Goff Phil: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 04 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1165. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):If I was a gentleman I would have sat down and let Jacinda Ardern take the call. The Labour Party is supporting the third readings of both of these bills. It does so after careful consideration and reflection on the need for them and indeed the impact that they have on the rights of not just potential victims but people who are very likely to become victims and those who are the offenders but who nevertheless may have completed a prison term. We call these cognate bills because they are parallel in their objectives although they are different in the manner in which they achieve them and the consequences for those who are so affected. What they have in common is that they are—in both cases—dealing with individuals who have committed and been convicted for serious sexual or violent offending. What they have in common is that they are dealing with people at the time they have completed a sentence that is a finite sentence and in the normal course of the events they would have been regarded as having done the crime and served the time and would be released into the community. The bills are different however in the way in which they operate.The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill deals first of all with probably the most serious group of people due for release but who are highly likely to offend. We are not talking about a large number of people; we are talking about maybe five to 12 people over a 10-year period so we are talking about one to two people a year. These are people who have committed a serious sexual or violent offence. They are individuals who are regarded by the health professionals who have been working with them in prison as being of extremely high risk and not only is that risk very high but they are regarded as being in danger of imminent offending. “Imminent” offending in the bill is defined as “the person is expected to commit such an offence as soon as he or she has a suitable opportunity to do so” and unfortunately there are people who come within that category. In the normal course of events if the judge has enough information in front of him or her at the trials of those individuals they would have committed those individuals to preventive detention. That is an indeterminate sentence—that is they can be locked up for ever and if they are released at any point they can be recalled at any time. But in these cases the judge did not have that information. I am not blaming the judge; sometimes that information becomes available only after the behaviour of the individual has been observed by professionals in a prison environment over a long time.The fact is that we can avoid the consequences of these people re-offending and that is what this bill is designed to do. There is a conflict of rights: offenders do have rights and that should be recognised but so too does the rest of society. In particular I draw your attention to the fact that the most likely victims in the circumstances covered by both of these bills are our most vulnerable citizens our kids and we owe it to them to protect them. If the prospect is imminent and very high and the consequences are appalling we owe it them to extend the protection to them against that happening.The individuals concerned in the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill will be in secure detention but they will not suffer the same loss of rights as other convicted criminals. They are still free to vote they are free to have access to the media and they are free to receive communications and visitors. They are free to work and retain their earnings or they are free to get a benefit and they would be eligible for a benefit. What that actually highlights is that this is not designed as a punishment; this is designed for the protection of the safety of the community. In that sense what we are trying to do in these bills is very similar to what we do under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. These are cases where people are detained. They are not regarded as criminal but they are detained because they are regarded as being of danger to themselves and to others.The second bill is the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and that works slightly differently. It deals with a much wider group of people. It is amending an Act that has already been in existence and it is being extended. Indeed 10 years ago I passed the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Act and that was focused on one category of people: those who were serious sexual offenders against children. What it did was that when a finite prison sentence came to an end it allowed extended supervision orders to be exercised that placed those individuals under close supervision thereafter. I know exactly why that bill was enacted and if I had the same opportunity I would have enacted that bill again. On the information that I then had as Minister of Justice it was critical that we provided protection against individuals who had no ability to control their behaviour and had no empathy for their victim or understanding of the impact of their actions on the victim and that makes the situation very dangerous indeed.Many of these individuals were of a low IQ. All of them were people who could not be given rehabilitation within prison that actually worked. Programmes like Kia Mārama and Te Piriti are excellent at dealing with people who are child sexual offenders and in most cases they can deal with people and they can substantially reduce the risk. This is a category of people who will not be affected positively by engagements in those sorts of programmes. These people are not detained in prison. They are in the community but they are under heavy supervision. Because these people are being dealt with under the criminal law this law—again as it did in 2004—breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act according to the opinion of the Attorney-General. I never lightly support legislation that breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but in this case again I believe that the rights of the people who will almost certainly become victims come first.The bill allows us to extend indefinitely supervision orders if they are required. It also extends the category of people covered by it from sexual offenders against children to sexual offenders against adults and very serious violent offenders. The largest numbers will still be those who commit acts against children and regrettably we need it. Again these people could have been sentenced to preventive detention. They were not but if the judge knew what the prison authorities and the health professionals know at the end of the sentence when he or she made the order the judge most certainly would have done that.I think that both of these bills are necessary. We could have actually manipulated the system to try to bring in civil orders in this case. It would have had no impact in material terms on the situation that offenders find themselves in and in the end we neither had the time to do that nor did we want to run the risk of changing a system that seemed to be working very well. There are safeguards. Judges have to make the orders. Health professionals make the assessment. The Parole Board reviews whether the orders should be continued. I think we have got the balance of rights correct. I think that both pieces of legislation are necessary and are important to protect the rights of New Zealanders and particularly our children.