Shaw James: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:872. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Green):First of all I would just like to start by congratulating the Minister of Justice Amy Adams on her appointment. I notice that the signs are very good that she will be an excellent Minister. I would also like to acknowledge the work that this Government and indeed the previous Labour Government have done on the field of crime. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee on both of these bills. I do think that they have been well considered. I am going to restrict my comments to the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. As my colleague David Clendon has said in his remarks the Greens are intending to vote to support the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and against the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill so I am going to restrict my comments to the second of those bills.I just want to note that the bill was introduced around the time of the furore surrounding the Stewart Murray Wilson event. As David Clendon said law introduced that responds to or in conjunction with high-profile media events is rarely good law.The regulatory impact statement and a number of other submitters indicated that this legislation is likely to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in particular sections 22 and 26 in respect of arbitrary detention and double jeopardy. These are also in contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is clear that these people will still be effectively treated as if they are prisoners even though they have already served their time for their offences. It is a central principle of our justice system that when you do the crime you do the time and when you have done the time you are released and you are a free person. This legislation proposes that when people have served their time they will actually then continue to keep serving their time perhaps indefinitely.The legislation is designed to affect between five and 12 people. Sure some might ask why we are so worried about a piece of legislation that affects such a small number of people but the point of human rights is that they are universal. And so the question is whether universal human rights extend to all humans or to all humans minus one or five or 12. The Law Society also questioned the need for the legislation pointing out that there are existing sentencing options for criminal offenders available. These include but are not exclusively confined to the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. If someone has served 10 to 15 years and at the end of that time is assessed as having a near 100 percent chance of recidivism then they are surely by definition covered by the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and similar legislation. We also believe that the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill—which as we said we are voting in favour of—effectively negates the need for the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill particularly when in conjunction with legislation such as the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act.In conclusion this legislation was introduced not in response to but in conjunction with sensational media events. It is illiberal and contravenes core principles of our justice system. It is an unnecessary bill and it deals with a tiny population and we will therefore be voting against it.