Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill.

Before I talk about the bill, I do just want to take a moment to acknowledge that today was the funeral of our parliamentary colleague Efeso Collins. I didn’t know Efeso well, but, obviously, we came into the House together. I remember meeting him in our orientation days in those first exciting few days of being here in Wellington and then enjoying a number of short interactions with him. I do think he would have made an amazing contribution to this House. I just wanted to say that my thoughts, and those of ACT, are with his family, friends, and especially his wife and daughter today.

I also want to just say in relation to this bill that I want to thank Toni Severin, the former ACT MP. This was her bill that I’ve picked up.

It has been longstanding ACT policy that we’d actually like to do something in the prisoner rehabilitation space. Now, I know that might seem counterintuitive to some people or their perception of ACT, but we do believe in actually giving people a fair go and trying to help them back into the community. I am looking for all parties to support this bill to the first reading. It may not be the perfect solution, but I hope that we can have a constructive debate about it and have the select committee look at it.

What we are intending to do is provide hope for those incarcerated to rehabilitate themselves and actually reintegrate back into society. We know that is difficult. If you were listening to my maiden speech, some of you may know that I did spend a very short time at the bar practising in Dunedin with Judith Ablett Kerr KC.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Great city!

Go Dunedin! And yes, I was obviously educated at that wonderful university, which I understand is getting a new vice-chancellor soon. In that short time, I did get some insights into our criminal justice system and the types of people going through that system.

What this bill really wants to do is actually give prisoners a better chance of reintegrating back into society and building a better life for themselves and their families at the end of the sentence. As of 2023, around 56.5 percent of people with serious convictions are reconvicted within two years following release, and again another 35.8 percent are reimprisoned after two years following prison. Our recidivism rates in New Zealand are extremely high.

I accept that this bill isn’t the solution to everything, but I think it is an important step and I think we could actually make a real difference by focusing on this. Currently, people in prison do have some time on their hands, and we believe that we’d like to incentivise people to make better use of that time by completing courses which would give them skills, and other rehabilitation programmes which would actually help their prospects after leaving prison. Today, for a large number of people—not everyone, but for a large number of people—leaving prison, we, basically, give them a small amount of money and put them out the door and say, “On your way. All the best.” We don’t necessarily think that’s the right approach, and we’d like to try and do something to actually support them more.

The need for training for people in prison is indisputable. Our own Corrections department estimates that around 60 percent of prisoners have literacy and numeracy skills below that of NCEA level 1—so that’s like school certificate for 15-year-olds. One in four prisoners are two steps below the adult learning progressions, so they really can’t understand basic vocabulary, everyday topics, and familiarise themselves with information. That is just setting up people for failure when they do have time and we could actually be helping them get upskilled.

If you don’t have basic skills leaving prison, like reading, writing, arithmetic, the ability to open a bank account, and the ability to apply for a driver’s licence—and, obviously, over recent years, we’ve identified that even having an ID when you leave prison can be very difficult—it just makes it much, much harder to look for a job and do something productive. Often then, your only option is to go back to a life of crime—hence the circle continues.

Despite the clear benefits I’ve outlined, this time last year less than 20 percent of sentenced prisoners in Corrections-run facilities were attending rehabilitation programmes. I accept that some prisons, like Mt Eden, have no prisoners enrolled in those programmes or, possibly, a lack of services.

The data gets worse when we consider the approximately 3,500 prisoners on remand, and my bill does cover prisoners on remand and those who have been sentenced, and I’ll touch on that again in a minute. These prisoners on remand do not have the same access to programmes as sentenced prisoners, and that means that closer to 10 percent of the onsite prison population are actually enrolled in any rehabilitation programme.

Of course, being enrolled in a programme is one thing, but then you actually have to complete it. What we’ve done with this bill is tried to incentivise prisoners to complete the programme, with this being a condition of parole. Programmes designed to turn around serious offenders—one such programme is the special treatment unit for violent offenders—reported a 54 percent completion rate for the year 2022-23. Having a bit of compulsion will try to get that rate up. I understand a programme like that is actually extremely effective, but only if you complete it.

Another analysis also suggests—and this is from 2016—that Māori participants in these programmes do just as well, and in a lot of cases even better, than the non-Māori participants. These programmes can be sensitive to cultural needs and make sure that the prisoners are getting something that’s relevant to them.

Releasing prisoners into the community without these courses, where they do have the opportunity to identify what’s been causing some of their issues or get skills to help them post-release—obviously, a lot of the programmes look at behaviour change and also even having them confront some of the victims of their crimes. We’re really wanting to try to break the cycle of reoffending and, as I said, doing it by actually providing an incentive for prisoners to take these practical steps.

