Newman Muriel: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Newman Muriel: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10204] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT party on the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. I would like to start by saying what a risk repeat child sex offenders are to society. They strike fear into the hearts of parents up and down the country. It would be one’s worst nightmare to know that a repeat child sex offender had moved into the neighbourhood and was being unsupervised. If repeat child sex offenders are released and are in our communities up and down the country we have to say that parents are justified in not wanting their children to walk home from school any more and in not wanting their teenagers to be out at night roaming the streets any more. At the moment we do not know where these offenders are but what we do know is that every so often they offend and when they offend it is a terrible tragedy.  
This bill would be welcomed by Parliament in general because it seems to signal that the Government is addressing a real problem in our communities. It sounds like a bill that actually will protect children. When we read the bill we see that when such offenders are released from prison they will be on home detention for 12 months and monitored for 10 years. So on the face of it it sounds good but I have to say that this is typical Labour Party spin. It is flimflam. If we look beneath the surface of this bill we find that there is no substance to it. It is simply fine words to make New Zealanders think the Government cares when there are no teeth in this bill that will keep those sex offenders off the streets and children safe. It is very disturbing to be an Opposition member of Parliament and see a bill that is simply a joke—and that is what it is. In spite of the fine words of the Minister this bill will not save children—not at all. If the Minister were actually serious about trying to do something in this area there is a multitude of things he could have done but it would not have been the words in this bill which are simply words without substance.  
Home detention is a joke—we already know that. There are so many instances already where offenders leave the bracelet at home so that Chubb thinks that they are in their houses; meanwhile they are out around the town with their mates. That goes on today. How does the Minister think it will be any different for child sex offenders? Well it will not be. There will be no extra monitoring—nothing. Again people will think it is a good idea but it will not work. There is nothing to stop those sex offenders using the Internet and doing all sorts of things that most of us would not even dream of. There is nothing to stop people from visiting their homes. The bracelet is meant to stop them going out but we know that people can get away with going out and as I said leaving the bracelet at home.  
The extended supervision is a joke. The Law and Order Committee has already heard that offenders cannot have that supervision—that no paedophile can be monitored for 10 years. The officials were quite clear on that. They said it would not work so those words in the bill are totally hollow. All they are designed to do is make New Zealanders who do not know the detail of this bill think that the Government cares. Well it simply does not.  
I understand that when somebody comes out of prison and goes on extended supervision they might get two visits a week from the parole officer in their own homes. Two visits a week! What about all the rest of the hours in the week? They will be up to their own tricks and nobody will be keeping an eye on them. After that it will diminish to one visit every 3 months. How can the Minister stand in this House and tell members of Parliament and the country that extended supervision is tough when it means one visit every 3 months? What a joke! That is disgraceful and pathetic from that Minister.  
The bill also brings in retrospective provisions and I have to say that the ACT party does not agree with that. If we had good policing we would not need retrospectivity—it is not a good way to bring in laws. Tough policing would do exactly what this Minister wants to do by way of retrospective clauses. If we look at the real issue—and it has been brought out in this debate—we see that there are some people who commit offences against children and who should not be out in the community ever. They should be on preventive detention. They should never be released.  
But I have to challenge that Minister whether an ordinary criminal prison is the right place for them to be. I think he would agree that the answer is no. They should be in special forensic mental health institutions. We have one or two in New Zealand and that is all. There are simply not enough of them to cope. We need more of them in this country so that those people who have a particular mental health problem that makes them into monsters—essentially those who cannot be trusted to be out in the community—are treated in an appropriate institution instead of being in a prison where the prison officers cannot even administer medication to them. We have an absolutely hopeless situation where probably 10 percent of prisoners in this country need proper medication and the prison officials cannot give it to them because the Acts do not allow it. 
These people should be locked away in proper institutions and given the correct care they need. They should not be allowed out onto the streets under this stupid regime of supervision that the Minister is trying to pretend is tough. It is a joke and it is also pathetic. The bill was written by a Labour Party that wants to pretend it is tough on crime when all of us in the Opposition know that it is soft on crime and just talks tough.  
This bill is a disgrace. It does not address the very serious problem of those repeat sex offenders who want to offend against anybody over the age of 16. The bill has all these tough provisions—as long as the victim is 16 years of age or younger. What about people like Taffy Hotene? I ask the Minister how he would feel if that dangerous recidivist violent rapist was released on parole in his neighbourhood? How would the Minister feel about his wife and daughters walking down the street at night on their own knowing that that monster would be out there? This bill does not deal with people like him. It deals with people who are child sex offenders but there is not much of a difference between a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. We all know that. The Minister should at least have had the decency to extend the bill to all violent repeat sex offenders. The clear reality is that this bill looks at just a portion of the problem faced by society and not at the whole lot.  
My colleague Deborah Coddington drafted a Sex Offenders Registry Bill. It was modelled on legislation in the United Kingdom and Canada. It was drawn and supported by the House to a select committee. I believe that that this is why this bill is here today. It has nothing to do with the Labour Party’s decision that we should do something about the problem. It was forced and embarrassed into doing something because it could not bear to see an ACT bill become law. It is disgraceful that a better version of this bill was not brought into Parliament years ago.  
I suppose we have to say that at least we now have a bill that addresses the problem of repeat recidivist sex offenders. My passionate hope is that all of the submitters have the courage to say what should be done and that the select committee can gut and rebuild the bill in a way that will actually mean something and protect New Zealanders from the worst type of offender. 
Bill read a first time.