to understand that we have to give the tools to the Department of Corrections and the police, who want to ensure that our communities and our people are safe in their homes, in their businesses, and in their communities. There was a limitation with the law. The police and Corrections staff were trying to ensure that offenders and bailees complied with their drug and alcohol conditions, but they were limited in what they could do and what they could not to. That was a big problem and that is why this legislation was introduced. I think we should congratulate the Minister on her leadership. Also, I would like to thank all the members of the Law and Order Committee who contributed during the select committee process, and the officials also.

This legislation establishes a legislative basis for bailees and community-based offenders with a drug or alcohol abstinence condition imposed by the court or Parole Board to undergo alcohol or drug testing or summit to continuous monitoring if directed by police and the Department of Corrections. Here I will also clarify that the chief executives of the Department of Corrections and the Police have to publish the rules and how these rules can be implemented on a case by case basis. It is very important for us to understand that these rules are set in a way that ensures nobody is abused while they are being tested or while they are being asked to come forward for compliance.

This legislation also establishes the principle that testing should not be more intrusive than is reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the drug and alcohol conditions. That is important because we do not want people to be abused, and we do not want bailees or prisoners in prison to be abused. This legislation is another step to ensure the safety of our communities, and I commend these bills to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and could I thank the last speaker, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, for his contribution. I just want to elaborate on something that the last speaker averted to. One of the submissions that was made in respect of the drug and alcohol testing of people who are on bail was made by the Law Society, which said that it ought not to be in the power of registrars to impose a drug and alcohol condition as a condition of bail if the defendant did not agree to it, and that that sort of imposition on the person who was seeking or being granted bail should be left to a judicial officer. The Law and Order Committee agreed with that and it has proposed an amendment that says that a registrar must not impose a drug or alcohol condition unless the defendant consents to that condition being imposed. That, effectively, means that if the defendant does not agree and says it is not appropriate, then it is up to a judge to make a decision as to whether it is an appropriate condition to be imposed.

I think that is a wise change. We should remember that people who are on bail have not yet been convicted of an offence. Sometimes they are innocent, and they certainly have not had their guilt proved, so they are in a slightly different situation to someone who has already been convicted and is within the justice system, and the justice system can impose more—or there is more justification for imposing these sorts of conditions against the will of the person concerned if their guilt has already been proven. So I think it is appropriate that, in respect of bail decisions, the registrar should not be able to impose a drug or alcohol condition unless the defendant consents to the condition being imposed. That does not mean to say that it will not be imposed; it does not mean to say that it should not be imposed. It does mean that sometimes it should not be imposed, and where the line is to be drawn between those who should or those who should not have those conditions is, appropriately, a decision for the judge rather than a registrar.

The other concern that the Law Society raised was that continuous monitoring obligations, in its view, amounted to a major infringement of liberty that breached the rules. It said that it seemed wrong for police and corrections officers to be writing the rules that allow themselves to blood-test people who are not even in prison—so they could be on a community-based sentence. It thought that it was wrong that the police and corrections officers were the ones who were empowered by law to write the rules about testing in the community, given that they are the ones who are going to be applying them. It thought that that duality of roles was wrong. The Minister of Corrections at the time, Sam Lotu-Iiga, said that the principles were included in the bill to guide officials in setting up the drug-testing regime, and these included a requirement that the testing could not be unreasonably intrusive or frequent, and that the person who is being monitored should be given as much privacy and dignity as possible. That is an issue that we can delve into more at the Committee stage of this bill, and if I am in the Chamber at the time I will be asking that question.

The Law Society went further and said that it did not think that any person should be required to wear an alcohol-monitoring bracelet without a judge’s approval. The legislation, as it stands, in respect of someone who has previously had a conviction, puts that decision in the hands of the police and corrections officials, and, again, we will be asking the Minister to justify why—

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we should remind the member that this is the third reading of the legislation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes. That is not the member’s role. I mean, he is the least likely member to be warned for being disorderly, but, actually, it is disorderly.

No, actually, I think that that was a fair comment. I will defend the member for saying that. So—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Assistant Speaker was attempting to signal to the member, and if he was looking and not reading, it would have been easier.

Well, it was certainly a less rude gesture than if you had been indicating it was the second reading, Mr Assistant Speaker, so thank you for that. Thank you for that assistance. I accept what the member who has just made that point of order said in his contribution to this debate—that that issue had been covered off by the Law and Order Committee and that he was satisfied, and so were the other members of this House, that the concerns of the Law Society were appropriately dealt with in the protections that are found in the legislation as to principles—and I am not going to inquire about that at the Committee stage because it has already passed.

So Labour Party members are supporting these bills, because I think most people in society would agree that for some people who have alcohol and drug problems, it is necessary for both their own protection and the protection of the community that we have some forms of intervention that ensure that, as people are transitioning from a custodial sentence back into society, they are encouraged to stay drug and alcohol - free. I would note that monitoring is only part of the solution, and the Police Association said that in order for these things to be effective, you actually have to have the drug and alcohol treatment courses that are available to people who have come out of custodial sentences. Sadly, a lot of them will not have had those treatment services available to them while they were in prison, because those services are still not broadly enough available. It is also true that some people whilst in prison may not be willing participants in them but once they get out into the community might have changed their mind and recognise that they need help with their drug and alcohol addictions, and they should have services that are available to them for their own betterment and for the protection of society.

It is a sad reality that one of the reasons—and it is only one of the reasons—why we have an increasing prison population in New Zealand is that we actually have not got those services under control yet in New Zealand. We have large numbers of our prison population suffering from drug and alcohol problems, which, as my colleague Kelvin Davis has already said, is a contributing factor to their offending. He does not present it as an excuse for their offending; he just states it as a fact that it is true that the people who have drug and alcohol problems are more likely to offend and that is ameliorated if they have the ability to deal with their drug and alcohol addictions through services that are available.

Of course, it is true also that disproportionately the number of people who are in prison also have other problems. Some of them are very, very poor. Some of them have psychiatric problems as well. A lot of the people who are in need of these services to deal with their drug and alcohol problems are less able to afford to pay for them, and if they are not provided by the Government at low cost or free they will not be accessed by them. That is one of the reasons why it is important that we as taxpayers, and we in this House, support the provision of those services in the community so that the drug and alcohol problems of people who have offended can be dealt with.

I do not think I have got anything to say other than that. There are three parts to this, really: people who are on parole, people who are on bail, and people who have had community-based sentences are all affected by this legislation. So long as there are appropriate safeguards this should work OK. I think if those who have these powers overuse them and use drug and alcohol testing to an excessive degree and it becomes oppressive, then it actually will not meet its social purpose of helping people to overcome their problems. In fact, it could have the opposite effect and it could amount to a post-sentence infringement of their liberties if taken too far. I trust that the authorities will be cognisant of that and I hope that these pieces of legislation work to improve outcomes for our society. Labour supports these bills.

It is a privilege to speak on the third readings of these particular bills. I would just like to acknowledge the speakers who have gone before me, in particular our chair, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, for his sterling leadership of the Law and Order Committee and his interference in the House before, as well. I have to agree with Mr Assistant Speaker that it was quite unlike him, but it was a very sage point. I would just like to acknowledge also the previous speaker, Mr Parker, on a number of the points that he was making, on reflection, regarding some of the motives and the unfortunate characteristics of many of the offenders who are currently in prison for the first time and repeat offenders as well. We heard a statistic from the Department of Corrections that about 80 percent of inmates have drug-related or alcohol-related—or both—characteristics that are a negative part of their offending.

I think the fundamental part of this legislation, or the intent behind it, is not to say if you are an offender we are going to randomly slap a drug and alcohol testing regime around you. It is for the Department of Corrections and police to have a greater ability to actually monitor those who are on bail or out on parole, with a condition around drug or alcohol use—to actually enable them to enforce that and follow up. For most offenders who are repeat offenders, as we know, they have drug- or alcohol-related incidents. Part of this is to help try to protect them—while they are in prison and undergoing drug and alcohol rehabilitation—when they exit back into society again, it is to help that continuation of that treatment. If they know that there is enforcement around drug or alcohol use as a condition of them being released out into the public, they are less likely to offend and they are less likely to utilise those substances—which, in effect, means that there is a greater chance that they are less likely to offend in a criminal space that saw them put into the corrections system in the first instance.

One of the aspects of the legislation that the select committee expanded on was the inclusion of psychoactive substances as one of those, and to test the ability for police and Corrections to test. It is quite important because a couple of years ago, before the Government put in place legislation and restrictions around the use, there was a massive blow-up of that use in our community, and there is still a flow-on effect from that. Many of the offenders have evidence of using that. So, thank you. It was a privilege to sit on the committee and listen to submissions. It is a privilege to commend this legislation to the House.

