Goff Phil: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19216. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I would like first to thank the Minister of Corrections for making an early copy of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill available to myself and Jacinda Ardern and for taking the time to consult on it. I have got to say that is a rare practice amongst the Minister’s colleagues but one that I would encourage particularly when we are looking at potentially controversial legislation that has quite dramatic impacts on the rights of a small number of individuals in order to protect the rights of a much larger number of individuals.Labour is supporting the introduction of this legislation. Labour has consistently supported legislation for many years—as long as I can remember in fact—that is evidenced based that is likely to be effective and that is designed to protect the rights of those who deserve to be protected. In particular in this piece of legislation I am thinking about the rights of our most vulnerable citizens who are our children.We do not offer that support lightly. We do not offer it lightly because when I received a copy of the report of the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act he says this in the New Zealand Bill of Rights vet: “I have considered this bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I conclude it appears to be inconsistent with the rights against retroactive penalties and double jeopardy … which are affirmed by ss 26 and 22 of the Act.”Whenever we have a piece of legislation in front of us in the House that is found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we have to give it particular attention because we are cutting across rights that we would normally extend to all New Zealanders—the right not to face double jeopardy and the right not to have penalties imposed retroactively. Because of that it will be incumbent on those of us who sit on the Law and Order Committee to scrutinise this legislation very very carefully to ensure that we do get the balance between the absolute right of our children and others not to be subject to preventable sexual attacks and the rights of all individuals not to face as I said double jeopardy and retroactive penalties.The motivation and the timing of this bill are due to the fact that a particular individual is due for release into the community next year following the expiry of a 10-year extended supervision order. I have been following the history of this individual for 20 years. The individual’s name is in the public arena. His name is Lloyd McIntosh. Lloyd McIntosh was one of 35 people released from the Lake Alice Hospital by Jenny Shipley when she amended the mental health legislation in 1993. However well-intentioned she might have been in updating the legislation the difficulty is that the result of the National Government’s legislation at that time was to put out into the community without any supervision whatsoever over how they might behave in the community 35 people with extensive histories of sexual offending against children.I found out about this through a charge nurse at Lake Alice Hospital. His name is Neil Pugmire. I again pay tribute to him in this House because he had the courage that is the courage of a whistleblower who says: “This is wrong. I must speak out to protect the public.” In doing so he lost his job and was discriminated against by the then National Government. The truth is that Neil Pugmire was proven right and the National Government was proven wrong. Even the mother of that particular individual that I talked about Lloyd McIntosh opposed her son’s release into the community believing that he was not capable of changing his behaviour.Lloyd McIntosh had a condition known as a personality disorder. It is not a mental illness but it is something that meant for an individual like him with an IQ of around 70 and an understanding probably equivalent to that of a 9-year-old that whenever he was released and whenever the opportunity arose he would offend. The history of his offending is too dreadful to go into in this House. Needless to say one of the rapes that he committed was against a 23-month-old baby who almost died a 6-year-old child and an intellectually disabled woman.I opposed the releases of those individuals when I was in Opposition. In Government I introduced legislation in 2003—the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill which was designed to protect the community against people like Lloyd McIntosh. Again in Opposition I support the Government and the Minister of Corrections in what she is trying to do here. I want to quote from what I said when I introduced the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill in November 2003: “I do not lightly promote legislation which in part may conflict with Bill of Rights requirements. However in this instance the risk posed by such offenders is real and the vulnerability of our children and the need to protect them must be our paramount consideration.” I said that a decade ago and I stand by that comment now. That is why I am prepared to extend on behalf of the Labour Party our support to the Minister of Corrections in this instance.The extended supervision orders have been used to manage a relatively small number of child sex offenders who have a high risk of causing serious harm following their release from prison. The orders last currently up to 10 years beyond the end of the sentence when corrections can continue to manage offenders. The reason we are looking at this piece of legislation today is that that 10-year period has expired for the people who were the earliest recipients of the extended supervision orders and at least some of them continue to pose a risk. Most after 10 years of extended supervision will not some will and those who do will pose a serious risk to the safety and well-being of our children.This bill therefore enables the orders to be renewed. It also expands the scope of the orders from high-risk child sex offenders to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk offenders at risk of violent offending. The numbers are relatively small. The regulatory impact statement says that probably between 29 and 41 offenders will be placed on extended supervision orders each year because of this legislation. The vast majority 25 to 30 of them will be high-risk sexual offenders against children. Four to nine of them will be high-risk offenders against adults and one to two will be at high risk of violent offending not over a period of a year but over 5 years. It is a very small number Minister Tolley and maybe as you point out it is necessary for one to two people every 5 years but we will be looking at whether this is a category that does justify being added to the legislation.It is not a cost-free exercise. It costs on average $27000 per offender per year to keep them on an extended supervision order and—wait for it—for those who are subject to intensive management which will be for the first 12 months of the sentence the cost of that will be approximately $300000 a year. For those who believe that is excessive it might be a high cost but just consider the cost to a child who is sexually violated in a way that some of the victims of Lloyd McIntosh were violated and then I believe that sort of cost can be and is justified.There are safeguards in the legislation. The orders will be subject to mandatory reviews by the court. So an order will be judicially and independently reviewed by the court. It is an important safeguard. People subject to the orders will be subject to them only as long as the risk of serious harm to the public from the offenders warrants it and the Parole Board will have to review every 2 years any high impact conditions imposed on the offender.I believe that this legislation is justified. Consistent with our past position the Labour Party will be supporting it but because of the effect on rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act I think it really important that the Law and Order Committee examines these provisions very carefully to ensure that at each point of the legislation we have the balance right between protecting the rights of individuals against high-risk offenders and the rights that every New Zealander enjoys under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.