O'Rourke Denis: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:869. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First supports both of these two bills. The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is relatively straightforward and makes two common-sense changes. It allows existing extended supervision orders to be renewed as often as is needed and the current 10-year limitation will go. And it means that the Act will now cover high-risk sex offenders against adults and also very high-risk violent offenders. There are some more minor amendments that include court-controlled rather than Parole Board - intensive monitoring of offenders for the first 12 months and it also clarifies the criteria to ensure that only the highest-risk offenders are eligible for these orders which would then allow them to live in the community under strict supervision but with the protection of mandatory court reviews.The Law and Order Committee recommended including in clause 12 of the bill a list of behavioural characteristics of an eligible violent offender indicative of a “severe disturbance in behavioural functioning”—and New Zealand First supports that—so that the courts will have the guidance needed in making an order noting the specific context for an extended supervision order as distinct from a public protection order.New Zealand First will also continue to support the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill—a bit of a mouthful—which includes a rather more complex set of important amendments. I want to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its detailed work in making the alterations that it has recommended and for the collaborative effort that was made in that committee.The bill achieves a very difficult balance between protecting citizens from serious sexual or violent harm and the right of those affected to be subject to the least restrictive form of detention that is practicable. It also will ensure adequate oversight of detention through regular reviews by a review panel and the High Court independent inspector and Ombudsman visits and an annual report to Parliament. These orders will incorporate the key safeguards necessary for a civil committal regime and will successfully observe the principles stated clearly in the Act.Firstly public protection orders are not about further punishing offenders—and I disagree with my friend Mr Clendon about that—and the offence is to be only one of several factors that are relevant to assessing whether there is a very high risk of imminent sexual or violent offending. Secondly a protection order should be imposed only if the magnitude of the risk posed by the respondent justifies it. Thirdly an order should not be imposed on a person who is eligible to be detained under mental health legislation. Fourthly and lastly persons who are detained in a residence should have as much autonomy and quality of life as possible. There must be an assessment as to whether a subject poses a high risk of serious sexual violent offending requiring the application to be supported by at least two psychologists’ and/or psychiatrists’ reports. The court may also call for a report by a health assessor and a respondent can also request such a report. I think that these are very good safeguards and very appropriate.The crux is that there must be proof of whether an order is necessary and the court must not find that there is a very high risk of further offending unless it is satisfied that the respondent exhibits a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of specified characteristics to a high level. The select committee has added an amendment clarifying that the standard of proof is to be the balance of probabilities. As this is a civil process that standard is appropriate. The select committee also inserted new clause 96A to provide for the suspension of proceedings while the person detained is detained in a mental facility or prison. It is correct that a public protection order and application should be suspended rather than discontinued if a respondent is subsequently detained in a prison or under mental health or intellectual disability legislation.Concerning the review provisions the select committee also added new clauses to require a court reviewing a public protection order to consider whether the subject still poses a very high risk of imminent sexual or violent offending taking into account the reports provided to the court. New clause 17(2B) provides that if the court finds that the person no longer poses a very high risk it must make a finding to that effect. To clarify the process that would then apply clause 80(1) requires the court to cancel the public protection order and impose a protective supervision order on the person. New clause 80(1B) would require the person to be released from detention as soon as practicable after a protective supervision order was imposed.Amongst the other changes introduced by the select committee I am gratified to see new clause 124B which inserts a section into the Legal Services Act to make any proceedings under the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act a specified application thus making it easier to access legal aid than is the case for standard civil proceedings. That was something that I was particularly keen on in the select committee and I am glad to see it has been incorporated.Another welcome addition to the bill amends clause 31 to allow a resident to receive visits from permitted persons subject to any conditions or restrictions imposed by the resident’s manager. One clause will permit a visit to be unsupervised if the resident’s manager considers it would meet the resident’s rehabilitative needs. Another subclause exempts visits by inspectors office holders or of course a resident’s lawyer. New clause 56(1A) requires a resident’s manager not to allow a person under the age of 18 to visit a resident unless the visit is likely to meet the resident’s rehabilitative needs. So there is a good balance there between rehabilitative needs and an appropriate detention regime.There are numerous other additions and amendments made by the select committee such as those relating to searches. One of the most important I think is the new section relating to escape from lawful custody. New clause 124A adds a new provision to the Crimes Act 1961 making it an offence for a person subject to a public protection order to escape from a residence. This would allow of course police to apprehend and arrest anyone who escaped from such a residence. That was quite a big omission from the original bill and it is very important that it be included.It is to be emphasised that the person subject to a public protection order is not being punished and that a public protection order is for public protection purposes. As such a resident in a detention facility has the rights of a person of full capacity. Specific rights of residents include retention of earnings from permitted employment the right to vote to get newspapers to have internet access to use written communications and to receive permitted visitors. So these are not people without rights. They will have their freedoms severely limited but it is not like being in prison. There is a good balance there I think. The bill provides for inspections of residents at least twice a year. An inspector can arrive unannounced at any time to make an inspection.Finally the bill confers jurisdiction on the court to order that a person be detained in a prison instead of a residence if the court is satisfied that the person detained would pose an unacceptably high risk to themselves or others. There would be very few cases where that would be necessary but that is a very important part of the bill.Overall New Zealand First welcomes both of these bills which we think are needed to fill a gap in the law a gap that the public sees as an important issue and believes should be filled. I think these two pieces of legislation are well drafted. Again I commend the select committees that have amended and improved them and what we have now is some good legislation which meets public expectations and is well balanced in terms of personal rights as opposed to the need for public protection. New Zealand First will welcome both pieces of legislation and will certainly continue to support them through the whole process.