I am pleased to continue the Greens’ support for these five bills, which have been split out of the original bill as we first saw it at the first reading.

What the bills do, of course, is provide a mechanism whereby people who are at large within a community but are under some form of monitoring or some form of supervision can be measured for compliance with conditions—usually around banning any use of controlled drugs, psychoactive substances, or alcohol. We see that as a useful thing. We had some initial concerns. We initially undertook to support the legislation only to the select committee on the basis that there were some potential fishhooks in the legislation as it was initially drafted, but we are quite satisfied with the progress of the select committee, which was a good committee actually. There were some useful and thoughtful submissions and some conversations there, and I think it has delivered these bills in pretty good shape now.

I think one of the things that we relied on in the legislation is that it establishes three principles with which any undertakings in this legislation must be consistent. They are that testing should be no more intrusive than is reasonably necessary, that testing should take place no more often than is reasonably necessary, and that those liable to testing and monitoring should be treated respectfully, with dignity, and with as much privacy as possible. Those are pretty sound principles and I think the credibility of this legislation will depend to some extent on those who implement it respecting those principles and not using this legislation as a means to harass individuals or to make their lives unnecessarily difficult or complicated. I have no reason to think police or indeed corrections staff would do that, but I would hope that the people responsible for implementing these bills will keep those key principles at the top of their mind as they do their work around them.

There was some concern about some elements of this legislation, but we see value in it in part because of the degree to which it aligns with conditions that apply to those being held in custody. Clearly, inmates in prisons or under other forms of custody are subject to testing of alcohol or drugs or whatever it might be, and we thought that having those same compliance conditions in the community was not a particularly onerous imposition on people. The upside of that, of course, is that it gives judges another option, or indeed Parole Board members, who are making a call about whether a person should be given bail or not or whether a person should get parole or not. Knowing that these conditions are in place to ensure compliance or to monitor compliance with very necessary drug and alcohol conditions could make it more possible or more likely that people will be released into the community. We see that typically as a good thing, because the more time people spend in prison, the more likely they are to offend. So the sooner we get them into community care, the better.

There is also the factor, of course, that people who are in the community but subject to these conditions—it makes them less prone to what we might call peer pressure. They can present a solid argument if they are under some sort of pressure from acquaintances or friends or whatever to “Go on. Just have a beer or have a toke.”, or whatever it is. This will give them a very sound reason to say: “No, I cannot, because tomorrow I might get the knock on the door.” I think that is quite a valuable addition to our suite of tools to try to manage people in the community.

There is one point where I think the legislation could have been improved. Currently the chief executive officer of Corrections has an obligation to make rules prescribing the nature of monitoring, what sort of testing might take place, the levels of particular substances in a person’s blood or breath, or whatever it is, which would trigger some sort of breach, and various other rules that the chief executive officer of Corrections can make—specifically, I imagine, for people who are serving community sentences or who are on parole. The Commissioner of Police has similar powers also—where people are on bail, particularly—to set rules about the nature of the testing, the frequency, and the levels at which penalties or some breach might kick in.

I think we missed an opportunity when there was a Supplementary Order Paper before the House at the Committee stage that would have obliged the chief executive of Corrections and the Commissioner of Police to talk to one another. I think we can assume in the current conditions that they will talk to one another. They are both reasonable and sensible men, but I do think that it would have been helpful to have something embedded in the legislation—simply a line to say there is an obligation for them to consult with one another. It would be unfortunate if we ended up with one regime for people on bail and a different regime for those on parole. It just seemed that it would have added some value to put that small addition to the bill, but so be it. We simply have to rely on their common sense to make sure that the two regimes do align fairly closely because it would make no sense at all if they did not, particularly, I think, in terms of the levels that constitute a breach. If a person on bail is treated differently than somebody on parole, then that to me would create some tension and it would make no sense at all.

The only other points I think I would make is that these bills do provide some useful mechanisms, some tools, but, ultimately, they are a defensive measure, and Mr Parker in his contribution made a point along those lines. There was a very good submission to the Law and Order Committee from the Community Action Youth and Drugs (CAYAD), which is a national programme focusing on young people, obviously, and it was concerned about drug and alcohol use and abuse in the community. It, sort of, scoped out the range of issues around how it is one thing to monitor, to test, or to coerce people into not using drugs or alcohol, when obviously they have an ill-effect on them and their behaviour, but it is another thing again to provide support mechanisms and treatment programmes. The CAYAD submission was one of several that commented along these lines that monitoring, forcing, or measuring compliance is one thing, but we need to be actively providing means by which people can break their addiction to drugs or their dependence on alcohol or other forms of substance abuse.

