Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePublic Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13441. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) BillFirst ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. This bill will improve public safety and save potential victims from almost certain serious harm or worse. The High Court will be able to order the detention of the most high-risk offenders under a public protection order. The new order will complement existing measures such as parole conditions extended supervision orders and preventive detention. The bill responds to situations where an offender presents an unacceptable risk that cannot be managed through these existing measures.People must ask themselves whether they would place someone who has a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending in any community in New Zealand let alone their own. At this very high level of imminent risk the law runs out of options to manage these offenders’ behaviours once their sentence is complete. This is reflected in the small number of people expected to receive a public protection order. I expect five to 12 orders over a 10-year period. Once public safety has been assured the bill provides that the people detained under a public protection order will have all the rights of other citizens. Detention under the bill is civil in nature but within the precincts of a prison because the safety of the community cannot be assured otherwise.Some may say that the bill raises significant human rights issues. I believe this bill strikes the right balance between the liberty rights of individuals under a public protection order and our duty to protect New Zealanders from imminently dangerous offenders. The bill is necessary effective proportionate and fair. The bill specifies a threshold and a test for a public protection order. The threshold requires that a person has nearly completed sentences for sexual or violent offending or has been released from prison and is subject to the most intensive form of supervision. The test requires that the person poses a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending. Imminence means that the person is expected to commit a serious sexual or violent offence as soon as they have the suitable opportunity to do so.The Crown must prove four characteristics that give rise to the risk. I will go through each of these characteristics in turn because they are integral to the justification for continuing detention under a public protection order. The first is an intense drive or urge to offend. Evidence used to prove this urge could include for example the individual’s rapid reoffending following previous releases from custody. The second is an inability to control behaviour and emotions. This may be shown by evidence of impulsiveness and an inability to cope with or manage any form of stress or difficulties. The third is an absence of understanding and concern for the impact of offending on potential or actualvictims. I would note here that all offenders in this group who could be subject to a public protection order will have had or been offered the opportunity of comprehensive treatment during their time in prison. The fourth and final characteristic is that the person experiences poor interpersonal relationships or social isolation or both.The Crown must prove all four of these characteristics to a high level to subject someone to a public protection order. Three out of four characteristics is not enough to support an order. Although these people have offended in the past they will not be detained for their previous crimes. They will be detained because of their imminent risk of serious sexual or violent offending at the time of the application. The test for the risk of imminent future offending will be difficult to meet.The bill recognises the serious implications of a public protection order. It also provides the following robust procedures for making the orders. Only the High Court in its civil jurisdiction will be authorised to make an order. Any application to the High Court will be accompanied by two health assessors’ reports on the level of risk posed by the person. A person for whom an order is sought will have the right to independent legal advice and psychological evaluation—funded if necessary by legal aid. The court may of its own initiative direct a health assessor to prepare a report.The bill includes a number of safeguards for the protection of the rights of individuals subject to a public protection order. There is ongoing judicial and independent supervision of the detention. A review panel will review public protection orders each year. The High Court will review the public protection orders every 5 years or more frequently on the recommendation of the review panel or on application by the resident. These regular reviews ensure that the initial determination of risk does not result in unjustifiable continuing detention. A regular review of the basis for detention ensures that a person is detained only when they pose risk.The measures in this bill will improve public safety by ensuring the detention of individuals who pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and from the outset I say that notwithstanding some concerns we have about an aspect of this bill we will support it because we think it should be given proper and appropriate examination in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I note that this bill has taken some time to arrive at this stage in Parliament. It was a promise made in the 2011 election campaign by the National Party. I think there was an undertaking for some consultation by the Government with other parties in Parliament. That did not happen. The bill was tabled and is now being read for the first time notwithstanding the fact that there have been prisoners reaching the end of their sentence who have posed a risk to the community.We understand that this bill and the measures that it contains apply when the sentence of an offender convicted of a violent or sexual offence is exhausted. There is a tension between the long-established principles of criminal justice which are that the crime is proven a conviction is entered a sentence is to reflect the magnitude of the crime and a punishment is proportionate to the crime that has been committed. Normally the sentence is given with the minimum incarceration period with potential for parole on the basis that