Lole-Taylor Asenati: Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2047. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I acknowledge the effort by the Minister of Corrections to have this bill introduced to the House. It was March 2009 when an expert panel was established to work with Community Probation Services in releasing a comprehensive change programme. Three years since then another bill is being introduced to the House in order to address what was meant to be addressed by the so-called change programme which had been allocated huge funding through the Department of Corrections. The change programme focuses on sentence compliance which means better targeting of time effort and resources according to the risks each offender presents.  
There is a need to ask as to what the Minister and her staff have been targeting given that a sex offender had been working with school students under multi-identities and one can only hope that it was not another case like that of a former ACT MP. Furthermore how is the security screening being processed? The change programme led by Paula Rebstock had six key recommendations from the expert panel. Sentence compliance will continue to be a major focus but Community Probation Services will also concentrate on two other key areas. Those two areas were reducing the likelihood of offenders reoffending and minimising the risk of harm to others. The other part was about establishing the position of chief probation officer and I hope that has been done. There is a recommendation to shift from clarification of risk to the management and reduction of risk and to move from a highly prescriptive and procedure-based framework to one where more professional judgment is used. I suppose in other words that means applying common sense. It was recommended to promote clearer accountability and greater responsibility among staff and significant gains can be made from a fundamental rethink and redesign of probation activities.  
I looked at the general policy statements of this bill. The general policy statement says that certain provisions have been identified as barriers to managing offenders in the community in a manner that is safe secure humane effective and efficient. To say that current legislation provides a sound framework for operation of the corrections system is interesting though. If current legislation was effective and sound then we would not be debating this bill right now. I think it is astounding that the Government has taken so long to introduce a bill to address administrative issues arising from sentencing and parole reforms.  
The bill considers nearly 50 legislative amendments to be made concerning the Bail Act 2000 the Parole Act 2002 and the Sentencing Act 2002. Each amendment proposed seeks to remove certain legislative barriers involved in the administration of sentences and orders so that clarification is reached and many governmental agencies involved improve their operations. The legislative amendments would change policies concerning home detention community-based sentences and electronic monitoring regimes. It is imperative to have complete transparency when it comes to community sentencing. It is alarming that with the current law in place there is room for uncertainty which can often result in legislation interpreted in different ways and can be ambiguous to concerning parties. Ensuring compliance with sentences and orders and managing offenders safely and humanely is of course essential. It is important when we are dealing with offenders who are sentenced to home or community detention to clarify every circumstance faced or proposed including assessment of home situations the effects of subsequent sentencing of imprisonment and prevention of impositions of sentences with those existing. Compliance from the offender with his or her community sentence should not be waived because of electronic monitoring faults.  
Responsibility for preparing reports for the Parole Board on suitability for residential restrictions requires clarification. The current allocation of responsibility to probation officers does not cover the provision of information relating to the offenders’ behaviour in prison.  
Despite many meetings at all levels over a number of years between the prison service and Community Probation Services in regard to ensuring a seamless flow of information between the two agencies very little beyond lip service has happened. I would have to say that the issues are simply around patch protection. Frankly this is not good enough. Community Probation Services must have access to the prison service’s integrated offender management system to allow access to key personal information that covers the prisoner’s behaviour while he or she is in custody. This would include access to prison file notes incident reports and misconduct relating to the integrated offender management system. For years this has been a request that has been continually put off.  
There will be very little in the way of fiscal or administrative impacts to allow such access. There should be no loopholes concerning the protection of our communities against potential reoffenders who have committed sexual offences and extended supervision orders are an important prevention. Extended supervision orders conditions should apply immediately even if the release date is on a non-release day. The legislation concerning extending supervision orders must be clear so that parole boards have the power to impose release conditions on extended supervision orders. With the current cases faced of undetected sexual offenders working within our education sector it is no laughing matter. Ensuring this not happening again is essential. Victims’ rights need to be reinstated as the Parole Amendment Act 2007 has left victims with no entitlement to accessing information on the hearing or its processes. New Zealand First agrees with the extensive changes needed to allow for transparency. We will support this bill on its first reading. However a look into the scope of accessibility of prisoner information for Community Probation Services staff is one that needs consideration. This bill will do well with the introduction of the New Zealand First short sharp sentencing bill. I support this bill to the Law and Order Committee. Thank you.