I will just talk a little bit about the bill and what it actually does. The bill amends the Parole Act 2002—that’s the principal Act—and it adds the definition of “rehabilitative programme”, which has the same meaning as the Corrections Act 2004. Again, that definition “(a) means a programme designed to reduce reoffending by facilitating rehabilitation of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment and their reintegration into society; and (b) includes any medical, psychological, social, therapeutic, cultural, educational, employment-related, rehabilitative, or reintegrative programme”. You can see there’s quite a breadth of programmes that prisoners would be eligible to do.

We already are required to have management plans for prisoners under section 51 of the Corrections Act, so if a prisoner is sentenced for more than two months on remand or in custody or for a prison sentence of more than two months, then they do have to have one of these plans, and in that plan it actually identifies their specific needs, and then the programmes can be tailored to it. So we do have a mechanism for doing this, and so I think we can move it forward. The bill would then have these programmes being completed as a part of a condition before parole could actually be considered, and the Parole Board can move their parole date forward.

I accept there are likely to be some capacity and operational issues in what I’m putting forward, but I believe that the select committee is well placed to look at these issues and how they can be addressed, and, hopefully, even make some improvements to what I’m putting forward.

ACT is doing this because we actually want to give those in our prison system the best possible chance to become productive members of society. We’re not just about the stick; we want to do something practical. That’s why we’re putting this bill forward, and I do commend it to the House. I hope we can have a useful debate and get some support. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I too want to join my parliamentary colleagues. I haven’t had a chance to acknowledge the passing of Efeso Collins, our parliamentary colleague, and him being laid to rest with great honour and dignity in Manukau today. I’m very proud that the National Party sent a significant delegation led by the Prime Minister, with our Pacific Island affairs Minister, Dr Shane Reti, and Tama Potaka, Greg Fleming, Nancy Lu, Dr Carlos Cheung, and of course the Speaker and the many, many other friends and colleagues across the other side of the House that attended today. Efeso was someone who had that unique ability, both as a person and as a politician, to walk so well in so many worlds. That is not easily achieved, and he did it with such good grace and with that big wide smile. So we’re all thinking and praying for his family and friends today. I just remember how well he articulated for his community in South Auckland in Ōtara-Papatoetoe when he used to front up to the Auckland Council as the local board chair, as a younger version of Efeso, and we used to think, “Wow, this guy’s got such a future. Who is he?”—both articulate and eloquent and passionate for the change that was required in his community. So I just wanted to remember Efeso and the great contribution he made and the big loss that he leaves the Auckland community and, in fact, New Zealand.

I stand in support of the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill, first reading. I want to acknowledge its sponsor Todd Stephenson. This of course, from memory, has been an ACT Party position for some time, and, of course, Todd goes back to the days—despite his youthful appearance—of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers just about, when I was getting around with a certain leader and he was getting around with a certain party president.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Surely he’s not that old.

So he finally gets the chance—Scott Simpson—20 or 25 years later to put this piece of legislation to the House, and he’s done such a great explanatory effort in taking us through the many parts and complexities of this bill.

Just to reiterate its purpose, the policy objective of this bill is to provide a requirement for individuals in a corrections facility to complete skills and rehabilitation programmes prior to being considered for parole. As has been indicated before, it would create a real incentive for people in a corrections facility to participate in practical, educational, and rehabilitation programmes to be better equipped with the skills to lead a much more productive and positive life upon release.

This certainly sits alongside and comfortably with the coalition Government’s justice and restoring law and order policies, which are, of course, such a big key part of our 100-day plan. Justice and law and order make up a number of those 49 points that are in our law and order policies in the 100-day plan.

And if I can just take you through, because there is an association here and it gives the public—the viewing public and listening public today—some context of how this could sit quite nicely with the suite of work that we’re already doing in the world in and around justice. If you look at what was launched at the weekend by Minister Mitchell: “Masher Mitchell” as they call him now—not “Crusher Collins”, but “Masher Mitchell”—and Goldie, colloquially known as the Hon Paul Goldsmith, introduced legislation to ban gang patches. And hasn’t that gone down so well to stop gang members gathering in public and to stop known gang offenders from communicating with each other? There has been some issue today raised that perhaps it wasn’t successful in Western Australia, but Police Commissioner Coster told the Justice Committee that the Western Australia example was working a treat and they are going to do their best to emulate it.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: He did not.

He certainly did say that. We’ve got the Hansard, Ginny Andersen; I’ll tell them about the success that the Western Australia model has had. I will send you the Hansard.

