Ardern Jacinda: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1020. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):Thank you to the Minister of Corrections the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga and his predecessor who did consult with us as an Opposition party on this bill. I think particularly given that there was some urgency around it it was very useful to be brought into the loop early on. It is a shame that that was not applied with the bill that we just debated the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill but we did appreciate that early engagement on this particular bill.It has been useful I think to have the contributions made by Phil Goff who as the Minister of Justice introduced the original extended supervision order regime. Although it is very easy for us as members of the House to debate these bills with some distance and to discuss the raw number of individuals who might be covered by them I think it is a very different thing when as the Minister of Justice you are presented with a specific case of a specific offender who is going to be released back into the community and whom the Parole Board has specifically determined to be unfit to be returned into the community. To be faced with that in the knowledge that that person who poses an imminent risk will reoffend unless something is done and that you have been briefed on it then where does your responsibility in that lie? That is a very difficult position to be put in as an individual and yet that is what any Minister of Justice faces. It was what Phil Goff I recall faced at the time when he introduced extended supervision orders and it is likely that we may very well have a Minister in the chair who will face that again.So although this bill removes the expiry essentially that existed when extended supervision orders were first put in place it does fundamentally change the regime as well. We are talking now not just about child sex offenders which is what the legislation was originally designed for but about all those who are deemed to be violent offenders or violent sexual offenders as well. But there is an additional clause that I want to come to—new section 107C which is being inserted into the Parole Act by clause 7 in Part 1. It sets out under subsection (1)(b) that an “ ‘eligible offender’ is [also] a person who—(i) has arrived in New Zealand within 6 months of ceasing to be subject to any sentence supervision conditions or order imposed on the person for”—and it specifies—“a relevant offence by an overseas court;”—so it does not specify in the schedule what that offence may be because of course you have to make an assessment of a relevant offence in an overseas jurisdiction—“and (ii) has since that arrival been in New Zealand for less than 6 months; and (iii) resides or intends to reside in New Zealand.”A couple of questions—“has since that arrival been in New Zealand for less than 6 months;”. What if an individual was not brought to the notice of the Department of Corrections has a relevant offence and may actually be covered by and be a contender for an extended supervision order but has come to New Zealand and managed to fly under the radar for 7 months before they have come to the attention of the Department of Corrections? Obviously based on that section my assumption is that they would no longer be eligible for an extended supervision order. Also it stipulates that they reside or intend to reside in New Zealand. If an individual flags that they intend to reside in Australia but actually for all intents and purposes winds up being in New Zealand would they too manage to skirt around the provisions in the bill? I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.Functionally also I am interested in how this section will be enacted. Again unfortunately I was not on the Law and Order Committee although usually I am a member but I was not on the select committee for the consideration of this bill. Do we require reciprocal arrangements with every overseas jurisdiction for a returning individual to be flagged or brought to the attention of the Department of Corrections for this process to be triggered? Or is there some other mechanism that will be applied to make sure that we are considering anyone who should be eligible for this regime in order for that to happen? I think we have seen in recent times that sometimes the information sharing even domestically is not what we would want it to be so obviously if we are extending a regime across every international jurisdiction then what mechanisms are in place to ensure that this process is triggered?I do not disagree. I think it is the right thing to do—to allow ourselves the ability to apply this legislation to someone who has served a sentence overseas—and we have seen cases of those who have been the subject of child sex offences where it would be appropriate. But I would be interested to see how that will apply functionally.I then want to just come to the amendments to section 107F in clause 9 which talk about the process that the chief executive must go through in order to apply for an extended supervision order. I think the select committee did some good work here in making sure that the criteria were not quite as prescriptive as what would apply for a public protection order. The threshold test again is different. We are talking about a lower threshold. These are individuals who will be released into the community. What essentially we are doing is really extending the ability for us to supervise rather than to detain. But I wondered—because I could not find any specific provision and I may have overlooked it—what process there was in place for the notification of victims when an extended supervision order is being applied for.I imagine we would have a similar regime to what would apply for parole with a public protection order which is very explicit. Reference is made to the Victims’ Rights Act. I am imagining we have got a similar regime for notification for victims but that is something that I wanted to be specific and I would ask the Minister how victims are brought into the regime when an offender is considered for an extended supervision order. I think it would be of great relief to a victim to know that an offender would have that continuation of supervision upon release.I look forward to hearing from the Minister on those points.