Davis Kelvin: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:865. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):As most people are aware across the House I have made a commitment to the elimination of sexual and physical violence across New Zealand. So it is with pleasure that I rise in support of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. I think it is a very important bill. But it is going to address only a small part of the problem. The problem of sexual and physical violence and domestic violence across New Zealand is huge. Let us not think that it is going to take one silver bullet to address the whole issue. This bill though plays a very small part in addressing the issue and it is targeting only a very few people.Not everybody who goes to prison is a violent or sexual offender. Of those people who are sexual or violent offenders—we are talking about a subset of all those who go to prison—only a very small proportion of them do not look like they have been rehabilitated and look like they will reoffend. Over the course of their detention in prison they would have been observed and monitored their behaviour analysed and their health looked at by various health professionals such as psychiatrists and psychologists. Basically these health professionals will have come together to make the decision that when this person is released they will have a very high chance of reoffending. This is the small group of people we are talking about in terms of the public protection orders.There is a threshold that the chief executive of the Department of Corrections must consider before he or she applies for a public protection order to be made. The offender must be over 18 years of age in the first instance—so we are not talking about young people. The person must be in prison for a serious sexual offence—so we are not talking about jaywalkers and shoplifters; we are talking about people who have committed serious sexual or violent offences and will be released within 6 months.I want to move to a section of people that I do not think have really been considered as likely to reoffend: these are the partners of women who are in prison for domestic violence. Many of those offenders—those men who have beaten their wives and may have gone to prison for that—will probably not display some of the behaviours that we are talking about or a high likelihood of being observed as having mental issues and things like that. My concern is that they will be released and many of them will have a high risk of reoffending against their partners and their children despite their not having really met the test that other members across the House have described.I will just go through that test again. High-risk people display an intense urge or drive to offend. Many men who have committed domestic violence will not necessarily display this while they are in prison. High-risk people have an inability to self-regulate their behaviour. Most normal adults can regulate their behaviour depending on the context—that is the situation they are in. The behaviour we display at work is often different from the behaviour we display when we are with our mates or playing sports but most of us have the ability to regulate our behaviour. The people who will be affected by this bill do not have that ability. Many men who are convicted—the husbands and the partners of women who have been beaten up—might not necessarily display these behaviours. They will show their ability to self-regulate and they might not be picked up because of this.The third risk factor is an inability to comprehend the impact of their offending on a person or to display empathy. The people whom we intend to detain through the public protection orders probably cannot display that. Yet many husbands who are violent towards their spouses probably can display that in prison. Also the fourth risk factor is the poor interpersonal relationships or social isolation of the offenders. They will have trouble making friends in prison and they will be socially isolated in prison. However many of the men—the husbands and partners who are in prison—will probably not display poor interpersonal relationships or social isolation. So what I am saying is that I have a concern that many violent and abusive husbands and partners will go out and reoffend and yet they will not display these risk factors. To me that is a real issue especially considering that yesterday was White Ribbon Day.The legislation in its entirety—the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill—is legislation that the Phillip Smith case was designed for. This is the exact reason why legislation like this is necessary. Phillip Smith murdered the father of a boy whom he was sexually molesting in 1996. He was coming towards the end of his sentence and was given liberties—in fact probably more liberties than a drunken sailor. He was allowed to go out for a number of hours. He went out unsupervised. The length of time that he was allowed out was extended from 12 hours to 24 hours to 48 hours to 72 hours. He was able to apply for a passport under another name and he was able to use that passport to get himself over to Chile and then up to Brazil—and it is a wonder that anybody caught him at all.If the Department of Corrections had been on the case they would have noticed that his behaviour was inappropriate. Really he should have had a public protection order or at least an extended supervision order placed on him so that he would not have been able to basically roam free around the community. My concern is: if he had not been caught in Brazil who would his victims have been over there? We know that in Brazil their laws their society and their community are a bit looser than ours. We know that there are many street kids over in Brazil and those people would have been at risk from Phillip Smith.Each prisoner is going to have an assessment and it has to be done by two or more health professionals including one registered psychologist. In other words we are not going to lock up just anybody; we are locking up people who are deemed to be at most risk of reoffending. There are a number of checks and balances to make sure that this bill will apply to only those people who need it most. Kia ora.