It is a sad reality that at the moment we are seriously under-resourced in terms of alcohol and drug treatment in the community. I think you would struggle to find a treatment provider anywhere in New Zealand that did not have a waiting list. I understand that currently there is something like a 3-month delay in people getting treatment for methamphetamine addiction, in Auckland at least, and I suspect around the country it is similar. That is simply unacceptable, and it is plain stupid—if I may use that very simple word—to have a major drug and alcohol problem in this country, yet we are not resourcing the treatment that can serve to break the cycle of addiction, that can break the dependencies, and in the long term change people’s behaviours.

Although these are useful bills and they provide a useful addition to the tool kit, if you like, for managing people and hopefully managing them back into being useful, contributing citizens who move away from offending, I think that we cannot rely on defensive measures alone. We have to be proactive. We have to get real about resourcing the long-term solutions, which are very much about treatments and about providing the facilities that people do want and need in order to break their dependence in the cases where people do get hooked on drugs or whatever it might be and their behaviours are modified so seriously and in often violent ways. So, with those few comments, again, I just simply say that we do support this legislation and we look forward to its thoughtful and principled implementation.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the legislation arising from the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill. We have supported the bill through its earliest stages and we supported it because we liked the intent of this bill. The intent of this legislation is to hold those offenders and bailees who are in the communities to account. Those bailees and offenders, and those on parole—earlier, before this legislation was thought of—used to get away with continuing their offending habits and continuing their addiction to drugs and alcohol. This legislation seeks to remedy that situation.

Those on bail and other offenders in the community—in the absence of such good and potentially effective legislation—got away with recidivism. So we like this legislation, although it has some anomalies, which are yet to be answered. We did have some questions, which were not answered. However, the overall intent of the legislation is good, and that is to keep our communities safer. This legislation will go a long way in addressing the reoffending habits of offenders in the community.

Having been trained as a drug-testing officer some years ago, I have a fair bit of an idea how the drug-testing regime works inside the wire, inside prison. It is not perfect, but it is fairly effective. I have seen thousands of prisoners going out and coming back through our prisons’ revolving doors.

About the drug-testing regime within the prisons—those tests are carried out within the close confines of the prison, but, still, some prisoners are able to manipulate the results. They are able to falsify the samples. That percentage is not very high, luckily, but there are a few prisoners who have managed to falsify their drug results and the Department of Corrections has no means to stop that, unless the officers who collect the samples are very alert and they comply with the rules that have been set down for those tests.

Also connected to the drug-testing system are the drug-treatment units that are being run by the department, and I would like to congratulate the Department of Corrections on being very effective at addressing the drug addiction of prisoners within the wire. This legislation will now bring the offenders who are on parole, on bail, or on temporary release in line with the prisoners who are in the custody of the Department of Corrections. So they will be as responsible for addressing their offending and their drug and alcohol use as the prisoners inside the walls of the prison. I think it will be a situation where the prisoners, whether they are in prison, in custody, or outside in the community, will be responsible for their behaviour.

Other than that, the other issue that we had was about the modalities of how this drug-testing regime is going to work. We were told that the bailees will be administered by the police, and those on parole or on temporary release will be managed, as it is, by the Department of Corrections. So it will be up to the Commissioner of Police to formulate the rules for the police, and the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections will be responsible for laying down the rules for the department.

Our fear was what happens if they do not coordinate with each other. For that purpose, I had to fix that anomaly. I lodged Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 163 proposing that it becomes mandatory for the police commissioner and the chief executive of Corrections to talk to each other and to consult each other while formulating the rules for their respective areas of work. However, I think only the Greens saw the wisdom in supporting that SOP, and I thank them for that.

The Minister thought that it was not necessary for such an SOP to be supported by the Government. She reckons that Corrections and Police do talk to each other, so it is not necessary for this legislation to make it mandatory for them to talk. If that is the case, our question is what happened when Phillip John Smith escaped the country? What happened when Tony Robertson raped and killed Blessie Gotingco? In both these cases the two departments did not know what the other was doing. It took them about 48 hours to talk about the escape by Phillip John Smith.

