Alexander Marc: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
Alexander Marc: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14150] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 The Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill essentially introduces a new extended supervision regime to manage so-called high-risk sex offenders. Quite frankly all sex offenders are high risk. It is often said that sex offenders are lower risk than a lot of other offenders but a 22-year study showed that after that period of time the recidivism rate went as high as 70 percent which gives the lie to the fact that sex offenders are a low-risk category of individual. There is no reason to suspect that 10 years is enough in terms of an extension of supervision of those individuals. I hope that members will look at my Supplementary Order Paper 226. One of the changes I would like to see take place is the extension of that provision until such time as the Parole Board considers the person to be safe. In my opinion that would be when the person stops breathing. 
Implicit in this is a recognition that sentences were inadequate in the first place. What has been done since? I understand that a lot of individuals will come up for this supervision regime fairly soon which is one of the reasons why there is urgency in getting this legislation through. In fact one individual comes up next month. I am loath to name him though in some ways I would like to because the problem is— 
Richard Worth 
: You must do so. He should be named. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: He should be named. I was advised earlier this evening that if I named him his counsel might consider that to be prejudicial and force the judge to stop providing the extended supervision that would otherwise ensue because of this legislation. If that is true the last thing I want is for that to be on my conscience. I will not take the risk. But there are individuals coming up for release very soon and that is the reason why this bill must be passed flawed as some of its provisions are. 
It has been estimated that around 60 offenders will come under this regime and there are about 107 to whom it could possibly apply down the track. Sixty offenders may not sound like a lot but 60 sex offenders—predators—can manage to run up a large count of victims—families that will be broken and hurt by what they do. The simple fact is that those individuals should never be let out of prison in the first place and if they are mentally deficient they should be held in a facility appropriate to their condition for the rest of their lives. They should never be let out to hurt any law-abiding citizen again. 
I do not see any instinct on the Minister’s behalf to do anything about the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act to remedy that. If anything those Acts allow people to come up for parole one-third of the way through their sentences—contrary to the instincts of 92 percent of the population who voted in favour of tougher laws. Why has the Government not heard them? Why has the Government not acceded to the democratic wishes of the people of this country? That I do not understand. The Government will pursue other social engineering policies that are not demanded by 92 percent of the population but by a very small narrow margin of the population. Yet 92 percent of the population says something and this Government listens to them with Van Gogh’s ear. 
Some groups have asserted that this legislation proposes retrospectivity and punishment over and above sentencing and on those grounds they complain about it. In fact the Attorney-General’s report on the compliance of the bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act found that its provisions were inconsistent with the rights and freedoms contained in that Act on a number of counts—there is an unreasonable limit on the right not to be subject to double jeopardy and unreasonable search and seizure. 
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is actually the problem. It is about time we took that legislation apart and introduced a “Bill of Responsibility”. That Act along with the Privacy Act has been responsible for so much stupidity that it is time that they were taken to task and got rid of. The only rights they protect are the rights of offenders. They do not protect the rights of the law-abiding citizens of this country. I do not understand how a Government claiming to have the better interests of the law-abiding citizens of this country in mind can act against their interests by hiding behind the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the privacy legislation. 
Georgina Beyer 
: There is some humanity amongst us—that’s why. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: There is no humanity amongst sex offenders. Excuse me! They have lost their right to any humanity. They have offended against the rights of the innocent and they must pay the full and ultimate penalty for what they have done. The rights of the innocent should never be put at risk by these predatory offenders. My Supplementary Order Paper proposes to extend hopefully with the support of the House the supervision orders beyond the 10-year period. That is what those predators deserve. Anyone who does not support those amendments and who then finds out that those predators have offended again will have that on his or her conscience. 
There are a number of very good things in this bill particularly with regard to victim participation. There are three things in particular. With the leave of the court the bill enables victims’ input into hearings about extended supervision orders. It also allows victims to be notified in advance if the Parole Board is considering the imposition of special conditions under Part 1A in clause 10 and permits them to make submissions to the Parole Board about those conditions. I would like to see the victims have the right of appeal if they do not like the provisions set by the Parole Board. It also advises victims of the death of an offender something I think most victims would be very glad to hear about. 
In coming to my conclusion I have to say that we feel we have to pass the bill imperfect as it is because it goes one step beyond what we are otherwise capable of doing with some of those offenders. The problem is we cannot now turn the clock back for the individuals who are coming up for release over the next month or two and give them the longer sentences they deserve. Failing that the only argument I can see in favour of this bill is that we must offer some sense of comfort to victims and law-abiding citizens that we will supervise these predatory animals. I would not want it on my conscience if there were any future victims as a result of not passing this bill. Given that United Future will support it.