a convicted offender has the opportunity to demonstrate that they are capable and that they can return to the community and pose little or no risk to the community. But the Minister of Justice is right. It is a very small number but it is the nature of humanity—there are people who because of the nature of their personality the nature of who they are continue to pose a serious risk to the community. There does need to be a way of managing just those sorts of people.We might wonder why it is that we have not had measures to deal with those people until now—why that has not been a problem until now. It is certainly something I have reflected on. Probably once upon a time these are the sorts of people who would have been locked up in a mental health institution and left and they would have been placed under some sort of compulsory order. They may not have had a genuine mental health problem—they might have had a personality disorder—but they would have been left inside a mental health institution and treated accordingly. Many years ago they possibly would have been treated through lobotomies and other measures which is what of course was depicted in that great movieOne Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. But we have a system now where of course we do not treat people with personality disorders who are routinely violent in that sort of way and we have a set of social mores that tries to put as many people as possible in the mainstream.But as the Minister has said and as we know from media reports there is that very small number of people who have demonstrated that regardless of convictions that they have had entered against them and the punishment that has been meted out to them and that they have been managed under in our criminal justice system they nevertheless continue to pose a risk to the community. We understand that there needs to be that balance struck between those people who fulfil their criminal justice obligations and who would otherwise be entitled to the freedom that they would otherwise get and those who were they to be freed into the community would pose not just some risk but as the legislation says an “imminent” risk—a risk that I would see as an almost certain risk to the public—and therefore there needs to be some sort of restraint.But as I said in a debate on a bill earlier today we are seeing more of this sort of legislation. We saw it with the Vulnerable Children Bill. We have seen it in other legislation where this House is being asked to put in place measures that do not fit the criminal justice framework that we are used to but are about affording protection to the community. I do note by comparison the provisions in this bill as compared with those in the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. One of my criticisms about the latter bill is that it is left up to victims to take steps to afford themselves protection in circumstances where I would have thought it was obvious they were entitled to it. In this bill as indeed under the Vulnerable Children Bill it is left up to a public official to make that application in the civil jurisdiction of the court. I simply prevail upon the Minister to think carefully about the disparity that is opening up now in these pieces of legislation. If it is genuinely about affording protection to the public against people who are a clear and obvious risk to the public then that is a matter that certainly in the public interest the State should pick up the cost of and take responsibility for. There is no reason why some consistency should not be created across these pieces of legislation.Let me go back to the point I wanted to make. One of the things we will be doing as the select committee process unfolds with this bill is ensuring that a proper balance is struck between the criminal justice system doing its job within the sorts of principles and the framework that we are used to and those people who having been though the system are otherwise entitled to their freedom. This bill says that there will be some constraints on an offender who comes under the aegis of this piece of legislation. It says that a prisoner detained under a protection order under this bill will have the rights of a person of full capacity who is not subject to a public protection order except as limited by the Act.But the reality is that the limitations are extensive. The person must be in a facility within the precincts of a prison. Their communication means are subject to scrutiny and potential interference. They are not entitled to unsupervised access to the internet and there are other limitations that they are subject to as well: monitoring of telephone callssearch and seizure including strip-searches and drug and alcohol tests. So we will need to hear from the authorities if not the experts those who will be called upon to certify that these people are the risk that is claimed of them whether or not these sorts of measures simply go too far in terms of that balance between protecting the public and ensuring that there is at least some freedom afforded to people who have fulfilled their obligations to the criminal justice system.What we do not want to do is pass law after law and bill after bill that do not just encroach upon important freedoms but start establishing as a matter of principle that it is OK to do this without a proper consideration of those rights of citizenship including the rights of citizens who have transgressed the normal mores and socially accepted standards of behaviour but who have paid their dues done their time been punished as a result and ought ordinarily to expect to go back into the community. That is the principle of criminal justice. We must always uphold that but there will be exceptions. When we are faced with these difficult problems that this bill seeks to address then we in this House need to be absolutely sure in fulfilling our duty as representatives of all citizens that we have got that balance right that we have got the tension properly managed and that we do not create a principle that allows us without undue ceremony to encroach on those important rights. As I said at the beginning we will support this bill going to the select committee. We will examine it very closely and very carefully to make sure that all those rights and those principles are properly respected and observed.