To fix that situation the SOP was put through, but it was not supported by the Government. The Minister went to the extent of implying that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Commissioner of Police share information and work very well with each other, and therefore there is no such need for an SOP like that.

Although we support the legislation, given the intent behind it, we have some questions that are yet unanswered. Those questions, again, are about how it is going to work, about the modalities of the drug-testing regime. We want to make sure that the offenders who are on parole are kept in line with the bailees, so that there is no unfairness in administering this legislation. Overall it is good legislation and we support it.

I am very pleased to stand and speak in support of this legislation, five bills divided from the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill. I think the people of New Zealand would be pleased to hear that there is agreement across the House for such a good piece of legislation, which has some very positive outcomes for everybody involved in this.

For instance, for those people who are community-based offenders or bailees who do have an addiction, either to drugs or to alcohol, they have some supported remedy to that. It might seem to be the strong arm of the law, but many people who are caught in those addictions need that level of support, and the legislation is quite clear that that work by Corrections and police needs to be done in a reasonable manner.

Secondly, the people who are most affected by bailees and community-based offenders who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol are often their families. We see an effect on domestic violence in this country that is driven by alcohol and drugs. If this legislation can bring greater protection to families because there is greater accountability to the conditions of bail or community-based sentences, that is a very good thing.

Thirdly, there is the general public, as well. The general public deserves to be protected. This is what law and order is about. We have a very good Minister of Corrections in the Hon Judith Collins, who believes very strongly that New Zealanders must be protected from crime. This legislation serves them.

Fourthly, it also gives our police and corrections staff a greater degree of understanding and clear authority around this particular area. At the moment, police and corrections staff are trying to ensure offenders and bailees comply with drug and alcohol conditions, but they are limited in what they can do. This legislation will give them clear authority.

The bills create a legislative mandate for alcohol and drug testing of eligible offenders and bailees. In my final thoughts, New Zealanders want to see the law in New Zealand upheld. We really do. We want our law to be respected and we hate it when the law is flouted, because law creates safety for everybody. The degree of accountability in a positive way, in a responsible way, and in a reasonable way through this legislation will help do that. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes.

I want to pick up where that last member, Jonathan Coleman, left off in saying that New Zealanders want the law to be upheld and respected. I completely agree with that. I also think New Zealanders want to live in a society where everyone has a fair go and where everyone suffering from various challenges—whether it be alcohol or drug addiction, or other challenges in their personal and professional lives—is looked after in the community, because that is the way to ensure that we have a happier, healthier, safer country for everyone to live in.

Addiction is not just a personal, individual problem; it is a social and environmental problem, in many ways. Drug and alcohol abuse obviously affects people beyond the people who are suffering from the addiction, so this legislation will, hopefully, enable more help and support to be given to those community-based offenders and bailees who are struggling with addiction and will enable them to turn their lives around. That is why the Green Party is supporting this legislation.

I think it is particularly important, as my colleague David Clendon mentioned earlier in this debate, that the three principles established by this legislation are upheld in the implementation—that is, that testing should be no more intrusive than is reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with a drug or alcohol condition, that testing should take place no more often than is reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with a drug or alcohol condition, and that those liable to testing and monitoring should be given as much privacy and dignity and respect as is possible. I think those are incredibly, vitally important principles in this legislation, because if those principles are not respected in the implementation of the legislation, then there is the risk that this sort of testing could be used to harass people in the community or to infringe on their civil liberties. I think it is really important that we protect that, and that we recognise that it is not just about identifying that people have relapsed and that they are still partaking in drugs or alcohol when they have been released back into the community but about providing the wraparound support of the health system to ensure that people are able to overcome their addictions.

It is really interesting. The latest research on addiction actually suggests that people are far more susceptible to it if they are living in conditions that are not great, and so it is not surprising that some people who are homeless suffer from high levels of addiction. You could say: “Well, that’s the reason that they are homeless—because they suffer from the addiction.”, but, actually, if you provide people with homes, it is much easier to treat them and for them to overcome their addiction. So it is really important that we embrace this paradigm shift in how we approach alcohol and drug addiction and crime, and recognise that all of these problems are interrelated and that we are not going to get anywhere by blaming individuals and trying to take a punitive approach to discourage them from engaging in behaviour that really is not necessarily of their choice.