Giving police greater powers, of course, is also part of that—to search gang members for firearms. To stop taxpayer funding is also part of the suite of policies that this coalition, the Government, is putting together on section 27 of the cultural reports. To introduce legislation to crack down—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member started off well in referencing back to the bill. Can you just—

Well, I’m trying to give this some context, Madam Speaker. It’s very difficult, because I can’t just give this a passing sway, because there’s so much to get through. To give it context as to the—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s fine, but just link it back to the bill every now and again.

Well, yes, and the bill is part of this, but it’s just—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: The old trick. Just start reading it out, Cameron.

Mr Robertson, it’s just such a big programme, the law and order programme, to get through that it’s hard to stay on the bill when we’re trying to give it context with so much there.

Prison rehabilitation—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Back on track.

Prison rehabilitation programmes, Mr Simpson, play a critical role, of course, as Mr Stephenson has already said, in reducing reoffending rates. And rather than branding prisons as the “University of Crime” and focusing on reducing the prison population, regardless of how much crime is happening, this Government, this coalition Government, is confronting the real reasons behind crime and looking at rehabilitation as a key part of our success of overcoming repeated crime.

The programmes, at least, are essential—rehabilitation programmes, as this bill looks at, as far as for those that are going to be eligible for parole—for reducing the reoffending, as has been said by the sponsoring member Todd Stephenson, and key to breaking out of vicious cycles of criminal behaviour. And that’s certainly what this Government will deliver.

We are not interested in reducing the prison population by 30 percent; that’s another action point that’s been delivered. We’re getting rid of that ridiculous goal. And as the Minister of Justice presented today, his focus in the next few weeks and months is addressing the increasing violent crime in particular; in youth crime, getting on top of that; and of course the widespread delays in the court system.

So this bill of providing a requirement for individuals in a corrections facility to complete skills and rehabilitation programmes before being considered for parole is part of that suite. And the Opposition might not like to hear such a comprehensive—such a strategic—justice, law and order suite of ideas that are collectively going to add up to something—

💬 Mark Cameron: We’ve come full circle. Let’s talk about the bill.

—not just the press statements and the big announcements from the Beehive theatrette, Mark Cameron, that we heard for six years. But stuff like this is going to make a difference, Mr Stephenson. Looking at the main provisions of the bill, the clanger, I suppose, is clause 5, which inserts new section 24A in the principal Act, to require that an offender who has not completed a programme, indicated in their management plan under section 51 of the Corrections Act 2004, must not be considered for parole. It’s as black and white as that, and that’s the ACT Party, for you—black and white. Instead, the Parole Board must set a new date by which the offender must be considered for parole, which must not be more than 12 months after the date that they were due to be considered for parole, in order to provide time for the offender to compete the relevant programme.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Keep going. Skip the big words. Just do one more clause and then he will have filled it up.

And so Mr Robertson wants me to keep going for 40 seconds, and I never thought in my wildest dreams that he’d ask me to speak for another 40 seconds. I’ve got 34 seconds now, and we could go on. We could go on about fiscal cliffs and all sorts of unrelated things. We could go on about the crisis in the health sector and the crisis in the education sector that he left us and the economic fiscal cliffs and everything else, but we won’t; we’ll get back to the bill. I want to finish as I began. I pay tribute to member Stephenson for bringing this to the House. And it’s a suite of policies that we’re so proud of.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the chance to say a few words about this Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill. I’m not going to take quite so long as the member who’s has just resumed his seat, Cameron Brewer, unfortunately—unfortunately—and I know that pains you; I know.

💬 Hon Andrew Bayly: Come on!

I know, Mr Bayly—I know, Mr Bayly—I know it’s a disappointment to you.

But I do want to start my contribution by acknowledging the member Todd Stephenson, and I don’t think that the member would mind me also saying that I would like to acknowledge Toni Severin, the member whose name this bill used to be under, because I know that despite the fact that you were the lucky one that had it drawn from the tin, this was something that she was incredibly passionate about and had done a lot of work on. So I acknowledge Toni for her work.

The bill, as has been said, makes it mandatory for prisoners to complete rehabilitation programmes before they can be considered for parole. This change would better support their endeavours to then gain employment post-prison, which is obviously a good thing.

So let me put the member Todd Stephenson out of his misery—which is not to suggest that he’s miserable; he’s quite a jovial person, I’ve always found—and say that Labour will be supporting this bill to the select committee. [Applause] Aw, gosh! But why are we going to support this bill? In all seriousness, we’re going to support this bill because it actually is congruent with Labour’s work to support people into work and to support people into work through gaining those skills that they need and gaining that development and supporting people through a rehabilitation process, because that’s a really major factor in reducing reoffending. And so we agree with you on that.

