Worth Richard: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14171] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 A good starting point in talking about Part 2 is to note it in its context and its context is that there are before the Justice and Electoral Committee 17 amendments at the moment either proposed or passed that have been placed before it by the Government—17 amendments. They are contained in Supplementary Order Papers 223 229 and 230 and I have probably been generous to the Government in counting them in the particular way I have. 
The interesting thing about all this is that this bill—the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill—has only just been reported back. It was reported back in mid-June. In that short time the Government has found 17 deficiencies in the legislation. It is a wholly unsatisfactory circumstance. While National is supporting the bill we are doing so on the basis that there is really only one redeeming feature of merit in the bill which is the introduction of a new extended supervision regime that will manage high-risk child sex offenders. We have real reservations about how effectively this legislation will be administered by the relevant agencies and we have good grounds for those reservations given the comments of Justice Ellis as chairman of the Parole Board the other day and the comments that the Minister of Justice Phil Goff made in reply. 
The reality is that the outcome of fiddling around with the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act has been complex and densely-worded legislation. It is full of subtleties. It is beset with qualifications elaborations and ambiguities. Members may recall that when the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act were first passed there was trenchant criticism from the Court of Appeal. In fact the legislation was described as being akin to the Hampton Court maze. Well it has been made more complex more subtle and more difficult. In Part 2 we see again a raft of changes running right through the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Part 2 is in two subparts. Subpart 1 is “Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002” and Subpart 2 is “Amendments to Parole Act 2002”. That in itself is not strictly accurate because there should be a third subpart in which the miscellaneous amendments to other legislation should be. 
It is far reaching—there is no doubt about that—because it touches in the amendments to the Sentencing Act on issues relating to reparation reports and cumulative and concurrent sentences of imprisonment. There is a provision dealing with minimum periods of imprisonment in relation to fixed sentences. The issue of preventive detention has come up again for review. There is material about home detention and deferring its start date which I would like to develop in later calls. The whole issue of discharge without conviction is being revisited as is the question of orders to come up for sentence if called upon. The whole aspect of review of non-association orders is thrown into stark relief and the Government has seen fit to make a number of changes to legislation such as the Misuse of Drugs Act the Bail Act—the changes to bail on deferment of sentence are quite significant—and the sentencing regulations. As if that is not enough for one part substantial changes will also be made to the Parole Act. 
The Minister has surely reached a position with the patching that has been done to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act since their enactments where he can hardly say as members heard him say as he stood in the Chamber that he is proud of this legislation and that it is a triumph of the Government. In reality it is wholly flawed.