Clendon DavidDAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to continue the Greens' support for these five bills which have been split out of the original bill as we first saw it at the first reading. What the bills do of course is provide a mechanism whereby people who are at large within a community but are under some form of monitoring or some form of supervision can be measured for compliance with conditions—usually around banning any use of controlled drugs psychoactive substances or alcohol. We see that as a useful thing. We had some initial concerns. We initially undertook to support the legislation only to the select committee on the basis that there were some potential fishhooks in the legislation as it was initially drafted but we are quite satisfied with the progress of the select committee which was a good committee actually. There were some useful and thoughtful submissions and some conversations there and I think it has delivered these bills in pretty good shape now. I think one of the things that we relied on in the legislation is that it establishes three principles with which any undertakings in this legislation must be consistent. They are that testing should be no more intrusive than is reasonably necessary that testing should take place no more often than is reasonably necessary and that those liable to testing and monitoring should be treated respectfully with dignity and with as much privacy as possible. Those are pretty sound principles and I think the credibility of this legislation will depend to some extent on those who implement it respecting those principles and not using this legislation as a means to harass individuals or to make their lives unnecessarily difficult or complicated. I have no reason to think police or indeed corrections staff would do that but I would hope that the people responsible for implementing these bills will keep those key principles at the top of their mind as they do their work around them. There was some concern about some elements of this legislation but we see value in it in part because of the degree to which it aligns with conditions that apply to those being held in custody. Clearly inmates in prisons or under other forms of custody are subject to testing of alcohol or drugs or whatever it might be and we thought that having those same compliance conditions in the community was not a particularly onerous imposition on people. The upside of that of course is that it gives judges another option or indeed Parole Board members who are making a call about whether a person should be given bail or not or whether a person should get parole or not. Knowing that these conditions are in place to ensure compliance or to monitor compliance with very necessary drug and alcohol conditions could make it more possible or more likely that people will be released into the community. We see that typically as a good thing because the more time people spend in prison the more likely they are to offend. So the sooner we get them into community care the better. There is also the factor of course that people who are in the community but subject to these conditions—it makes them less prone to what we might call peer pressure. They can present a solid argument if they are under some sort of pressure from acquaintances or friends or whatever to Go on. Just have a beer or have a toke." or whatever it is. This will give them a very sound reason to say: "No I cannot because tomorrow I might get the knock on the door." I think that is quite a valuable addition to our suite of tools to try to manage people in the community. There is one point where I think the legislation could have been improved. Currently the chief executive officer of Corrections has an obligation to make rules prescribing the nature of monitoring what sort of testing might take place the levels of particular substances in a person's blood or breath or whatever it is which would trigger some sort of breach and various other rules that the chief executive officer of Corrections can make—specifically I imagine for people who are serving community sentences or who are on parole. The Commissioner of Police has similar powers also—where people are on bail particularly—to set rules about the nature of the testing the frequency and the levels at which penalties or some breach might kick in. I think we missed an opportunity when there was a Supplementary Order Paper before the House at the Committee stage that would have obliged the chief executive of Corrections and the Commissioner of Police to talk to one another. I think we can assume in the current conditions that they will talk to one another. They are both reasonable and sensible men but I do think that it would have been helpful to have something embedded in the legislation—simply a line to say there is an obligation for them to consult with one another. It would be unfortunate if we ended up with one regime for people on bail and a different regime for those on parole. It just seemed that it would have added some value to put that small addition to the bill but so be it. We simply have to rely on their common sense to make sure that the two regimes do align fairly closely because it would make no sense at all if they did not particularly I think in terms of the levels that constitute a breach. If a person on bail is treated differently than somebody on parole then that to me would create some tension and it would make no sense at all. The only other points I think I would make is that these bills do provide some useful mechanisms some tools but ultimately they are a defensive measure and Mr Parker in his contribution made a point along those lines. There was a very good submission to the Law and Order Committee from the Community Action Youth and Drugs (CAYAD) which is a national programme focusing on young people obviously and it was concerned about drug and alcohol use and abuse in the community. It sort of scoped out the range of issues around how it is one thing to monitor to test or to coerce people into not using drugs or alcohol when obviously they have an ill-effect on them and their behaviour but it is another thing again to provide support mechanisms and treatment programmes. The CAYAD submission was one of several that commented along these lines that monitoring forcing or measuring compliance is one thing but we need to be actively providing means by which people can break their addiction to drugs or their dependence on alcohol or other forms of substance abuse. It is a sad reality that at the moment we are seriously under-resourced in terms of alcohol and drug treatment in the community. I think you would struggle to find a treatment provider anywhere in New Zealand that did not have a waiting list. I understand that currently there is something like a 3-month delay in people getting treatment for methamphetamine addiction in Auckland at least and I suspect around the country it is similar. That is simply unacceptable and it is plain stupid—if I may use that very simple word—to have a major drug and alcohol problem in this country yet we are not resourcing the treatment that can serve to break the cycle of addiction that can break the dependencies and in the long term change people's behaviours. Although these are useful bills and they provide a useful addition to the tool kit if you like for managing people and hopefully managing them back into being useful contributing citizens who move away from offending I think that we cannot rely on defensive measures alone. We have to be proactive. We have to get real about resourcing the long-term solutions which are very much about treatments and about providing the facilities that people do want and need in order to break their dependence in the cases where people do get hooked on drugs or whatever it might be and their behaviours are modified so seriously and in often violent ways. So with those few comments again I just simply say that we do support this legislation and we look forward to its thoughtful and principled implementation."