Lotu-Iiga Sam: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLotu-Iiga Sam: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1018. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill in the Committee stage. As the member who has just resumed his seat Phil Goff has explained it is a bill that is worthy of our attention. It is certainly worthy of support across this Committee and I am pleased to hear that many of the parties here are supporting it.Of course extended supervision orders are used to manage high-risk child sex offenders in the community and that is for a period of up to 10 years as the architect of the bill has just stated. Offenders on what they call ESOs or extended supervision orders are subject to standard conditions that are set out in the current legislation. They include of course reporting to probation officers special conditions that may be imposed by the Parole Board and residential restrictions as well as electronic monitoring. This will ensure that the public are protected from these offenders who finish their terms.The current legislation has a 10-year maximum time limit and the amendments enhance it in two different ways. First the amendments enable extended supervision orders to be renewed as long as they are needed and that is the important part—as long as they are needed. This is not ad infinitum; this is only where a serious risk is in force. Secondly the scope of extended supervision orders which are currently for child sex offenders only is expanded to include adult sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders and it is important that we increase the scope to take that into account.I want to thank the Law and Order Committee members who received four submissions and turned round this bill in pretty speedy time in order for it to come into force for some dangerous members of our country before the current legislation expires. It is supported widely in the community. Some submitters commented on the implications around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I just want to say that the select committee did take those into account and they included what I would call appropriate safeguards in that orders would be subject to mandatory reviews by the courts which I think is an appropriate measure. Secondly the Parole Board would be required to review those stringent conditions every 2 years. So those safeguards are in place.I have to say to those who do argue for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and for human rights that I do not take lightly the fact that we do sometimes trample on human rights. But on balance I think that the protection and the security of New Zealanders is paramount and that is why we are progressing this bill.I have also put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that deals with three issues that I want to touch on. Firstly it is about making consistent decisions about what is the most appropriate order for high-risk offenders when applications are made to the court. That really deals with obviously the bill we debated before this one. Secondly it deals with interim extended supervision orders and where they can be granted when special circumstances delay a full extended supervision order application and I will talk about that soon. Thirdly it deals with contact between offenders on extended supervision orders and children and where that should be more strictly controlled which I will also touch on.In terms of the interim extended supervision orders we know that public safety may be jeopardised when there is a gap in the options available to manage some of these high-risk offenders. While they are being considered—and that includes when an extended supervision order has expired and a court process is delayed beyond the expiry of that order—we may need to impose an interim extended supervision order. Also it might be where an overseas offender for example is subject to a similar extended supervision order in a foreign jurisdiction and that person is released and may return to New Zealand and there are no measures to protect the public from such an offender.These provisions in terms of the interim extended supervision orders would mirror those provisions in the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill which was talked about prior to this bill and they provide for the court to make these interim measures where an application has been made for a public protection order and the individual is not otherwise subject to appropriate management. I think that is important. I think it minimises the risk around some of these offenders and I am sure it will gather support around this Chamber.Also giving the court power to make an interim order with appropriate conditions until the court makes a final order would best in my view protect the public from harm and having the court impose an interim extended supervision order would reduce the impact on the civil rights of offenders and it would actually be less disruptive to them.I just want to touch on the third part of Supplementary Order Paper 30 which I touched on. Section 107JA of the Parole Act lists standard conditions of extended supervision orders. Subsection (1)(i) refers to the fact that “the offender must not associate with or contact a person under the age of 16 years except in the presence and under the supervision of an adult who—(i) has been informed about the relevant offending: [or] (ii) has been approved in writing by a probation officer as suitable to undertake that role of supervision:”.This clearly is inadequate because the standard condition allows only a probation officer to assure the quality of that person for supervision of contact. It does not provide the Department of Corrections the ability to prevent contact or limit the number of times there is contact or the circumstances of contact between that high-risk offender on an extended supervision order and that child under 16. So the current standard condition leaves open the possibility of some of the most high-risk child sex offenders on the most intensive form of management on an extended supervision order to seek regular contact with young children.The amendment will require that contact between that offender and the child must be approved in writing by a probation officer. In my view that will limit the ability of such offenders to access children. Where it is appropriate that an offender with an extended supervision order has contact with a child or if an offender does not pose any risk to the child such contact could then be approved by the department.I think the measures in the Supplementary Order Paper are appropriate. They are about limiting the access of offenders to children as well providing for interim extended supervision orders to prevail where there are no other tools available to the Department of Corrections. This bill is widely supported across this House. I also want to thank not just the select committee but also the previous Ministers who are currently in the Chamber for their contribution to bringing this bill to the House. I look forward to it being passed in due course.