Parole Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Parole Amendment Bill.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Members, as I said, the House is in committee on the Parole Amendment Bill. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a brief note from me, as much as anything, acknowledging that we’ve had already a bit of discussion by way of the first and second reading debates. Actually, within that, there was a bit of interaction whereby questions, effectively, were asked on this side and answered subsequently by the Minister and others who were able to represent the Government’s position. So I don’t feel the need to interrogate those same matters again.

I would be interested to know whether the Minister could just explain, because I think it would be helpful, given that we are doing this urgently, albeit technically not in urgency, because the Business Committee—the Parliament as a whole—has agreed for this quick process. So the question to the Minister is does he understand just how quickly this law will be not only passed in here but also in effect. I know that’s quite a gnarly, technical issue, and we don’t usually worry about such things particularly, because we know it might be the day after Royal assent or on a particular calendar date that a bill becomes an Act and enforceable and effective. But in this case, obviously, it’s a matter of some importance, and that’s why we’re reacting quickly. So any guidance that the Minister can give us in that regard would be helpful.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it would just be useful for the Minister to just go on the record to respond to each of the points raised by the AttorneyGeneral when he went through that, and the questions that have been raised, such as: does he believe that this legislation that we’re passing imposes a second penalty on these 26 providers, and, if not, why not?

In terms of retrospectivity, in the sense that the bill goes back and changes the law in effect for how it has been imposed over the last little while, does he think that that’s justified, and, if so, why?

The next question, about the right to a lesser penalty, when the penalty changes after the offence is committed—that’s another point that’s been raised. Ultimately, Parliament has decided that these people have served out their sentence, but Parliament in its wisdom has decided that public safety requires an ongoing level of supervision. I’d like to just hear from the Minister how he justifies that, and why he thinks it’s necessary.

The next one’s around freedom of movement, and peaceful assembly. You know, there are restrictions that are imposed under this regime. They can’t just wander around as they see fit, and have freedom of movement. So that has been curtailed. Again, I’d like to hear from the Minister as to why he thinks that is justified.

In terms of arbitrary detention—that’s another thing that’s been raised by Mr Parker—again, does he believe this is detention? We think this is being done ultimately for the benefit not just of the community but of the perpetrator, or the person that is under parole conditions. I think even the most lost offender in this area ultimately doesn’t want to be doing the offending in the long term, so is it something for their benefit or not, and is it detention or not? So I think that’s an appropriate thing.

The final one is around natural justice. At review, are these 26 people going to get a fair shot when the parole goes to consider them again? So I’ll be interested in hearing from the Minister on that to reassure the committee that he thinks it’s justified. My sense, and our sense in supporting this legislation, is that those challenges to the human rights of these people affected are justified, and that’s the nature of our support for it.

The final thing we did raise in the first reading speech—I would just like to get clarity in terms of the time line from the Minister around how this occurred. The regulatory impact statement refers to a court decision in 2001, I think, raising issues with this regime, which led to the Parole Board asking for the declaratory judgment. I’d just like the Minister to confirm that, or just identify at what point were serious concerns raised with him, and the ministry—either justice or corrections—around the effectiveness of the regime. Again, there’s no point being difficult about all this, but just maybe give us some insight into the thinking or preparations made as we were waiting for the declaratory judgment.

As it has turned out, it seems like we have over the last past two months avoided a serious problem, and we’re pleased that that’s the case.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the Minister. Within his second speech, he clarified why this was being bought urgently through Parliament today and that we weren’t going to have a select committee process where people could submit.

The reason why I’m standing to ask is because many New Zealanders over the last wee while have been concerned that they have been excluded. However, this is one bill that I would like to point out to New Zealanders why these could be excluded, and to have the Minister then explain why we have come to this point, to where this bill has come to us at the committee of the whole House, to pass it all at once. So that way, people out of the Parliament understand why there are needs to bring things like these bills in urgency, where the select committee process can be diverted and where most members of the House here are happy for this to be brought to this stage.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just try to address the issues raised. First of all, to Chris Penk’s question about when does this come into effect, it does come into effect today. This also goes to Toni Severin’s question as to why we have to do things quickly. If there is any sort of delay to this bill passing, then it does give the opportunity for anybody on an extended supervision order (ESO) to go out into the community, because they would have that amount of time, be it 24 hours, be it a week—well, obviously not a week, because Parliament is rising. If we didn’t do this, then they would have that opportunity. We just want to mitigate any possible chance that somebody on an extended supervision order can say, “Oh well, my programme conditions don’t apply, and I’m free to wander out in the community”. So that is the issue around the urgency.

Around Paul Goldsmith’s question about if the regime is, in effect, a detention. Well, the ESO regime by its very nature is a post-sentence order, and has, therefore, consistently been found to constitute a second penalty, contrary to section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But this bill does not fundamentally alter this position. I don’t propose that the bill be amended to address those matters, as the intention was to make the minimum changes necessary to urgently respond to the High Court judgment. There is a risk that making any further changes than what is proposed will create unintended consequences and legislative inconsistencies within the Parole Act 2002.

In terms of the time line, a judgment was first made in 2021. The Parole Board and the Department of Corrections wanted to get some clarity around that. The judgment came out at the end of June. As I said in my first and, I think, second reading speeches, officials did have to look into what the ramifications of the decision were. They had to seek advice from experts to separate out the people that someone on an ESO can live with and to make that different from somebody who could provide the programmes. Operationally, it was just going to take too long, and, again, it would just provide more time for people on the ESOs to ignore them or, basically, wander free in the community. Again, as a Parliament, I think all of us find that unconscionable. We just could not take that risk.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Parole Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

According to a determination of the Business Committee, the bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading