Power Simon: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Power Simon: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2377] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The extended supervision regime enables serious child sex offenders to be monitored for up to 10 years after their release from prison. This bill removes two potential loopholes from the extended supervision regime that were created by the Parole Amendment Act 2007. These loopholes could potentially undermine the effectiveness of extended supervision orders and therefore put the safety of children at risk. That is an unacceptable risk to be allowed to remain. 
Before I talk about the detail of the amendments I will talk more generally about the extended supervision regime and what it aims to achieve. Before I do that I thank all parties of the House for the attention they are paying to this legislation and for their assistance in its passage. 
Extended supervision orders were created in 2004 to manage the release of child sex offenders who were not sentenced to preventive detention but still presented a high risk of reoffending on release. These orders require child sex offenders to be on parole-type conditions for up to 10 years after release. I am advised by officials that 132 offenders are currently subject to extended supervision orders. 
Extended supervision orders apply exclusively to child sex offenders because of the unique nature of this kind of offending. Research indicates that a minority of child sex offenders pose a high risk of reoffending. Aside from the nature of their offending what makes these offenders different from other kinds of offenders is that their rate of reoffending does not decline over time. It is this ongoing risk that prompted the creation of extended supervision orders and similar regimes in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Canada. Research has shown that treatment can reduce reoffending rates in child sex offenders. A case in point is New Zealand’s own successful Kia Marama programme. However when these offenders are reintroduced into the community they need support and monitoring at least initially to reduce the chance of relapse. 
Prior to the 2007 Parole Act amendments the Parole Board could impose home detention - type conditions on offenders for up to 12 months subject to an extended supervision order. The board could also impose an electronically monitored curfew which restricts the offender’s whereabouts at certain times. The electronically monitored curfew could be imposed at any time during the term of the order. 
In 2007 the Parole Amendment Act created residential restrictions. Full-time residential restrictions replaced what was commonly known as back-end home detention. Part-time residential restrictions essentially consolidated the conditions for an electronically monitored curfew. It was intended that the 12-month limit on conditions for extended supervision orders would apply to full-time but not part-time residential restrictions thus maintaining the pre-2007 position. However the language of the 2007 amendments created doubt about whether part-time residential restrictions could be imposed beyond the first 12 months of an extended supervision order. This bill ensures that this extension is possible by clarifying that part-time residential restrictions can be imposed beyond the first 12 months following the offender’s release from prison and for the remaining term of the extended supervision order. This measure helps to reduce the opportunity for child sex offenders to reoffend as they can be confined to their residence at certain times—for example when children are going to and from school. 
I assure members that safeguards are in place to ensure that offenders will not be unnecessarily subjected to a part-time residential restrictions condition. At any time before or after an extended supervision order comes into force the offender or a probation officer may apply to the Parole Board for variation or cancellation of that condition. The offender has the right to appear before the board to state his or her case. The offender may also apply to the board for a review of the decision and may seek judicial review of the board’s decision. I am satisfied that these safeguards appropriately balance the interests of offenders against those of the wider community. 
The 2007 amendments also unfortunately created doubt as to whether the Parole Board could impose residential restrictions if an offender did not agree to comply with them. Requiring an offender’s agreement to comply makes sense when a prisoner is applying for parole and a refusal to comply with release conditions could see him or her refused parole. However an extended supervision order is a mandatory order that applies when the offender is released. So to require someone who has already reached the end of his or her sentence to agree to comply with the conditions of a mandatory order would be nonsensical. If the offender was required to agree the board would have no option but to impose less restrictive conditions when faced with an uncooperative offender. I am sure the House sees the difficulty in that set of circumstances. 
The Parole Board needs to be certain that it has the tools to keep the public safe when child sex offenders are released from prison. This bill puts the matter beyond doubt. Although offenders will still have to understand the restrictions imposed the bill will make it clear that they do not have a choice about whether the restrictions apply. The restrictions will apply if the Parole Board thinks they are necessary. 
The bill contains minor amendments to restore aspects of the law that operated prior to October 2007. I will therefore not refer this bill to a select committee. The public has the right to know that serious child sex offenders are being managed effectively once they are released from prison and this bill will close any potential loopholes previously created in that regard. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Let me say from the outset that the Opposition supports the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill absolutely. I believe there has been some discussion between both sides of the House. This is an issue of public safety. This bill corrects the unintended consequences made in the Parole Amendment Act 2007 by as the Minister said amending the Parole Act 2002 to clarify that “part-time residential restrictions (an electronically monitored curfew) can be imposed beyond the first 12 months of an extended supervision order:”. Given the gravity of this bill I will not waylay the House too much longer. It is appropriate that this bill is expedited swiftly. We agree that these amendments should be expedited and supported; we support this bill going through the House because the alternative could be the Parole Board declining to impose residential curfew conditions beyond the first 12 months on an extended supervision order and that could in essence put public safety at risk. We also support the swift passage of this bill given that we have had advice that the Department of Corrections could well be facing litigation from a number of high-profile sex offenders who are currently more than 12 months into an extended supervision order and who are subject to conditions similar to part-time residential restrictions—something that the latest legal advice suggests is prohibited. 
I acknowledge the Minister of Justice Simon Power. As he has acknowledged to members on this side of the House in a paper he put to us this amendment was already in train before the election but it was not introduced because the legal advice at the time did not suggest that there was any urgency in respect of risk. The Government of the day sought advice it was advised that there was no urgency in respect of risk and that advice was taken. The new legal advice that Mr Power’s Government has received is that the 2007 amendments to the Parole Act 2002 prohibit the imposition of part-time residential restrictions—that is electronically monitored curfews—beyond the first 12 months of an order. I am advised—and I believe the Minister’s legal advice confirms this—that this new legal advice differs significantly from the advice received by the previous Government. 
I commend the Minister for bringing this advice to the House’s attention as soon as it was received. We support the bill and we will not waylay its passage. It is important that it be passed.