Young Jonathan: Parole Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Parole Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1865. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand and speak to the Parole Amendment Bill here in its third reading. This is good legislation. The bill proposes a number of amendments to the Parole Act 2002. The explanatory note states that the amendments are to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings but not to increase the length of time an offender spends in prison; and also to improve efficiency by simplifying pre-hearing processes and clarifying when an offender’s attendance at a parole hearing is required. The proposed changes do not affect the earliest date at which an offender would become eligible for parole nor the actual length of an offender’s sentence but they do create incentives for prisoners to engage in rehabilitation activities and thereby become less likely to reoffend when they are released. It also reduces the trauma for victims who are faced with unnecessary annual parole hearings when the prisoner has not made efforts in rehabilitation and the outcome is known but the parole hearing continues because of the mandatory annual review.The ability to extend the period between parole hearings up to a maximum of 2 years instead of every year as is currently the case does not mean that the prisoner will experience a longer sentence. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has held to the fact that to ensure that an offender’s continued detention beyond their parole eligibility date does not become arbitrary there must be regular periodic reviews of the individual offender’s case by an independent body to determine whether continued imprisonment is substantively justified. The human rights committee has held that 12-month intervals between parole reviews with judicial review rights meant that continued imprisonment was not inherently arbitrary. The European Court of Human Rights has held that a 2-year interval between parole reviews did not render detention arbitrary because the decision to fix that interval was approached with flexibility and with due regard to the individual’s circumstances.The bill provides that if the Parole Board declines to release an offender on parole it must ordinarily specify a date within the following 2 years for the offender’s next parole review instead of every year as is currently the case. As part of that decision there is also provision for the board to identify relevant circumstances formerly called milestones relating to the risk the offender poses to community safety for the offender to achieve before the next hearing. This is an element of consideration and flexibility. If the offender achieves these early the case can be brought forward. The bill also extends from 3 to 5 years the maximum postponement period for offenders serving indeterminate sentences and determinate sentences of 10 or more years. We do expect a 5-year term to be reserved for the most extreme cases as the current 3-year term is used only a handful of times every year.Each year there are about 5000 parole hearings. On average offenders have three hearings before being granted parole. In putting victims at the heart of the justice system we are delivering on our promises. Our plans to reduce unnecessary parole hearings for offenders will reduce stress for victims of crime. Victims of crime should not have to face the very stressful prospect of parole hearings year after year when an offender is clearly not safe to release into the community and has made little or no effort at rehabilitation. The measures that this bill proposes will also save the taxpayer approximately $700000 a year.Our changes will provide strong incentives for prisoners to address their offending behaviour. The Department of Corrections is strengthening its rehabilitation focus with the introduction of case management systems for all prisoners. It can also refer prisoners for an early parole hearing if they have made significant progress such as reaching rehabilitation milestones or successfully completing programmes. All prisoners have education screening with individual learning plans designed for them. Obviously they have been speaking to our Minister of Education. The number of prisoners gaining qualifications has increased by 830 percent up from 197 in 2008-09 when we came into office to 1833 in 2012-13 which is a significant increase. Almost 3000 prisoners have started literacy and numeracy programmes in the 2013-14 financial year up 155 percent compared with 2007-08. An almost 1500 percent increase in places in drug and alcohol treatment programmes for prisoners has happened since 2008. So there is ample opportunity and evidence that prisoners in corrections are being encouraged to undertake and are undertaking increased rehabilitation programmes.This bill does not affect the earliest date at which an offender would become eligible for parole nor the actual length of an offender’s sentence but proposes greater efficiency in the parole process protects victims from unnecessary trauma and provides a greater incentive for prisoners to engage meaningfully in a personalised rehabilitation programme. This helps to achieve our Better Public Services targets. Results so far are impressive and we continue to build on them. Our target was to reduce prisoner reoffending by 25 percent by 2017. We have seen a 12.2 percent reduction in offending so far. Our target is to reduce overall crime rates by 15 percent violent crime by 20 percent and youth crime by 25 percent by 2017. The result so far is that the total crime rate is down by 16 percent violent crime is down by 11 percent and youth crime is down by 30 percent exceeding its first target of 5 percent and its second target of 25 percent. We are giving prisoners far more opportunities to rehabilitate and of course in that regard we are making our communities streets and homes safer places for New Zealanders.This Government has done a tremendous amount for what could be deemed the lowest socio-economic group in our society. Twenty-eight thousand children in New Zealand have a parent in prison. Our work to build rehabilitation and in this bill to ensure that people engage in rehabilitation is doing so much for the safety of our society and doing so much for children whose parent sometimes even both parents are prisoners. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. National is focused on preventing crime and reducing the impact of crime by improving the responsiveness of the justice system for victims. I am very happy to stand in support of this excellent bill. Thank you.