O'Rourke Denis: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13480. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I have said that I agree that provided the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill incorporates the key standards and safeguards necessary for a civil committal regime it will be compliant with civil rights. Whether the bill as introduced includes adequate safeguards is what the Justice and Electoral Committee must closely examine.In doing so it will be necessary to ensure that the detailed provisions of the bill will observe the principles as stated in it. Firstly is that of not punishing persons. The previous commission of an 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 a protection order should not be imposed on a person who is eligible to be detained under mental health legislation. Fourthly persons who are detained in a residence should have as much autonomy and quality of life as possible. Those are the principles that the select committee needs to keep in mind when reviewing this bill.The threshold for an order requires that the person is a prisoner under a determinate sentence for a serious sexual or violent offence is to be released from detention not later than 6 months after the date of the application and is a prisoner under the Parole Act orsubject to a protective supervision order. This threshold appears to us to be appropriate and an order should be needed only rarely.The bill requires a robust assessment of whether a subject poses a high risk of serious sexual or violent offending. It requires the application to be supported by at least two reports one of which must be by a registered psychologist and the other by either a psychiatrist or another psychologist. The court may call for a report by a health assessor and the respondent to the application can also request such a report. So those are good safeguards.This of course is the crux of the main issue—that there must be proof of whether an order is necessary. That is most important. In addition 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. I think that is also a very important safeguard. The review provisions will also need to be examined by the select committee. Whether those review provisions are adequate is something that we really need to have a close look at.A person may be detained in a prison or in a residence if the person is subject to a protection order but not to a prison detention order. A residence is a building located in prison precincts. A resident has the rights of a person of full capacity who is not subject to a protection order. Specific rights of residents include retention of earnings from permitted employment and the right to vote to get newspapers to have internet access to use written communications and to receive permitted visitors. So these are not persons without rights. They will have their freedom severely limited but it is not like being in prison. There is a good balance there I believe.The bill provides for inspections of residences at least twice a year and an inspector can in fact arrive unannounced and make an inspection at any time. 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 if detained in a residence the person would pose an unacceptably high risk to themselves or to others.New Zealand First welcomes the bill which it thinks is needed to fill a gap in the law a gap that the public sees and believes should be filled. The gap allows dangerous prisoners who are not mentally ill to be released with great risk to the public. We have seen some evidence of that in the past. Against this of course we must not allow unnecessary or arbitrary detention and therefore New Zealand First will take great interest in the detail of the bill at the select committee consideration to ensure that the balance of which I have spoken—personal rights versus public protection—is adequately achieved.