Clendon David: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13447. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): I think it is interesting that we are debating the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill for the first time in Parliament 1 day short of a year after its introduction. It was introduced on 18 September 2012. We are here today on 17 September 2013 and this bill is being read for the first time. Mr Goff made the point that the National Party campaigned on the suggestion or the proposition that legislation of this nature would come into the House if it won the election which clearly it did. Two years on despite the implied urgency of legislation like this and the apparent urgent necessity for it it has taken the Government 2 years to bring this bill to its first reading. I think that is worth reflecting on in terms of the motivation behind this bill. All sorts of extravagant and wild things get promised and said in the heat of an election campaign and I do feel that the legislation reflects more a political than a principled position in terms of its provisions in terms of what it seeks to do.At the time a year ago when this bill was introduced we were assured by the Minister of Justice that the orders were intended to be protective not punitive that it was not a form of double jeopardy and that offenders would have as many civil rights as practicable. And that is a really interesting qualifier to put against the notion of civil rights—that offenders would be assigned as many rights as were practicable. So 1 year on we are debating this legislation for the first time and again we cast our minds back a year when it was introduced around the time when there was a great deal of attention being paid to the form of release of one offender Stewart Murray Wilson. At that time there was an extraordinarily irresponsible display of media reporting there was an extraordinary level of sensationalism about that single case and I do think that that in a sense paved the way potentially for legislation like this which in the Green view does significantly overstep the mark.One needs look no further than the regulatory impact statement. Right up front some of it talks about some of the constraints on the analysis done by the officials whose job it was to prepare that statement. It makes the point that “it is not possible to accurately report recidivism data for such a small and unique subset of offenders.” It makes the point that “Impacts arising from other initiatives”—and it mentions the Sentencing Act2002 which significantly expanded the criteria for preventive detention—“may reduce the need for the proposed measures over time.” It is pointed out that the provisions in this bill as they have evolved are “likely to override fundamental common law principles … specifically the principles in favour of liberty of the subject that the law should conform with both international law and treaty obligations …” and that we should assure that “statutes and regulations operate prospectively.” not retrospectively.The point has been made that this legislation has been designed to capture a vanishingly small number of offenders—potentially as few as five individuals and at the highest estimate it would be 12 people. It does seem extraordinary to put in place a unique piece of legislation that does compromise our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I will come to that point later and that will inevitably compromise international agreements and obligations so as to manage potentially only five offenders. No one is underplaying the severity of the offending of some of those people but it is a very peculiar and we think unacceptable way to endeavour to address to manage the potential release of those people. We are contemplating legislation a whole raft of provisions for very few people as I have said.We already have at our disposal a range of provisions to manage these people. We have mechanisms to manage the risk that they may present at the point when their sentence is complete and I have yet to hear a really compelling argument or to see particularly powerful evidence that the existing provisions are inadequate to meet the requirements of public safety around this very very small number of people who may potentially be released into the community. Again I would look to the regulatory impact statement and reflect indeed on the outcome of the Stewart Murray Wilson example. The regulatory impact statement tells us that “In all jurisdictions where very high risk offenders are released into the community the police play a major role in preventing reoffending by … deploying … resources in the surveillance and interception of these offenders. The resulting detection of breaches of orders and notification requirements or minor offending usually then results in the offender being prosecuted and returned to prison.” Clearly that is exactly the case of Mr Stewart Wilson who is now back in prison because he failed to comply with the very strict conditions that were imposed on him. That is I think an example that shows that existing provisions are adequate to the cause or that we have the wit and the capacity to ensure that there is an acceptable level of public safety around the potential release of this very very small number of offenders.The point has been made about international examples and again we can look to the regulatory impact statement which is a very useful document. It actually indicates that there are four Australian states that have similar provisions for detention or very very strict supervision orders placed primarily on sex offenders at the end of their finite sentences. Indeed they may be detained in prison indefinitely or for a renewable finite period. We are told that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has already determined that each of those orders breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are going a step beyond what the Australian states have done. Inevitably we will be taken to task and found in breach of those selfsame UN civil and political rights agreements to which we are signatories.We are told that this legislation is not intended to be punitive and that it is simply protective. Holding that thought I fail to see how the provisions of this legislation are not punitive. I would like to just list the conditions—what is possible in terms of the ongoing detention of people who have completed their finite sentences. These people will clearly be further denied their liberty their freedom of movement—a most fundamental right of human beings. We must acknowledge that their liberty will be denied them. People may be prevented from sending or receiving writtencommunications under the provisions of this legislation. There may be restrictions on phone calls. They may be unable to make calls or may have their calls very seriously restricted or monitored. They may be prevented from receiving visits or communicating orally with people according to the management plan under which they will be placed. They may be subject to searches within the usual confines of the so-called residence any time they leave the prison precinct or come back to it and those searches can include strip searches. They may be placed in seclusion which I think is a gentle name that endeavours to differentiate between it and solitary confinement which is what it would amount to. We got told that they may be constrained—that mechanical restraints may be used.I invite anyone to explain to me how those provisions are not punitive. How does that differ in any substantial way from a conventional prison sentence? All that this legislation does really is elongate extend the finite sentence that has been applied to these people. The legislation does in fact allow for the offender to be simply kept in a prison rather than under the disguise of one of these so-called residences. The proposition is that this legislation is not punitive that it will not impugn human rights and that it will not contravene our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Despite dare I say it the rather convoluted semantics of the Attorney-General’s report inevitably this will be found in breach if it goes ahead in its current form. The Greens do not find this acceptable and will be opposing this legislation.