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and stand in support of the first reading of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill in the name of the Hon Judith Collins Minister of Justice. We have heard two presentations one from the Minister and one from the Labour justice spokesperson Andrew Little and I think that they have both been very good measured and well-considered presentations. There are unfortunately in society a very small number of troubled people who have fulfilled their obligations in terms of the criminal justice system but still present a real and very threatening risk to the wider public. As Andrew Little made the point in his speech in less enlightened times these people would probably have been incarcerated in some kind of mental institution where they would have been subjected to all kinds of indignities both mental and physical and probably involving drugs and all kinds of treatments that we would consider entirely inappropriate today.As a Parliament we do have an obligation to balance very carefully and very finely the responsibilities of the State to ensure that the public are protected in their homes and as they go about their lawful business from this very small number of people who have the potential to inflict ongoing harm and danger to the general public. So this piece of legislation fulfils a campaign pledge that I and other members of the Government campaigned on during the 2011 general election. It is aimed at people who reach the end of their finite prison sentence and who are subject to the most intensive form of extended supervision order and yet who still pose a very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent reoffending and where less restrictive forms of supervision are simply not going to be adequate for preventing almost all further reoffending.This is a Government that believes that we should ensure that New Zealanders can feel safe in their homes and in their communities. So I think this fulfilment of an election promise is a significant piece of legislation and I am very pleased that the Minister has been able to bring it to the House for consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee. Despite serving prison terms a few dangerous offenders are highly likely to reoffend once they have been released back into society. Existing mechanisms such as preventive detention and extended supervision orders which allow authorities to monitor manage and/or recall offenders to prison are sometimes simply not adequate to protect the public. I think this piece of legislation as we go through theselect committee will probe and make sure that the balance between the public’s right to protection and also the individual’s rights in terms of the fulfilment of the criminal justice penalties that have been inflicted upon them because of previous bad crimes will be neatly addressed. The bill balances those rights of New Zealanders to be safe in their community with the rights of offenders who have served their sentence.This bill will protect members of the public and that is what it is really all about. The public protection order will be a court order that will allow the detention of a very high-risk individual at a secure facility within existing prison precincts. Only a very small number of people are likely to be subject to public protection orders. As the Minister has indicated officials estimate that over the next decade a maximum of somewhere between five and 12 offenders are likely to be included in these public protection orders. Individuals will have the opportunity to show that the Crown has not established that they meet the risk criteria at the time that the Crown applies to the High Court for an order.So what are the risk criteria? Well “very high risk” will mean that offending is considered extremely likely. “Serious” means that the predicted offending would cause serious physical or psychological harm to one or more other persons. “Imminent” means that the offending is expected to occur when provided with a suitable opportunity the offender would immediately inflict serious physical or psychological harm to one or more persons.I think this will be a good piece of legislation. As I said I am very pleased that the Minister has introduced it to the House. As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I am looking forward to the deliberations and to the submissions we will receive on it. I commend it to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): As my colleague Andrew Little said Labour will be supporting this bill the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill going through to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that it was an election promise and therefore some may be sceptical about the motivation of it I think there is a need to reflect on the fact that there is a small group of people in the community who are very likely to reoffend.One of the hardest things that I found in 6 years as Minister of Justice was dealing with people who had committed crimes and who were often of low intellectual ability. They were most frequently paedophiles. They behaved in a way that would be totally irrational to all of us in this House. They were compulsive in their behaviour and I worried a lot about some of those individuals. I can still think of the names of some of them—that were released publicly. Lloyd McIntosh was one of them. He was responsible for sexual violation of a baby. It is not normal behaviour. He had low intellectual ability. He had served his time and we could not do anything with him. It was that particular case that led me to think very seriously about what we do in that minority of cases where people who have served their time and would normally be released to the community are not actually safe to have in the community.We did a range of different things all of which were effective to deal with most of the cases that we confronted. One thing we did was make greater use of preventive detention rather than sentencing somebody after they had effectively already served their time. As you are aware when you are sentenced to preventive detention usually for a serious sexual or violent offence you can be detained indefinitely. You are released only when the professionals consider that you are safe to be released and once you are released you can be recalled at any time that you show high-risk factors indicating that you are likely to reoffend. So we extended the use of preventive detention so that we could deal with that category of