Young Jonathan: Parole Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Parole Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:878. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I look forward to that—especially from you! Can I just say congratulations to my colleague the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga on his work and his promotion to the corrections role and also to Carmel Sepuloni on her re-election back into the House. I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill the Parole Amendment Bill. The bill proposes a number of amendments to the Parole Act 2002. The explanatory note states that they are “to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings but not to increase the length of time offenders spend in prison.” and improve efficiency by simplifying pre-hearing processes and clarifying when an offender’s attendance at a parole hearing is required. The proposed changes do not affect the earliest date at which an offender would become eligible for parole nor the actual length of an offender’s sentence.What the bill does is provide for increases in the maximum interval between parole reviews and the maximum duration of a postponement order. The bill provides that if the Parole Board declines to release an offender on parole it must ordinarily specify a date within the following 2 years for the offender’s next parole review instead of every year as is currently the case. There is also a provision for the board to identify relevant activities—which as the member Carmel Sepuloni stated has been changed from that former term “milestones”—relating to the risk the offender poses to community safety for the offender to achieve before the next hearing. If the offender achieves these early the case can be brought forward.We are putting victims at the heart of the justice system and delivering on our promises. Our plans to reduce unnecessary parole hearings for offenders will reduce stress for victims of crime. Victims of crime should not have to face the very stressful prospect of parole hearings year after year when an offender is clearly not safe to be released into the community and has made little or no effort at rehabilitation. Each year there are about 5000 parole hearings. On average offenders have three hearings before being granted parole. Added to this the bill provides that a victim offender or other authorised person can attend a parole hearing remotely such as via video link or phone. Our changes are to bring efficiency into the system and also to protect the victims from ongoing trauma when it is unnecessary for this to happen. Our changes will provide strong incentives for prisoners to address their offending behaviour and that is a good thing.Just before I close all prisoners have education screening with individual learning plans designed for them now. The number of prisoners gaining qualifications has increased by 830 percent up from 197 in 2008-09 to 1833 in 2012-13. Almost 3000 prisoners have started literacy and numeracy programmes in the financial year 2013-14 up 155 percent compared with 2007-08 and there has been an almost 1500 percent increase in places on drug and alcohol treatment programmes available for prisoners since 2008. There is every opportunity for prisoners to engage meaningfully in a rehabilitation process that enables them to receive their parole hearings. So not only will this prevent the unnecessary trauma or the revictimisation—nearly—of victims through that ongoing year-by-year parole basis but it also puts an onus upon prisoners to engage in that rehabilitation process in order to qualify for those parole reviews. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.