Ardern Jacinda: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:861. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to rise to speak on these two bills that have been brought together. I have to start by saying that it is a shame that the Minister of Justice began her speech on an issue on which I think there has been some very good collaboration between both sides of the House with such inconsistency and false statements. To claim that the previous Labour Government had no focus on victims for instance was actually disproven in her own speech given that she made reference to bringing alignment between the bills that have been put before the House today and the Victims’ Rights Act which was brought into place by one Phil Goff as Minister of Justice in 2002. A very good piece of legislation it was as was the Sentencing Act 2002 which ensured that we did not have automatic parole which was brought in by that Government as was the Parole Act 2002 which ensured that the safety of the community was the paramount consideration for the Parole Board. It is a very good piece of legislation which this Government has continued to build around because it is such a good foundation piece of legislation. So it is a shame that the Minister would make such a false statement.But in respect of the bills that we have before us today the Minister is right. They do plug some gaps that exist currently in our justice system. What if we have a situation—and we unfortunately do—where serious violent offenders with sentences that are about to come to an end prove to be absolutely not ready to be reintegrated into society but their sentence is coming to an end and we have no ability to hold them? What do we do? Phil Goff was faced with this very situation. Of course we now have the ability with preventive detention to ensure that actually at sentencing—if a judge determines that an individual in question might not obviously have committed a murder that would allow a life sentence to be imposed but may have committed a crime that was so heinous that he or she thought it prudent to place preventive detention over the individual—the Parole Board is given an ongoing ability to hold that offender in prison.But what if the individual were not given preventive detention? We have been faced with this situation. Phil Goff was faced with it when he was Minister of Justice. He was presented with an individual who had committed heinous crimes against children—sexual offending against children. It was clear that that offender was not ready to be integrated and posed a risk to the community and so extended supervision orders were created. They gave the ability to monitor a prisoner in the community beyond the sentence that had been handed down. Yes it was a significant step in our justice system to be able to apply something in that manner but it was done and it was the right thing to do. It was right that it was debated extensively because it was a step away from those very important principles within our justice system.But now—I think because they really tested the boundaries—extended supervision orders have come to an end. They were set down for 10 years. They were not used too broadly and that was right. They were intended only for very particular offenders. But now that that 10 years is up some extended supervision orders are coming up for expiry in 2015 and this Government has had to face whether or not there are individuals who should have those supervision orders extended beyond that. We agree that for some offenders that will absolutely be required.But it has provided an opportunity to plug some other gaps with extended supervision orders. The bill that we have debated as a Parliament has suggested that instead of having a 10-year time limit we have no time limit but that we ensure we continue to review extended supervision orders so that we make sure they are not being used inappropriately or for longer than is required again keeping in mind that these are offenders who have served their sentence as handed down to them by the justice system.The bills also propose that we extend who is covered. As I said originally we were talking about sexual offenders specifically relating to children. The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill extends who is covered. Clause 6 of the bill inserts new section 107B(2) which sets out under the Crimes Act 1961 the relevant sexual offences but also the relevant violent offences for which an extended supervision order can be placed. As I said it introduces 5-year mandatory reviews and it allows for intensive monitoring of up to 24 hours a day for the first 12 months.We debated this bill internally of course. Whenever we challenge the bounds of our justice system in this manner we need to make sure we have robust checks and balances in place. We have done that and have come to the conclusion that they are sensible amendments.The other group that is now covered by extended supervision orders are the offenders who are returning to New Zealand who have served a sentence abroad and whom we determine to be an ongoing threat. In the Committee stage I would be interested to discuss the practicalities around how we ensure correct information-sharing is occurring between overseas jurisdictions and New Zealand to make sure that those orders are being appropriately applied to those who are returning to New Zealand. We have seen some cases where we do not even share information properly within New Zealand—domestically—let alone with overseas jurisdictions so I think that is worthy of exploring.So we have decided that yes extended supervision orders in the form they are being put forward by the Government are something that we could support. But prior to this bill coming to the fore we were actually already debating another set of tools and that is public safety public protection orders. These are orders that go beyond extended supervision orders—which of course are placed on individuals who are in the community—and say that actually there is a group of offenders who should not even reach that stage who again do not have preventive detention or a life sentence that enables them to be kept within prison to serve a longer sentence if that is deemed necessary.One question I would raise is that it does interest me that we would have offenders who would reach that threshold but who have not been given preventive detention—whether there are cases where the judge had the ability to do that but did not and subsequently we are having to look at orders like this that at the endpoint allow for an extended order then to be placed through a civil regime. That begs the question of whether or not we should have something like a sentencing council which actually reviews cases where we would see that we would have to be retrospectively applying through civil orders measures to protect the community because perhaps the right sentence was not used in the first place. Labour has always supported a sentencing council based on the UK model which allows us to review cases and learn where we have failed where perhaps the legislation has gaps and make sure that we are not having to use these backstop measures. So I thought the question was worth raising.But the public safety public protection orders are at the best estimate of the Ministry of Justice going to cover only five to 12 individuals every 10 years. It is a reasonably small group of people and it is absolutely reasonable to expect that the threshold for those on whom these orders are placed should be very very high keeping in mind that these are individuals who have served the sentence they have been handed down. As our justice system dictates once you are convicted of a crime you are given your sentence and once you have served your sentence the usual expectation is that you are reintegrated into the community so to go beyond that we do need to ensure that we have a very high threshold.That threshold was set out in the first reading by Judith Collins who was the Minister in charge at the time. She stated the four characteristics that must be met for one of these orders to be placed because of course the order does still allow detainment—that is the difference with the extended supervision orders. The first characteristic is that there must be an intensive drive or urge to offend by the offender. Evidence for that might be for instance the fact that they have offended immediately upon release. That would beg the question that you would hope that someone would be subject to an extended supervision order in that case and if you have an extended supervision order that is one form of criterion for it to be upgraded to a public protection order.The second characteristic is an inability to control behaviour and emotions and that must be demonstrated by evidence of impulsiveness and an inability to cope with or manage stress. Third is an absence of understanding and concern for the impact of offending on the victim. The fourth is that the person experiences poor interpersonal relationships or social isolation. Obviously all of that must be demonstrated through proper analysis by professionals. These are not assessments that can be made just within the correction system without a proper assessment being undertaken by two health assessors independent legal advice and a psychological evaluation. It is absolutely right that the threshold test be that high.I do want to raise one final point. Although we are supporting these orders obviously we are always concerned that we make sure that we are not pushing the justice boundaries beyond where principles of good justice fairness and equity should be instilled within our system. We have always got to manage that and so those are the constant tests that we would like to see debated in this House given that we are going beyond what is the usual expectation of our justice system.