people—who in some senses werebarely culpable because of low intellectual ability and compulsive behaviour—and keep the community safe from them.In the case of people who are sentenced to life imprisonment—which is for a restricted number of offences of course such as murder—again when you release people you have the capability to recall them if they look to be at risk of reoffending. But that does not cover the sorts of people whom we were concerned about. Normally when somebody has served their sentence right to the end you can keep them on parole for 6 months past the period of their determinate sentence but again some of these people clearly were not safe to be in the community.There is the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act and that gives the authorities the power to detain people for up to 3 years. But I accept that notwithstanding the range of things that we put in place there is still a number of people—said in the regulatory impact statement to be between five and 12 over a 10-year period—who fall through the cracks and are not even adequately dealt with through the system of extended supervision which can last for 10 years which was perhaps the most effective measure that I introduced to try to deal with people who were very high-risk reoffenders and reoffenders in terms of serious offences that had dramatically bad impacts on their victims.I accept that this bill is not about punishment; it is actually about protecting the community. Protection of the community in this small number of cases is a valid consideration against which to balance the longstanding principle of justice that you do the crime you serve the time and when you have served the time you are released and you are a free person. What we are actually proposing in this bill is that when people have served their time they will actually keep on serving time indefinitely. That is a significant step to take.Most countries have indeterminate sentences such as preventive detention. That meets the criteria of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It meets the criteria followed by the European Union’s human rights court. But the concept of detaining people after they have served the sentence imposed on them by the court is pretty unusual. We can be pretty certain that it will breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We can be pretty certain that it breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You do not lightly take action and legislate in this way when you know in advance that you are going to be in breach of significant pieces of legislation and international obligations.When I have looked at what is done internationally actually there is not that much that goes this far. In some of the Australian states people can continue to be kept in prison mainly for crimes of sexual offending and often sexual offending against children. In England and Scotland there is a form of close supervision for sexual and violent offenders but that is in the community. In the United States there is a form of civil detention. So we are taking a very significant step here which is why the select committee will be obligated to look very closely at what this bill actually means. I accept that there are safeguards put into this legislation quite appropriately. There will be regular reviews of detention by a review panel and by the High Court there will be an independent inspector there will be ombudsmen’s visits and there will be annual reporting to Parliament. But notwithstanding all of those things this is a pretty dramatic step to take.The objective as set out in the regulatory impact statement is to deal with people who present “a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent re-offending”. What does that mean? Well “very high risk” means that offending is considered to be extremely likely. The judgment will be made by professionals such as psychologists who have worked with the individuals over a significant period of time. “Serious”means that if you put this small group of people out into the community you are putting individuals at risk of really serious physical and psychological harm—people who are innocent victims. You do not really want to have those people victimised when you take the step of waiting for an offender almost inevitably to offend and then put them away. The damage has been done. “Imminent” is also an important word. It means that offending is expected to occur when the offender is provided with a suitable opportunity and the offender would immediately inflict serious harm on a vulnerable victim. When you consider those criteria when you consider that the people whom you are dealing with are a real problem to the community there needs to be a way to protect the community from those individuals.I have talked about international practice and looking at the regulatory impact statement it is difficult to find a lot of precedent for what is being proposed to the House so I think the select committee if it decides to proceed with this legislation will need to ensure that the safeguards are very clear and are very reliable. The final thing is in terms of human rights. I want to come back to that. The regulatory impact statement does make it clear that this bill will breach human rights legislation in this country and internationally in a number of different ways. The challenge that we will face in examining this legislation—first of all the select committee examining it and then us in the House—is to ensure that any action that we are taking can be justified on the basis of an intense risk from a very small number of people. And on that basis the select committee and the House may subsequently find that this legislation does need to be put into place.DAVID CLENDON (Green): I think it is interesting that we are debating the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill for the first time in Parliament 1 day short of a year after its introduction. It was introduced on 18 September 2012. We are here today on 17 September 2013 and this bill is being read for the first time. Mr Goff made the point that the National Party campaigned on the suggestion or the proposition that legislation of this nature would come into the House if it won the election which clearly it did. Two years on despite the implied urgency of legislation like this and the apparent urgent necessity for it it has taken the Government 2 years to bring this bill to its first