The proof of the bill will be in the pudding, as well, and I do have to raise a couple of caveats. Corrections funds rehabilitation and prison-educated programmes, as the member will know. And with 6.5 percent cuts looming over the service, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to say that we certainly have some concerns as to how these pathways will continue to be funded sufficiently to support prisoners to be considered for parole, because it’s incredibly important that that process isn’t unduly interrupted.

In the briefing to the incoming Minister in 2023, Corrections stated that they have faced some pressures retaining and recruiting staff, and I don’t think that’s a situation that we’re unaware of. These pressures have impacts on the provision of those services in prisons, including access to rehabilitation and education programmes and training.

Corrections has also noted that the capacity of prisons depends on both physical capacity and also staffing capacity to ensure those appropriate ratios are in place. So with prisoners having to complete rehabilitative programmes prior to parole, and challenges to those sorts of staffing resources, we do have to pose the question: will appropriate ratios be in place to increase the delivery of rehabilitation programmes? So that is something that we will—as I said, we’re happy to support this through to select committee; that is the appropriate place to pose those questions, to gather information about that, and to pose those potential risks and follow through.

So given these challenges to resources, I think it’s fair to say we have some concerns that parole could be denied due to Corrections resources rather than just the merits of the parole application. But we are keen to learn more, and for that reason we commend this bill to the House.

[Ginny Andersen prepares to take the call] Oh, I think it’s me, Ginny Andersen. [Bell rung] But kia ora, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ooh, sorry—I pushed the wrong thing; I meant to push the mike mute.

Ha, ha! That five minutes flew by! Look, Tracey McLellan’s let the cat out of the bag—

💬 Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, did you want to do that?

No, but we do want to see this go to select committee. But I’m aware that, you know, always—and I think I can say this on this sad day—some of our colleagues aren’t here and they would want to express some reservations. Tracey McLellan has already spoken about the resourcing constraints in prisons. The Corrections annual review was had recently and we asked questions around resourcing. In particular, I asked questions around statutory prison visits—prison visits which are required by law to be provided once a week. I have since asked further questions, and resources are so constrained in Corrections that 12 out of the 18 prisons are not giving the legal entitlement of a visit a week. So that’s the kind of constraints we’re under.

There’s also, in the Corrections Act, a requirement to provide a management plan, which is mentioned in the member’s bill. Of course, those management plans do have programmes, which might be drug and alcohol programmes, or there might be simple things like obtaining a driver’s licence, or literacy, or whatever it might be. Now, that’s all well and good, and I absolutely endorse the sentiment of the member in saying that we want prisoners to embark upon those programmes. My real concern is that the programmes will be set out in a management plan and the prisoner will not complete them—not because they don’t want to but because the resources to provide them, or to supervise them, are not available.

Now, if there are failings in our corrections system—and it’s clear there are some failings at the present time—those failings should not result in someone being denied parole. If an offender is told that they should do a violence and anger management plan as a part of their rehabilitative process and they say, “No. I can’t be bothered. I don’t want to.”, or, “I didn’t do the offence, and I’m not going to embark on any rehabilitation.”, then I can see the, you know, sensible approach of this bill. It’s a corrections facility after all—we want people to correct their ways, and rehabilitation programmes are an appropriate and legitimate part of that. A refusal of someone to embark on that should absolutely be relevant at the very least—and it is, in a parole hearing. This bill elevates that to say that it’s mandatory. I’m prepared to have that discussion at the Justice Committee. But what I would not want to see is someone who is ready to be put back into the community but hasn’t done a rehabilitative programme—not because they don’t want to but because the resources aren’t there.

So at the very least, when this comes to select committee, we’ve got to (a) be confident that this isn’t just flag waving, that it really can make a concrete change operationally. It’s always a challenge for the programme of this Government to make sure that all of the things, that all the ways they want to change the world, can be changed with the resources we have at our disposal. Secondly, for those prisoners—and there are some; I’ve spoken to them—who want to have a rehabilitative programme but Corrections don’t have the resources to provide it, that they’re not punished, not continued to be incarcerated simply because Corrections can’t provide them the service that they need, that they deserve, and that they’re entitled to.

So with those caveats—there’s going to be, you know, significant discussion at select committee. But with those caveats, we are going to vote for this bill in the Labour Party and I look forward to those discussions at select committee.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this member’s bill, the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill.

First, I’d just like to say towards Todd Stephenson, for getting this bill picked out of the cookie jar—how we all wish for that happen for all of us. It is a good bill to be pulled out, and we fully agree—New Zealand First does—that this should be put to the Justice Committee. We believe that that is the right direction for this.

