Faafoi Kris: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1013. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Thank you very much Mr Chair for a chance to speak on Part 2 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. I just wanted to hone in on clause 112 which pertains to inspectors. Within the clause it says that the chief executive may designate one or more lawyers to act as independent inspectors. I think the point that my colleague Jacinda Ardern made just before she finished her contribution to this debate around the role of inspectors in this specific case where we are dealing with a very small number of people is a very pointed one. We do want to make sure that this small group of offenders—people who pose an extreme risk to the public—are managed and managed properly. Because it is such a small and sensitive group of offenders and potential offenders we want to make sure that it is the duty of the State to manage them.The appointment of inspectors in these residences that are being proposed under this legislation is a very important one. The people who will come under these types of public protection orders will still continue to have the rights of prisoners and inmates as they probably would have had under the sentence that they previously were on. I do note that in Part 1 they will still have the ability to make phone calls but those phone calls will still be able to be monitored. I think that is one of the things that an inspector will monitor closely—whether or not that has been done properly.I guess in the context of recent events around Phillip Smith and his management before his escape from prison or detention you would hope that the inspector in cases where we are dealing with public protection orders is given the right tools and the right resources to make sure that any arrangements that are made—or any details that are within this bill—to allow the monitoring of phone calls or any other communications are done properly so they can do their job. We have seen in the last month what can happen when things are not monitored properly. Someone who was in prison for a very serious crime was able to go on unmonitored leave was able to organise a trip to South America was able to obtain $10000 for that trip and I understand during his time in prison he was also able to use some student loan money to fund some of his operation.We hope that the inspectors described in clause 112 will be given the freedom and the ability to do their job properly because at the moment we question the confidence that the public would have in their ability to monitor things like this if we have serious cases like this. We are very happy that Phillip Smith is back in New Zealand. He should never have been out in the first place. But if the job of the corrections service was done properly and if it was run properly by this Government the likes of Phillip Smith would not have had the ability to be able to leave detention to be able to board a plane to South America to be able to get a passport. It is one thing for us to put in this legislation the ability to monitor or the ability to inspect but that actually has to be done at the front line. We question whether or not this Government has the ability to do that although we may commend the fact that this piece of legislation does build those things in.These are very serious offenders. We do realise that we are taking away a degree of their freedom but there is the ability to review that in here. But as it pertains to clause 112 in Part 2 we do ask and will continue to ask questions of the Government while it is building these safety systems into the legislation about whether or not it is actually able to carry them out and able to monitor some of the behaviour of some of our serious criminals who are in prison here in New Zealand. It is a sad state of affairs. We have got a recent example of someone who was not monitored properly and who was able to gain a passport and to board a flight to South America and make a laughing stock of the Department of Corrections. That simply is not good enough. We recognise that in this legislation there is a degree of safeguard in there with inspectors and with the ability to monitor phone calls. We would ask whether this Government if it is willing to put these kinds of safeguards into this legislation as it does with other areas of corrections is able to staff and resource that properly.I do notice that there can be the appointment of one or more lawyers. My understanding is that there is going to be a very small number of inmates who may come under the close inspection of this piece of legislation. But we would hope that that inspectorate role is taken seriously because we do not want to get ourselves into another Phillip Smith situation. If this Government is going to stick true to its word and true to its word to members of the public that it is going to keep them safe—that is the purpose of this bill because these are serious offenders who we think would have a high degree of probability of offending as soon as they are released. This inspectorate role should be taken seriously if there is the ability for corrections—and I hope it is that department that will be monitoring these inmates—to be monitoring mail monitoring phone calls and any other communication that inmates may have so that they would not be able to go and book a flight to Chile they would not be able to go and renew their passport under their first name and they would not be able to go and get their hands on $10000 so they could sustain themselves if they were to escape from prison.If the Government could answer any questions around the resourcing of the inspectorate role we would welcome that because as of recently we have seen an example that does not fill the public with much confidence.