We have to take a social and environmental approach to public policy, which would reduce the harm for all people in Aotearoa and is simply more effective, and so I am happy that this legislation is going in that direction. It is not just about testing and punishing people who are suffering from drug and alcohol addiction but actually—hopefully—about providing the wraparound support that they need so that they can overcome their addiction and, in fact, live happier, healthier lives, in which they are not offending and are not interfering with the ability of other New Zealanders to live happy and healthy lives. That is, ultimately, what we all want. Certainly, what the Green Party wants for Aotearoa is a happier, healthier society with less crime, less inequality, and less addiction to things like drugs and alcohol. Thank you.

Peeni Henare, tēnā koe—5 minutes.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party and express its support in the third reading of this particular legislation. Interestingly enough, as I was sitting there listening to the debate—and we know that the bills have come all the way through the processes of this particular House; we are now at the third reading—you always think of extra questions that, perhaps, you should have asked throughout the entire process. I was wondering how—if we are sending those who are released from prison back into homes that are contaminated with P—that affects their chances of staying sober, and of not being tested and found positive for having traces of P in their system.

One year ago the media reported that a 10-year-old child was found to have P in their system, simply by living in a P-contaminated house. This time last year, according to the reports—the numbers released under the Official Information Act—it was estimated that there were approximately 600 State homes, managed by Housing New Zealand, that were contaminated with P. I wonder, given some of the testing regimes and some of the questions asked about some of the testing regimes to discover whether or not your house is contaminated with P, whether or not that will have an impact somewhere along the line when testing comes around for those who are released into homes under supervision—some strict rules around drug use and, of course, alcohol. This House has already expressed how these types of provisions ensure that communities are safer.

I wonder whether the Government remembers its 2009 Tackling Methamphetamine: an Action Plan. In that action plan it talks about how intensive the counselling is that is required to break somebody from the habit of P, in particular, but also from alcoholism. I wonder whether those support services have been increased, to make sure that those who are susceptible to using drugs and abusing them—and, of course, alcohol as well—will get the support services that they require; or are we simply setting them up to fail? We are putting them back into communities where, arguably, the use of drugs such as P is on the increase. We know that in parts of South Auckland that liquor stores are more convenient than McDonald’s—and we wonder then whether we are setting them up to fail. We know that this is a step in the right direction, but we need to take a very broad view of this particular issue—a very broad view of this particular issue. We are in support of this. I referred to the Tackling Methamphetamine: an Action Plan from 2009—but it is 2016 now. A lot of years have passed by, and I am wondering, exactly, whether or not we have met some of the challenges with drugs in our communities.

As to the purposes of this particular legislation, we know that this is a step in the right direction. Communities must be kept safe, where possible and at all times, and we want to make sure that the legislation in this House will certainly lend itself towards that safety in the community. I cannot help but think about the lack of services that are out there to make sure that we are actually dealing with these issues and making sure that those who are released from prison do get the services, especially when the Government’s Tackling Methamphetamine: an Action Plan report in 2009 acknowledged just how hard it is to provide the counselling and the services that those people require. In the third reading, we support these bills. Kia ora.

It gives me pleasure to take a brief call on this legislation, which pretty much has the unanimous support of the House, and I think that is pretty encouraging. Every little incremental gain that we can make in rehabilitating our prisoners or people convicted of various crimes is a significant gain. I think it is really positive that we can move in that direction as a House, and I think it is positive that as a community we can accept that this is good for what goes on in our community. I would make the point that the New Zealand Trotting Cup is on right now. These bills do not preclude prisoners from having a small wager—and I wish I knew what the result was.

These bills do move into a complicated and difficult area for Corrections, that of rehabilitation, as has been pointed out by many speakers before me. The issues of drugs and alcohol are significant contributors to many of our offenders’ problems that they face. The ability of Corrections and the police to be able to drug test and manage the process of reintegration into our society for these people who have committed various crimes is a great move forward, in my view. The authority that this legislation provides will only apply when being drug- and alcohol-free is a condition of bail, home detention, or other community-based sentences, and will help ensure that these conditions are met.

I have been pleased to see the support for this legislation across the House during my time in the Law and Order Committee. I have followed with interest the challenges of reintegrating prisoners. I think, as I said earlier, any little gain we can get in that area is significant. I am pretty confident that this legislation will make a little bit of difference. If it makes a difference to only two or three people over the course of a year then we have had a major gain, when you think of the cost to society and also to those families, in terms of not being able to move themselves out of the net of crime. I have got a great deal of pleasure in supporting this legislation as it proceeds to become law today. Thank you.