reading. I think that is worth reflecting on in terms of the motivation behind this bill. All sorts of extravagant and wild things get promised and said in the heat of an election campaign and I do feel that the legislation reflects more a political than a principled position in terms of its provisions in terms of what it seeks to do.At the time a year ago when this bill was introduced we were assured by the Minister of Justice that the orders were intended to be protective not punitive that it was not a form of double jeopardy and that offenders would have as many civil rights as practicable. And that is a really interesting qualifier to put against the notion of civil rights—that offenders would be assigned as many rights as were practicable. So 1 year on we are debating this legislation for the first time and again we cast our minds back a year when it was introduced around the time when there was a great deal of attention being paid to the form of release of one offender Stewart Murray Wilson. At that time there was an extraordinarily irresponsible display of media reporting there was an extraordinary level of sensationalism about that single case and I do think that that in a sense paved the way potentially for legislation like this which in the Green view does significantly overstep the mark.One needs look no further than the regulatory impact statement. Right up front some of it talks about some of the constraints on the analysis done by the officials whose job it was to prepare that statement. It makes the point that “it is not possible to accurately report recidivism data for such a small and unique subset of offenders.” It makes the point that “Impacts arising from other initiatives”—and it mentions the Sentencing Act2002 which significantly expanded the criteria for preventive detention—“may reduce the need for the proposed measures over time.” It is pointed out that the provisions in this bill as they have evolved are “likely to override fundamental common law principles … specifically the principles in favour of liberty of the subject that the law should conform with both international law and treaty obligations …” and that we should assure that “statutes and regulations operate prospectively.” not retrospectively.The point has been made that this legislation has been designed to capture a vanishingly small number of offenders—potentially as few as five individuals and at the highest estimate it would be 12 people. It does seem extraordinary to put in place a unique piece of legislation that does compromise our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I will come to that point later and that will inevitably compromise international agreements and obligations so as to manage potentially only five offenders. No one is underplaying the severity of the offending of some of those people but it is a very peculiar and we think unacceptable way to endeavour to address to manage the potential release of those people. We are contemplating legislation a whole raft of provisions for very few people as I have said.We already have at our disposal a range of provisions to manage these people. We have mechanisms to manage the risk that they may present at the point when their sentence is complete and I have yet to hear a really compelling argument or to see particularly powerful evidence that the existing provisions are inadequate to meet the requirements of public safety around this very very small number of people who may potentially be released into the community. Again I would look to the regulatory impact statement and reflect indeed on the outcome of the Stewart Murray Wilson example. The regulatory impact statement tells us that “In all jurisdictions where very high risk offenders are released into the community the police play a major role in preventing reoffending by … deploying … resources in the surveillance and interception of these offenders. The resulting detection of breaches of orders and notification requirements or minor offending usually then results in the offender being prosecuted and returned to prison.” Clearly that is exactly the case of Mr Stewart Wilson who is now back in prison because he failed to comply with the very strict conditions that were imposed on him. That is I think an example that shows that existing provisions are adequate to the cause or that we have the wit and the capacity to ensure that there is an acceptable level of public safety around the potential release of this very very small number of offenders.The point has been made about international examples and again we can look to the regulatory impact statement which is a very useful document. It actually indicates that there are four Australian states that have similar provisions for detention or very very strict supervision orders placed primarily on sex offenders at the end of their finite sentences. Indeed they may be detained in prison indefinitely or for a renewable finite period. We are told that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has already determined that each of those orders breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are going a step beyond what the Australian states have done. Inevitably we will be taken to task and found in breach of those selfsame UN civil and political rights agreements to which we are signatories.We are told that this legislation is not intended to be punitive and that it is simply protective. Holding that thought I fail to see how the provisions of this legislation are not punitive. I would like to just list the conditions—what is possible in terms of the ongoing detention of people who have completed their finite sentences. These people will clearly be further denied their liberty their freedom of movement—a most fundamental right of human beings. We must acknowledge that their liberty will be denied them. People may be prevented from sending or receiving writtencommunications under the provisions of this legislation. There may be restrictions on phone calls. They may be unable to make calls or may have their calls very seriously restricted or monitored. They may be prevented from receiving visits or communicating orally with people according to the management plan under which they will be placed. They may be subject to searches within the usual confines of the so-called residence any time they leave the prison precinct or come back to it and those searches can include strip searches. They may be placed in seclusion