Davis Kelvin: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1021. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):Again as a brand-spanking-new member on the Law and Order Committee I was not aware of the genesis of extended supervision orders so it has been very valuable for me to sit here and listen to the Hon Phil Goff talking about his concerns in 2004 around the imminent release of offenders whom he believed would probably go on and reoffend sexually against children and young people. It has been really interesting to hear also his angst about that situation and to hear that that is why the extended supervision orders were put in place in 2004 and were to last for 10 years. That 10 years now is about to expire.It is interesting to know that even after 10 years of extended supervision we have come to the realisation that there are people who just will not get over their urge to reoffend and therefore there is a need for the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill so that in effect extended supervision orders can be extended as often as is needed. I think it is really really important that we recognise that there are just some people who regardless of the amount of help and rehabilitation that they get in their time in prison during their sentence will still come out of prison and reoffend and the Hon Phil Goff gave a sad example of that. The scope has been expanded as others have mentioned to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk violent offenders.It would be remiss of me to stand and talk on a bill that involves sexual abuse and sexual offenders without reiterating to the country and to the Committee just how prevalent sexual abuse and sexual offending are. I raise the example of when I was the principal of a school up north. In the space of 15 school days—in the space of 3 weeks—13 instances of sexual abuse were brought to my attention. They were not all immediate; some of them were historical but I was having to deal with them as a principal. So it would be remiss of me to not bring up the fact that sexual abuse is rampant and that members of this House must do everything in our power to stop it and to prevent people’s recidivism. The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is one of those instances where we are doing something proactive to protect boys girls men and women from sexual abuse.I also just want to raise another instance of a letter. A number of us may have received a letter from this man who is in Christchurch Prison at the moment. He wrote a letter to me and said: “Kelvin I’m in prison because I did some bad stuff but the bad stuff the genesis was in the sexual abuse that I suffered as a boy when I was raped every night by my father.” We have got to acknowledge the impact that sexual offending has on the lives of New Zealanders.This bill does conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I would like to read some parts of the commentary from the bill. “Extended supervision orders are designed to protect the community from high-risk offenders not to punish for past offences. However the Parole Act 2002 treats extended supervision orders as a criminal justice process; therefore an extended supervision order could be interpreted as a form of penalty and thus in breach of the protection against double jeopardy.” We spoke about this in the previous bill the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill—that we do not want people to be punished for the same offence and that there is tension between the rights of people and public protection. For me knowing now what I know about sexual abuse and violent offending I err on the side of protecting the rights of the public even if that does upset other people.I want to draw attention to new section 107(2) in clause 7. It says: “To avoid doubt and to confirm the retrospective application of this provision despite any enactment or rule of law an offender may be an eligible offender even if he or she committed a relevant offence was most recently convicted or became subject to release conditions or an extended supervision order before this Part and any amendments to it came into force.” So this is looking at not just those people who have offended after the commencement of this bill but those who are already in prison now making sure that as they start being released in the next few months—the first people who came under the extended supervision orders—they are included under this bill.I also want to raise a local situation from up north. We are talking about people whom we do not think will ever be rehabilitated. We think that there is an imminent risk of them reoffending. Up north we have the instance of James Parker the deputy principal of a school up there. In my opinion although he got preventive detention—and I am grateful for that—he could well have been given a finite sentence and at some stage in the future be released. This is a guy who is symptomatic and an example of the sort of people whom I just do not think will be rehabilitated. This guy was cunning and manipulative. He took advantage of people. He really worked the system and played with people’s minds so that he was able to offend at will. In fact so bad was his state of mind in my belief that when an accusation was made against him and the charges were dropped his offending actually increased and got more intensive and more bizarre. I believe that this is the perfect case of somebody—and again I reiterate that he did get preventive detention—who if he was not on preventive detention must come under these extended supervision orders for the rest of his life because any young person any young boy such as boys of the same age who were in his charge would for ever be in jeopardy if they were around James Parker were he ever to be released into the public.I support this bill. I have seen the effect the damage that sexual abuse and violent offending do. I have got no doubt that Mike Sabin across the way there also from up north as a former police officer would have seen the effects of them in even more graphic detail than what I saw. I just saw as a principal the effects on the kids in the school and the difficulties that a lot of children had in learning.A final point is that one thing we have got to realise is that offenders are not necessarily the strange or weird-looking guy walking down the street. Too many young people too many people tonight will be abused by somebody they know they love and whom they should be able to trust—in other words members of their families. I do not think that we identify and out these people enough. I believe that by the nature of their offending—and it is often fathers who offend against daughters granddaughters and nieces—these are people too who will be constantly recidivistic. It is almost like they feel that it is their right to actually behave like this. Again I would be remiss if I did not raise these sorts of issues with the Committee. Kia ora.