Clendon David: Parole Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Parole Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1529. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green):As we clearly understand from people giving commentary on this bill the primary purpose of the bill is to extend the permissible period between parole hearings when it is the judgment of the board that offenders are highly unlikely to be proven to be eligible for parole. I would just like to put a little bit of context around that and it picks up on some commentary I heard a few moments ago.I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the value of parole and of the importance of having parole available as a management tool in a sense. It has been highlighted in recent days by the phenomenon if you like which has now got some public traction of people who have offended seriously overseas—New Zealanders who have been sentenced internationally to long jail terms in many cases—who complete their terms who are put on aeroplanes and who are then dropped back in New Zealand. That is something that has existed recently. There is one particular case that has excited some public commentary. Actually I share the concern of those people who think it is entirely undesirable that a person does a long term in prison is literally taken from their cell to the airport and is effectively dropped in New Zealand with no further controls no constraints on them and no ability for the State—for the community—to impose any management on them.I do not think the solution to that is a registry. I think that as I say the phenomenon for want of a better word does highlight the importance of parole and the value of parole as a means for us to facilitate the transition from custody back to reintegrating people into the community. In respect of what our colleague Kris Faafoi has just stated the Greens would disagree actually that the correct balance has been struck in this legislation. We are not convinced that the provisions in it are actually the optimal provisions. Frankly we think that there are three key drivers of the bill and of the technical provisions that are contained in it. One is cost saving and yes it is expensive to run the parole process. Another is the importance—the value—of keeping people optimally managed if you like. And of course there is the protection of victims to prevent the re-victimisation of people—and I do think that that is overstated.Dealing with the first point first I think the cost-saving argument is the argument that is put forward least often in respect of this legislation for the reason that it is actually a very weak argument. I investigated this with some questions for written answer at an earlier process. I asked what the methodology was behind establishing the numbers we were given and determining what the cost savings were and the reduction in the likely number of parole hearings. Frankly there was no methodology. The answers we got back indicated that there was a best guess made as to the percentage reduction in parole hearings that would be facilitated by this legislation. Then as is beloved of economists from that point on having established a very shaky assumption there was some sophisticated formula applied to that assumption which generated what looked like some defensible numbers.I think the matter of cost is a very weak justification for this legislation. It is not proven. If you save the cost of a hearing which we think is around $1000 give or take—it varies depending on circumstances—then for every 90 hearings that are not held unnecessarily that is $90000. You only have to end up as a result of that process with one inmate serving 1 year longer in jail than they might otherwise have and that cost has gone away. It is in round figures but I think the current cost of keeping somebody incarcerated is $95000 or $97000—that sort of figure.The argument that we are protecting victims is a very powerful argument and yes we do want to protect victims. We do not want people constantly revictimised. We have heard from individuals of the stresses imposed on them because they feel obliged to attend these parole hearings which in some instances are coming around fairly regularly. In fact it is only a very small percentage of people who take the opportunity to attend the hearings or to be involved in them. There is I think a popular misconception that the victims are obliged to face the person who offended against them and that simply is not the reality. At no point is a victim obliged to confront an offender. The Parole Board is much more sensitive. It manages these people very carefully. But I think the key point is that from memory—and I am relying only on memory; unfortunately I do not have the note here—something like 3 percent of victims actually attend Parole Board hearings. With all due respect to those people—Hon Phil Goff: 7 percent.DAVID CLENDON: —7 percent thank you—and their obvious concerns I think it is possible to overstate the extent to which their attendance at those hearings actually influences the decision of the Parole Board. I do say that with the greatest respect to the board and to the victims. Clearly the Parole Board will expect that somebody who has been the victim of a horrendous crime or the loss of a family member to a murder or who has themselves been assaulted or grievously harmed will of course want that person to stay in jail for the longest term possible. I do think the assumption that that carries significant weight with the Parole Board is possibly overstated.I guess our compelling concern about this legislation is the process that is set up around what we no longer call milestone events but relevant activities. The bill rests on an assumption that inmates will be motivated to complete the various programmes whatever they are that the board says they need to complete before they can be considered for parole. We know because the Department of Corrections has told us that it is already struggling to schedule inmates on available programmes. I have many letters on my files and I am sure other MPs have similar letters from inmates who are saying: “Look I want to get on to this programme. I know I need it.” There is a benefit to the inmates and to wider society for these people to do these programmes and they simply cannot get access to them because the programmes are oversubscribed. The scheduling difficulty the Department of Corrections has said is partly a technical one. It does not have the IT facility and it is not on the horizon that it will get the technical IT capacity to facilitate that scheduling.I support the work that has been done by the previous Minister and I am sure the current Minister will continue it to broaden the range of programmes available. I am pleased that the Government over the last term particularly actually started talking more the language of rehabilitation and reintegration. There is more goodwill being displayed towards dealing with these people healing them and dealing with the underlying causes of their offending. There is no point in putting these relevant activities requirements into legislation if in all good conscience inmates are being denied access to them because there is simply not the infrastructure behind them. Build the infrastructure create the capacity within the system to deliver these very positive and helpful programmes be they for drug and alcohol issues mental health issues basic literacy or work skills whatever they might be. Create that infrastructure first and then put the obligation on inmates to pursue them.We think that although there is some well-intentioned aspects and provisions in this bill underpinning it are some false assumptions we believe—some false expectations. We do know that the requirement that inmates must first accept guilt is one of the provisions before they can get into some of these programmes. On the one hand yes it does oblige people who have offended to confront their offending and to honestly accept that they do have a debt to pay. But there is also such a thing as people in prison who are innocent and who continue to express their innocence and as a number of submitters have pointed out the provisions in this bill put those people in a very difficult position. They are actually forced to lie despite the fact that they genuinely believe themselves to be innocent and there are examples we know of where we have incarcerated innocent people. It does not happen that often but it does happen. It puts those people in an untenable situation. It is also contrary to our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which says that people ought not to be compelled to make those sorts of false confessions if you like or to implicate themselves when they know very well they have not offended.