which I think is a gentle name that endeavours to differentiate between it and solitary confinement which is what it would amount to. We got told that they may be constrained—that mechanical restraints may be used.I invite anyone to explain to me how those provisions are not punitive. How does that differ in any substantial way from a conventional prison sentence? All that this legislation does really is elongate extend the finite sentence that has been applied to these people. The legislation does in fact allow for the offender to be simply kept in a prison rather than under the disguise of one of these so-called residences. The proposition is that this legislation is not punitive that it will not impugn human rights and that it will not contravene our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Despite dare I say it the rather convoluted semantics of the Attorney-General’s report inevitably this will be found in breach if it goes ahead in its current form. The Greens do not find this acceptable and will be opposing this legislation.ALFRED NGARO (National): I am constantly concerned when I hear that member David Clendon talk about the issues and the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim. He actually turned round and said that this was electioneering. Well if we have gone out and we have said to ordinary Kiwis to New Zealanders that we want to embark on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities to prevent crime and to put victims first and if that is electioneering then I am not sure what that speech from that member was actually all about. Ordinary everyday New Zealanders want to know and ensure that their safety is actually paramount in this Parliament.What I am also looking forward to after this first reading is this Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee and hearing submissions. I would like that member to look into the eyes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s Mr GarthMcVicar and of the family members and tell them that the rights of offenders are far more important than the rights of the victims and that all the things we are doing in this legislation are punitive.This legislation is important. We know that the number of offenders we are talking about is between only five and 12 but the impact that they have on the community is huge—the trauma the tragedy. All of these things we know are significant in a community. It can never be understated Mr Clendon that what we are trying to do here is to put the rights of the victims first and ensure that our communities are safe. This is absolutely not punitive as the member has talked about.Let us address some of these issues. First of all he talked about the concern that the bill is setting a precedent for this type of detention order. This is a civil detention order. There are civil detention orders that are already used as part of other regimes that protect the community from harm. These include detaining people with highly contagious diseases or individuals who have mental health or intellectual disability issues that make them a danger to others or themselves. The bill does not affect the functioning of other civil detention regimes.Secondly Mr Clendon talked about the bill overriding offenders’ rights. The bill appropriately balances the right of New Zealanders to be free from almost certain serious harm versus the liberty rights of offenders who have served their sentence. By holding individuals in a civil detention facility and allowing them a high degree ofautonomy where possible the system responds proportionately to the legitimate objective of protecting citizens from almost certain harm.Mr Clendon also talked about the legislation being inconsistent with human rights legislation and international obligations. Let us just spell this out really clearly. Public protection orders are civil orders not criminal punishments and their sole purpose is to protect the community from near certain future harm. I would like to know what that member of Parliament who is here today would say if an offender had gone out and sexually and violently harmed a member of our community. What would be the speech from that member? What would be the response to the family members? What would be the response to the community? What would be the response to New Zealand as a whole? Would he stand up and say: “Let’s look at this legislation. It has been punitive to the offender.”? Well I guarantee that that member would not do that. He can say all the words that he wants but this legislation is important to protect the rights of ordinary New Zealanders.I look forward to this legislation going to the select committee and to hearing the submissions. I look forward to sitting down and actually being alongside that member and hearing the submissions from people like GarthMcVicar who talk about the importance of balancing the rights of individuals to protect them against the trauma and tragedy of violent and sexual offending on New Zealanders as a whole. This is good legislation. I think it is important and it is well balanced. I commend this legislation to the House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bill must achieve a very difficult balance between protecting citizens from serious sexual or violent harm and the right of those affected to be subject to the least restrictive form of detention that is practicable. It must also ensure adequate oversight of detention through regular reviews by a review panel and the High Court independent inspector and Ombudsman visits and an annual report to Parliament. There is a high level of public expectation for legislation of this kind. What we must do and what the select committee must do is get the legislation right and that comes down to the detail of it.I would first like to refer to the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General that the bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The issue is whether these orders would amount to further punishment of sentenced offenders or a regime of civil committal as provided for in other legislation. I agree that the bill incorporates the key safeguards necessary for a civil committal regime and that it will therefore be New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliant. Whether the bill as introduced includes adequate safeguards at each of the stages of the making administration and review—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.