My colleague Kelvin Davis has already indicated to the House our position regarding these bills—the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Sentencing (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Parole (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Bail (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, and the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill. I do not resile from the position that Kelvin Davis has put forward.

I do want to start my remarks by referencing what Jonathan Young said earlier in his contribution. When he said—I think it was an appeal and I am paraphrasing what he said—that all of our communities need to live by the law, I do not think that there is anyone in this House who disagrees with that. I have to then say that what Peeni Henare said was something that this House needs to consider when we are laying down legislation with the intention of preventing people from recidivism. The reality is that we are giving new powers to the police and to the Department of Corrections to be able to impose bail conditions on drugs and alcohol upon offenders who have been released.

Here is my concern: alcohol is freely available—alcohol is freely available throughout our country. In some communities, such as mine, despite efforts of the community to say “No more outlets.”, the rules that govern outlets and the sale of alcohol—rules that were passed by this Government—prevent the community from stopping new alcohol outlets in our community. There is a dilemma here. On the one hand, we are saying that we do not want released offenders to continue with the alcohol consumption and the drug consumption, but on the other hand, we make these things so readily available out on the streets and in the community. That is almost saying to a bull: “Here’s the red flag; don’t run after it.” We have got to look more broadly than simply saying that this is going to address recidivism. Yes, I note that the report says that these bail conditions are very effective in the United States, but then you have got to consider the type of society that the United States is. I have seen people on the streets of Los Angeles walking backwards and walking all over. When you ask somebody “What’s that person doing?”, they say that they are on some kind of drug.

I think that if we are genuinely sincere about offenders who are released and on parole conditions, then we have got to also have some thought about ensuring that these things that we are wanting to prevent these parolees from accessing are not so readily available in the community. At least we have been able to define the controlled drugs. But I think there is a debate that we still have to have about ensuring that these released prisoners do not end up returning to prison because of their inability to control their desires towards alcohol and drugs.

There is a woman who is in prison at the moment. Her name is Vicki Letele. She was imprisoned in March of this year for fraud. She is serving a 3½ year term. My colleague Louisa Wall has been engaging with the Department of Corrections and with the Parole Board to implore that group to release this woman so that she can be with her family. This woman, Vicki Letele, has been diagnosed with a terminal disease, cancer of the stomach. I raise this issue because we are giving the Parole Board some significant powers to make decisions on when it can search these parolees. I am saying that I think we have got to be very, very careful with the kinds of unfettered powers that we give to some sectors of our public service.

With Vicki Letele, I would have thought it was just plain simple. A woman is in her twilight hours. She is dying. Her dying wish is to be with her children and to be surrounded by her family. Corrections and the Parole Board say that she should remain in prison because that is where she can get medical care, in the hospital prison. The family says that she is dying. Is it not better to save taxpayers’ money and release her, and have her spend time with her family and with her children? I just think it is bizarre, and I am imploring the Minister of Corrections, the Prime Minister, and members of Cabinet, given that we are discussing these powers—they have the power to release this woman if they so want it. I am imploring the Minister of Corrections and the Prime Minister to do so. These are the dying days of Vicki Letele, and surely she deserves to be released so that she can spend her dying days and hours with her children and with her family.

Our politicians, our Ministers—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is not in the bill.

—have the ability to listen to and to observe what is happening on the ground. I sometimes think that the Parole Board does not have its eyes and ears close to the ground. That is the concern that I raise today. It was a concern that was also discussed by the Law and Order Committee. I note in the report that it says that “the drug and alcohol testing proposed by the bill may engage the right, under section 21 of the Bill of Rights of Act 1990 to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” and that the committee “considered that, because the drug and alcohol testing had implications for human rights, drugs, and alcohol conditions for bailees might be more appropriately imposed by a judicial officer, rather than a registrar.”

I raise the point that we are giving these significant powers to certain parts of our Public Service, and the experience that we have had is that they are often disconnected from the realities of what is happening in the community. Again, I want to put it on the record that tonight, this week, the Minister of Corrections, the Prime Minister, and Ministers in Cabinet can do a good thing. They can do the right thing, and support what my colleague Louisa Wall is asking the Department of Corrections and the Parole Board to do. But I say they should just simply release Vicki Letele and have her spend her dying days and hours with her children. That is the right thing to do. It is a good thing to do.

I stand to take the final call on this legislation. It is very good legislation. There has been a lot of discussion across the House in support of it. I too support it and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Bills read a third time.