We are aware that prisoners on release, they face barriers—many barriers—back into society. Why wouldn’t we want to try to upskill, and why wouldn’t we try to promote programmes? You would have to ask yourself: in the situation, if they have the opportunity to upskill and to do rehab, why wouldn’t someone take that offer on? From New Zealand First’s point of view, we’re a party of common sense. It makes common sense that if you’re in that situation, you would take the opportunity to try to improve your life.

I always look at it from a simple point of view. I always look at it from the victim’s point of view. If a victim has been a victim of crime and someone’s been put away and they’ve been locked up—if the victim could actually look and see that someone’s making an effort to try to change their life, that actually makes you feel better. That actually makes you feel like someone is trying to put in the effort. The one thing—it’s been new for myself sitting on the Justice Committee—

💬 James Meager: Great committee.

It is a great committee. We’ve got a great chair—

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha! Don’t go that far.

💬 Hon Member: Very good—very good.

We’ve got a very good committee. But the Department of Corrections came and spoke to us recently, and, in their report—and it was quite surprising going through their report that went through the facilities that are around New Zealand. What really surprised me as a new member was seeing the opportunities, and the opportunities for upskilling and education. I remember asking the Department of Corrections some questions about the uptake, and the uptake of prisoners doing those courses. That uptake, for most, is pretty high. I did ask: how could we do more? How could we incentivise that more so we get more progress? Some programmes—I was told—work better than others.

One of my portfolios for New Zealand First is horticulture. It was quite interesting hearing that that is a programme that has great uptake. Carpentry—something that this country has a deficit of, at the moment, in our building industry. So why don’t we teach it? It makes common sense to me that people have the opportunity to take on those courses and to come out and actually then be able to go back into society and find a job. I think this is something about this side of the House, and this Government—we want to see people back into work. If we can encourage people back into work and give them the skills, that is going to be something that is great for New Zealand, and something that is great for the person that is involved, because they feel like they have achieved something.

It is also, as we know, building people’s education around literacy and numeracy—if we can upskill those basic skills while someone is in this situation and they can come out and be more upskilled.

The one thing that I did take from the bill—and I did want to speak to it, and I didn’t want to take the fame for it—was new section 24A, inserted by clause 5. In this, it has, at subsection 3, that if people actually do these courses and upskill themselves, there’s an incentive—parole can actually be brought forward. That is amazing, and that’s the type of stuff that we need to encourage.

New Zealand First will support this to the first reading and beyond. Justice Committee—we look forward to hearing it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. This is a really nice bill for ACT. I’m quite impressed. So good on you. [Interruption] Good on you. I’m being nice; this is a great bill. We like it. It’s a good bill.

It is good to take a look at what is happening in our prisons and to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to stop people reoffending, and the Labour Party fully supports that approach. As already outlined by previous members, it’s really important to know that we can do this. So the issue that we have is the proposed 6.5 percent cut to all Government departments, which includes Corrections. That is a real concern in terms of how this bill will deliver upon what it sets out to be able to do.

We’re proud that when we were in Government, we made mental health treatment, family violence counselling services, and alcohol and drug treatment all much more readily available right across prisons in New Zealand. And that’s part of an approach that we’re proud of having implemented over the time that we were in Government. We’re really happy to have a conversation about how that can be extended in order to stop people from reoffending and to break that cycle of crime.

In particular, I’d be really interested when the bill comes to the Justice Committee to have a conversation about Hōkai Rangi, which was the Corrections strategy specifically for working with iwi and Māori. Given the fact that Māori are disproportionately represented within our criminal justice system and in the prison population, making up close to half of it in some areas, we think that this bill is also an opportunity to talk about how those specific rehabilitative programmes can specifically assist te Iwi Māori to reduce the recidivism rate and to enable te Iwi Māori to receive those rehabilitation programmes that actually meet their needs under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So I commend ACT on being so progressive in identifying some of these great opportunities to work together collectively to reduce the number of offenders and to make sure that, by doing that, we also reduce the number of victimisations that New Zealand sees.

It’s really important that we think about how we reintegrate prisoners, and a big part of that is the programmes and the opportunities that are available when people are within the prison system. So this bill clearly fits within Labour’s work to support people into work through gaining skills and development, and to address some of those underlying drivers of crime, which cause people to reoffend in our criminal justice system, and big ones in that space would be alcohol, drugs, and family violence. To have those areas addressed, alongside mental health, are factors we think would contribute to stopping people reoffending.

We know that a lack of work experience and education can make getting a job after prison a real struggle. In 2016, Corrections estimated that around 65 percent of the prison population had literacy levels that were below NCEA level 1. So that’s an area we’re happy to collaborate on to make sure we get some improvements. Corrections also found that 48 percent of Pākehā are below NCEA level 1 competency and 62 of Māori and Pasifika are below that level. So making sure that people have the skills that enable them to receive meaningful employment and to reintegrate once they leave prison is a great thing to be working on.

