Goff Phil: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1016. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):This bill is what is described as a cognate bill with the bill that we have just discussed the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. They have a lot in common in the sense that both are designed to provide for extraordinary detention or supervision of people who have completed their finite term in prison but are deemed to be at very high risk of reoffending if they are returned to the community. The difference with the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is this: it does not actually detain people in prison conditions; it allows people to live out in the community but under close supervision. And for the first year of the extended supervision order they may be under very very close supervision.This is a bill that in fact had its origins back in 2004—that is when it went through—when I was Minister of Justice. I introduced the bill and I introduced the bill because a group of offenders had been released from care in the community under the old legislation dealing with mentally ill patients. They were found not to be mentally ill; they were found to be personality disordered and because being personality disordered did not meet the requirements for detention under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act they were released. This came to my attention through a psychiatric nurse called Neil Pugmire who worked up in the Manawatū at Lake Alice Hospital. He said: “I’ve drawn this to the attention of the Minister. I’ve drawn this to the attention of everybody I possibly can. I have worked with these people. I know these people. They are not capable of controlling or exercising control over their own actions and they will almost certainly reoffend if not returned to custody.”He was actually sacked from his job for doing that which I thought was grossly unjust. He was issuing a public warning designed to enhance the safety of the community. The thing was that Neil Pugmire was absolutely right. These offenders went on to reoffend and to reoffend seriously. The offender who came to my attention was an offender who had a very low IQ—it was about 90. He was actually imprisoned again because he raped a child under the age of 2 which nearly resulted in the death of that child. I say that not for the value of shocking the Committee but to say this was the consequence in the case of a person like Lloyd McIntosh who was totally incapable of controlling his urges who had no empathy or understanding of the impact of his actions on his victims and whose mother warned us would keep on reoffending if he was not under some form of supervision—and indeed so did he. He was one of the group of people under extended supervision orders who said that they welcomed the supervision because it kept them and others safe from the actions that they would otherwise take.I am not pretending that everybody welcomes the fact that they are subject to supervision but I am saying there is this category of people just as there was for the public protection orders where the balance changes from the right of a person having completed their sentence to be released into the community to the right of vulnerable people in the community such as children to be protected from people who will almost certainly reoffend as soon as the opportunity arises. Every time I come down on the side of the rights of the vulnerable particularly children—and there are 335 people who have been restrained under extended supervision orders because they have offended sexually against children.What does this bill do and why is it necessary? Well the 10-year period under which a person can be confined under an extended supervision order comes to an end early next year and the first of those prisoners Lloyd McIntosh will be released at that stage and I know that the Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Justice will have the same nightmares about that as I had at the time when he was previously due for release. What this bill does is allow the indefinite extension of an extended supervision order beyond the 10 years. I understand that about a third—about 70—of the 225 individuals currently under extended supervision orders will probably have their extended supervision extended beyond a 10-year period.Extended supervision orders are different from public protection orders because people are not detained in prison-like facilities; they are in the community but under intensive supervision. But ironically public protection orders are deemed to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because those are civil orders whereas what we are doing here is deemed by the Attorney-General to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it is under a criminal regime. So they have far more rights but this bill is seen as breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I have never breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or supported the breaching of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act lightly. I take the rights set out in that Act incredibly seriously.But as I said before in the instance of these individuals I believe that you have to consider the rights of those whom they will almost certainly offend against to be protected from them. This bill not only extends the period beyond 10 years but it is also extended to cover some sex offenders against adults and some very serious violent offenders. The numbers are much smaller but they are equally categorised as being highly likely to reoffend.My wish is actually that the judge in the first instance had simply sentenced them to preventive detention. That would have been a solution totally within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They could have been kept in prison indefinitely and when released they could have been re-imprisoned at any time they breached the conditions of their release. But a judge at the time of sentencing does not have perfect information and after a person has been in prison for a long period of time those who have worked every day with that person often as health professionals and psychologists have a better understanding of the risks posed. These extended supervision orders will not be imposed on people other than those whom health professionals believe it is vital to have this form of supervision over to prevent them from offending again.I do need to read to the Committee what the Attorney-General has said. He said in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet: “I conclude it appears to be inconsistent with the rights against … retroactive penalties and double jeopardy which are affirmed by [sections 26 and 22] of that Act.” He acknowledged that the extended supervision order will be imposed only on offenders who have committed serious sexual offences and where the court that sentenced that offender is satisfied they pose a high risk of committing further such offences. He acknowledged also that there are two new safeguards against the extended supervision orders being imposed unnecessarily in two ways: extending the matters that must be addressed by the health assessor’s report and the fact that the court has to be satisfied that there is a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending before making an order. Any risk of sexual reoffending must be high. The risk of violent reoffending must be very high and these orders are reviewed by the Parole Board every 2 years.At the Law and Order Committee I explored with officials whether it was possible to make this a civil rather than a criminal regime which would not in any material sense affect the way in which the offenders were being treated but would bring us technically within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think in large part because it would have created a lot of work and there was a limited period of time before these orders had to be in place the officials said no it is not really worth the candle. I would have liked a longer period of time so that we could have explored that more thoroughly. If we could have avoided breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that would have been the better alternative by far. But in the end I was persuaded that even if we had been able to get this new civil regime as we have with public protection orders actually it would not have affected in any material way the way in which people convicted of very serious offences would be treated and it would not have in practice affected the rights they exercise. Although I express reluctance about the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act I nevertheless support this bill.