Goff Phil: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):The Labour Party has a long track record in supporting legislation that will enhance the safety of the public and in particular legislation that will protect the interests of victims and prevent them from being revictimised. So our decision in respect of this legislation is initially to support it to the select committee. That is the normal step that we would take. The select committee deliberations give us the opportunity to listen to the pros and cons of the legislation whether it goes far enough or whether it goes too far. But in terms of the objectives of the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill I have no problem with them if the legislation actually meets what the objectives set out.The objectives are first of all to improve the integrity of the sentence. When a person is convicted and sentenced for a particular crime we want to make sure that the sentence is carried out as it should be and that the offender complies with the terms of that sentence. That becomes an issue when the offender is out in the community rather than locked up in prison. Secondly if the bill is successful in safely managing offenders in the community then everybody benefits. The offender benefits if they are discouraged from reoffending in a way that would see them simply being given a harsher sentence and leaves them with the prospect of spending more of their life locked up. Of course the community and potential victims also benefit. Those are the thresholds that we are looking at. It is also important that the legislation works in a cost-effective way and in a reasonable manner. I think the Minister of Corrections himself talked about the balancing of the rights of the offender—and offenders do not lose all of their rights—and the rights of the community to be safe. We want to make sure that this legislation finds that appropriate balance.Back in 2002 when we passed the Sentencing Act there were provisions in that Act as it exists today that prevent the imposition of electronic monitoring in particular circumstances. Electronic monitoring cannot be used in respect of a sentence of supervision; a sentence of intensive supervision; a situation where somebody is released from prison where the sentence has been 2 years or less; and where somebody is released from a sentence of home detention. People might ask why the legislation would stop the use of electronic monitoring. The reason that the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice gave me at the time—and they are still giving it to the Minister—is that there is a danger when you bring in a new form of sentencing that a phenomenon called net-widening occurs. If the sentence is there it will be used sometimes whether it is cost-effective or not cost-effective justifiable or not justifiable. At the time the strongest recommendations were that electronic monitoring ought not to be used in these four areas.The Department of Corrections I presume in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice has looked at this again and it has reiterated that in terms of two out of four of those categories the use of electronic monitoring is still not the right way to go. It says in relation to a sentence of supervision that this does not justify the expense of electronic monitoring and it is not justified by the risk that the offenders create for society. Supervision is actually low in the hierarchy of sentencing and therefore why would you waste $3500 on electronically monitoring somebody who has been sentenced to a relatively light sentence and is not likely to reoffend? It has also ruled out for similar reasons the use of electronic monitoring in relation to release from home detention. It says that a person who has complied with all their conditions through home detention constitutes a low level of risk and it argued it could not justify the imposition of electronic monitoring either in terms of its cost or in terms of the further infringement on the liberties of a person who has been released from the sentence of home detention. I accept those arguments in those two cases.In the other two cases the department says there is an argument for the use of electronic monitoring. I think it is worth remembering that the electronic monitoring that is available today is quite different in nature from that which was available 14 years ago. In those days it was all radio technology with the bracelet. Now you have a phenomenon called global positioning system which can tell you exactly where the offender who is out in the community has gone and can alert you when the offender goes to an area that is prohibited under the terms of their sentence. I think that that makes sense. The first category is imprisonment for 2 years or less and sadly when we look at every sentence the sentence where there is the highest rate of reconviction is where an offender has been sentenced to a short sentence. It makes you wonder whether the short sentence is actually particularly effective in meeting the requirements that we expect from it. But there is a high rate of reoffending and there is an argument on that basis for allowing electronic monitoring of certain categories of people who have been sentenced to 2 years or less. I want to make it clear to the House that the electronic monitoring does not automatically apply to everybody in that category. It is still applied only at the discretion of the sentencing court. So we are relying on the discretion of the court not to over-utilise this but to apply it only in those areas where the court has reason to believe that this will protect the public and is required for public safety and the safety of victims.The other area that this will apply to is where somebody is under a sentence of intensive supervision. This is a little more challenging. Intensive supervision means that the person has not offended to the degree that the court felt it worthwhile sentencing them to home detention but nevertheless the seriousness of the offending was such that ordinary supervision was not sufficient and intensive supervision was needed. In this respect I think there are some clear categories where electronic monitoring would be worthwhile. It is of real concern to members on this side of the House that domestic violence is increasing: convictions for domestic violence and I believe the occurrence of domestic violence are increasing. Protection orders are really only a piece of paper; they do not protect the victim in practical terms. So what electronic monitoring might do to an offender who has already offended against the victim is to alert authorities in real time if that offender goes near the home of the victim. That seems to me to be something that is worth doing and I would support that.There are other instances where there are no-go areas imposed as a condition of the sentence. If a person was convicted for a crime because they had an addiction either to alcohol or to gambling and you say we do not want that offender to go near the casino then having electronic monitoring in real time or even having a record of it after the event does enable you to discourage the offender from going back to the cause of his or her offending. I have looked at the international evidence for this and the international evidence says that GPS does act as a genuine deterrent in those cases. Therefore we would go along with that. The areas that will be targeted for electronic monitoring are the family violence cases that I have talked about gang-related offenders and high-risk sex offenders. I think that if we are targeting those specific groups then there is a justification for what this bill does.I want to touch briefly on the vet for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This bill has received a negative vet. That means that it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. According to the Attorney-General Mr Finlayson it provides unjustifiable limitations on freedom of movement search and seizure and double jeopardy. But I think we need to dig a little deeper than that first analysis. Of course there will be limitations on freedom of movement if the individual exercising that freedom is going to breach their protection order. I do not think that freedom of movement for a person who has been convicted and is still under sentence can be determined to be full freedom of movement. I think that is a matter of common sense. Unreasonable search and seizure which is how they define monitoring—well if the monitoring actually does mitigate against real risk to the victim and real risk that the offender will reoffend that might also be justifiable. The last point is in terms of double jeopardy. It would be double jeopardy if this was being done for the purposes of punishment but I believe that this is being done for the purposes of prevention. On those bases Labour Opposition members will support the first reading of this bill. We will look at it closely at the select committee and if it stands up to the analysis and the evidence presented to us we will continue to support it after that point.