In the briefing to the incoming Minister, Corrections stated that they’re facing real pressures in recruiting and retaining staff. We know that this is a big issue for Corrections, so we are really keen to understand, if this bill does proceed to a third and final reading, how it’s going to actually be implemented. And a warning—that I think has already been made—is that we would not want to see a failure of resourcing stopping someone from receiving their treatment if they accept it, and we would not want anyone to be prevented from having a fair right of being reviewed by the Parole Board. So we would not want to see this being prohibitive if the resources were not in place to enable that person to receive treatment if they wanted to receive it.

Apologies, Mr Speaker, for calling you “Mr Chair”. We’ve spent so much time in committee stage in urgency that I’m out of practice.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): At this late stage on a Thursday afternoon, we’re very forgiving.

Thank you. Mr Speaker. Look, first of all, I want to congratulate Todd Stephenson on bringing this here today, and I acknowledge, of course, that he was a lawyer in the great city of Dunedin and went to the fabulous University of Otago Law School about the same time as the current speaker. So good times were had.

On the topic of Dunedin and rehabilitation, I have grown up in a family where my parents, and my father in particular, have been very committed to the idea of the importance of rehabilitation and working with people so that they can have another—and better—go at life, and that often there’s a whole lot of reasons and complexities for why somebody ends up incarcerated. My father, when I was growing up, was a regular visitor to the prisons and was also involved over 30 years ago in establishing Moana House, which is mainly known for being a residential programme to rehabilitate men, mainly Māori and Pasifika men, who mainly have drug issues and have been in the justice system. It works well. Of course, it doesn’t always work perfectly but it’s a very impressive programme. They have other programmes as well.

In no way am I across the detail of all of the work that they do, except to say that I’ve seen and talked to many of the people who have been part of that programme, and it’s incredibly powerful and impressive and the results that they get are good for the whole community, not only those men and their families but everybody who then comes in to interact with somebody who’s been through it and who can then go and contribute to society, contribute to their own family, and have a much better sense of themselves. During the election campaign, I was standing for the seat of Dunedin. I went to visit some of the people in this programme, as did members from across this House—both sides of the House—and had some of the most interesting conversations I had during the campaign. So I just cannot say enough how much I support the importance of rehabilitation and education for people who have been incarcerated.

In saying that, I’ll now go to the bill and note that it’s a very short bill. A member—Tim Costley—complained before about the bills being short, but sometimes short bills are very elegant. And Todd Stephenson has talked already about the mechanism that will be used with the management plans and how that works with the rehabilitative programmes. “Rehabilitative programmes” is defined in the Corrections Act 2004, so we don’t see it on the bill in front of us, but that means a programme designed to reduce reoffending by facilitating the rehabilitation of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment and their reintegration into society. That seems important. It includes any “medical, psychological, social, therapeutic, cultural, educational, employment-related rehabilitative or reintegrative”—that’s not a word I’ve come across before, I don’t think—“programme.” That is a wide definition, so there are many different programmes that will be able to be used when the management plan is being considered.

Of course, I agree with my colleagues as well. I think there was a very important caveat from Dr Duncan Webb about the importance that these programmes are well funded, and my colleague Ginny Andersen also expressed concern around that 6.5 percent cut that is happening to Corrections. And we would not want the lack of funding for rehabilitation to get in the way of somebody being paroled. I also want to commend my colleague Ginny Andersen’s speech just before, when she went into some description of the work that has been done in this area recently and the research that shows the importance of these programmes as well. So I think that the select committee will have a good discussion around the bill.

It’s very fitting that I’m able to stand and contribute to this bill, because just this afternoon we were in the Petitions Committee and we heard two petitioners who wanted to make an impact in this space. One was asking that remand prisoners’ time in prison be limited, and the other petition was to enable rehabilitation to occur even for prisoners in remand.

This is a space that has been largely left unattended, and, over time, we see that so many offenders are in this space, in remand. In the Justice Committee, we have gone through an overview of the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections, and the fact that the number of prisoners—whether in youth facilities or in Corrections facilities—are so many, and that the time that they spend there is considerable: over one year, sometimes close to two years. So this bill is timely. It’s important; it addresses a concern for many and it gives hope for rehabilitation. I commend the member, Todd Stephenson, for being the member to bring this bill into the House. It is a very much-needed amendment.

So the bill seeks to bring in, through clause 4, a definition of what a “rehabilitative programme” is. Through clause 5, it requires that offenders who have not done a rehabilitative programme be considered as ineligible for parole; but, conversely, for the Parole Board to then say to them that if they’re able to do a programme within the next 12 months, then that would be the best thing. Clause 6 also establishes a very strong incentive for offenders in that space, in that once they complete a rehabilitative programme, they would then become eligible for parole.

The object of this bill is to reduce re-offending. Reducing re-offending takes many forms, but what we are trying to achieve here is to reduce the vulnerability of the offenders in this space by giving them skills—life skills—that they could use as they exit Corrections, and whether they go on parole or complete sentences at the end and leave, they would then have opportunities to get back into life and have a potential opportunity for being able to get back on a path to improving their lives.

Every time there is re-offending, there is re-victimisation, and we want to reduce that opportunity and break that cycle as well. The impacts are great. We will reduce the prison population in the process, we will give people opportunities to improve themselves, and ensure that victimisation is itself reduced.

I would like to spend the last few seconds of my call to say that my heart goes out to the wife and daughters of Efeso and that they be courageous at this time.

Thank you. I’d like to begin where you ended in that tribute to Efeso Collins. I did know him rather well and it’s been hard to be in the House today, rather than up in Auckland, but I paid my respects on Monday. I join the House, I think, in thinking very much that this was a man who loved his family and who doesn’t get to see his children grow up and they don’t get to have him there any more, and that’s the bit that means the most to me in the situation.

I’d also like to pay my respects to the member who’s brought this bill to the House, Todd Stephenson, but also to my friend Toni Severin, who I was on a course with that was all about understanding this place and using it better. One of the lessons that I think we both learnt was the power of something that crossed across the House and was bipartisan.

Now, this is a piece of legislation that is, at heart—and Toni has a good heart—about rehabilitation and not abandoning people, and supporting people when they are willing to make a move. I think that we all agree with that purpose. We might have some gnarly bits to work through in the select committee, but I think we’re all prepared to do that.

My own concern is wider than this. I think that there is always a tendency in these areas to look at punishment—and there is a place for punishment in the prison situation, because there are victims, but there is a much greater place for making sure that people who have lost their way and hurt people, often as a consequence, are not going to hurt people in the future, and to find a way. I’d love some of the work that needs to be done around that discussed at the select committee. For example, I’d love to see—and I’m not sure if it’s in scope—us look at the capacity to bring rehabilitation in as an offering to people on remand, because they sit on remand, at the present time, for far too long, lost and without those opportunities.

We know our prison population suffer a lot from illiteracy. They’re illiterate, often, and they’re also suffering from things like ADHD. They’ve often had trauma. They’ve often had violence in their past. So anything that can be done to actually examine that and to offer solutions, I think, I am fully in support of and I think we could be liberal with the way this bill was developed. It is absolutely important that we put in the resourcing.

So it is a challenge in a time when there are parts being looked at to make sure that we don’t—we don’t—undercut this, because this actually ends up, even in a cost-benefit analysis, as being incredibly important that we actually make sure that people who go through our prison system do not go out and reoffend, and that they do not become people who are unable to find work. The parole system is partly set up to do that. This seems to be a complement to it, if done sensibly. We obviously also have to look beyond the time of parole, because then people are in the situation where they haven’t got the same supports in place.

I, for one, am aware that there has been a member’s bill about extending the clean-slate principle so that people on minor crimes actually have the capacity to work. But we also have to recognise that when people have committed offences, we also need those people not to be for ever in a situation where they can’t get in to high-paid work. It’s so important to society that we bridge that gap and that we don’t continually punish people in that area by a form of hopelessness that is low-paid work.

So I see this bill as something that provides a starting point for an important conversation. I look forward to the Justice Committee working as much as they can in a bipartisan way on this bill. This week has been a really hard one for the Labour Party in this House. We found the smoke-free legislation really difficult. It has been one of those things which really hurt a lot of people. But this is, at least, a good way of healing this House on this day, which is our last day in Parliament this week. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to stand and speak in support of the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill, first reading, in the name of Todd Stephenson. And congratulations to Todd—a first-term MP having his bill drawn from the biscuit tin. Luck was in his favour that day. Congratulations, Todd—great to be speaking in support of this bill to the select committee stage on behalf of the National Party.

On this side of the House, we believe in a couple of things with our prisoners when they go to prison: (1) the first priority must always be to the victims and their families. And understanding the process that prisoners go through, both as a time of understanding the crimes that they committed, taking learnings from what they have done, but also preparing to reintegrate them back into society so that they can contribute to our community. That’s what this bill is sort of proposing to do. Prisoners, as we know, face many barriers to gaining employment post their release from prison, such as poor literacy, numeracy, and educational underachievement. This results in many offenders unfortunately falling back into criminal activity. And that sees them back within a corrections facility. This bill is proposing to change that to get them a better shot when they come back out from prison and out of the corrections facility.

Now, the National Party is supporting this to the select committee stage because we’re interested to hear the feedback that we receive from the industry groups and firsthand from the general public. I understand, having sat on the Justice Committee for a few hours today—made a guest appearance—that that committee, with great representation from across the House, will piece together this bill and look to adjust it as they see fit to make it the most fit for purpose bill in law we can possibly have.

This bill does create an incentive for people in corrections facilities to participate in practical, educational, and rehabilitation programmes—[Member sneezes] bless you—and to be better equipped with skills to lead a more productive life upon release. We agree that the broad aims of this bill do align with what the National Party believes on this side of the House. We want to be tough and crack down on the causes of crime, but, at the same time, we also want to have strong and thorough rehabilitative programmes in place for prisoners to prepare them for release. The paramount consideration of the Parole Board when considering someone for release is the safety of the community. We must always have the community at front of mind when the Parole Board meets to make their decision on whether someone is prepared to be returned to the community. A prisoner’s engagement in rehabilitation is one of the most significant factors for that consideration.

I acknowledge we are coming up to nearly 6 p.m. on a Thursday evening, and my colleagues, whilst hard-working, are ready for an opportunity to return to their local electorates. So what I simply want to say is, on this side of the House, the National Party is supporting this to the Justice Committee. We’re looking forward to seeing the public feedback and the work the select committee does on it, and we look forward to seeing it when it comes back to the House for further debate. Thank you.

In reply—Todd Stephenson.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to everyone in the House. I’m feeling a sense of a collaboration here on this final day of the week, and I want to thank everyone for the spirit and thank them for their contributions. To the Government members who spoke in relation to the bill: Cameron, Jamie, Paulo, and Tom—I want to thank you for your comments and your support. Yes, you have nailed the intent of what we are trying to do here. It’s something to actually help out people in our criminal justice system.

I particularly liked Jamie’s comments, actually, around how if victims can see their offenders actually making a difference, what that would actually do to victims and how that might help some of the healing process.

I was actually lucky enough, earlier in the week, to talk to another great man who hails from Dunedin—he’s no longer there—Sir Ron Young, who’s actually the chair of the New Zealand Parole Board. He reached out to me and generously gave me some of his time to give me some of his thoughts. He talked about the fact that the Parole Board is doing some of this victim-offender rehabilitation work. I think, again, there could be some things we can learn there.

I also want to thank the Opposition members. Firstly, I just actually want to thank them for showing up today and providing the entire Opposition. I know you’ve been stretched across select committees and here in the House all day, and I know you’ve, obviously, been helping out the other parties that couldn’t be here today, so I do want to acknowledge that.

Then, I want to thank some of the members who did speak: Dr Tracey McLellan—again, she acknowledged Toni Severin’s role, as did Helen White. Again, I do want to thank Toni. I think that they were both very generous about their comments in relation to Toni, and Helen even saying—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Can I just remind you, before you go through the whole of the House using first names, the tradition is to use full names here.

Sorry, Mr Speaker; you’re right.

💬 Hon Member: Give the list again.

No, I won’t do that. But the member Helen White was very generous in her thanks to Toni, and even referred to an ACT MP having heart, which is very nice.

I do note that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the Hon Ginny Andersen, the Hon Rachel Brooking, and the other colleagues I’ve already spoken about did point out some of the issues we may face, and I want to be upfront and acknowledge that. We actually heard today, when we were in the Justice Committee, about court delays that could play a part in this, because if prisoners aren’t getting their court dates, they’re spending time on remand, etc. There are a lot of issues.

I also totally accept what was said about Corrections. Again, it is, like many Government departments, one that is having trouble recruiting and retaining staff. So I do want to acknowledge those issues, and I think they correctly identified some of the things that we can discuss at the select committee. I think, actually—and I know the chair of the select committee very well, James Meager—there might be an opportunity here for the select committee to go out and see some of these rehabilitation programmes, and, yeah, find out how it’s going and how it will work on the ground, because I do think the devil is going to be in the detail here, and how it will be implemented.

💬 Hon Simon Watts: What about the Hon Andrew Bayly?

Sorry. In a word, well, I would like to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Bayly. [Interruption]

Let me finish this off because I’ve only got a minute and I’m sure we want to get out of here. So, look, I think we can address some of these concerns in the select committee. I think that we can have a robust and productive discussion, and let’s actually do something to, hopefully, enhance our criminal justice system, with all those caveats and concerns in place. Thank you.

The question is, That the Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.