Logie Jan: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionLogie Jan: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15100. Text is subject to correction.]JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party will at this stage be opposing this bill the Parole Amendment Bill although we are interested in the conversation that happens. I am happy to take a brief call on the bill at this stage.As previously stated I will restate the purported goals of this bill which are to reduce unnecessary parole hearings for offenders who do not acknowledge offending and have made little or no effort at rehabilitation. The mechanisms that we are being told will encourage them in rehabilitation will be by increasing the maximum time between hearings from 12 months to 2 years increasing the maximum time between hearings from 3 years to 5 years for those offenders who are serving sentences of 10 years or more and aligning hearings with the completion of core activities and goals to reduce that offending.There are several points that we would like to raise briefly in relation to this bill. We are yet to see any evidence—and we have had a briefing from officials on the bill—that this bill is going to make a difference or increase people’s chances of genuine rehabilitation. That evidence has not been provided for us. Concerns have been raised by us within the justice sector that it may lead to people who are not at that place of actually recognising they have a need for rehabilitation entering courses just to be able to access parole at an earlier level and to go through the motions. This will fundamentally change the dynamics in those courses and quite potentially limit the learning of the others on those courses because the seats will be filled by people who do not have an honest intent to change or rehabilitate. It could affect the learning of everyone on those courses and that we have quite real concerns about.Also the courses are not necessarily available to everyone. There are a significant number of inmates who are illiterate and a significant number of rehabilitation programmes that require reading ability. So if we are going to limit somebody’s access to parole and tie it to those courses that they are not actually entitled to access I think we have a fundamental issue in terms of justice in this area. We will be very keen on hearing from submitters and exploring whether that is real or not though it has beenraised with us already. It has also been raised with us by Kim Workman who said that he is concerned that it may encourage inmates to lie to say that they are ready for rehabilitation when in fact they are not and that the rehabilitation programmes such that they are at the moment are really struggling. We know many of them have waiting lists and they may be inundated and not resourced to be able to cope.Our hope with this bill is that it may actually provide a spur for a change in focus force the prisons into improving access to those courses and increase the provision. That would indeed be a great outcome because it is I think a terrible waste when people identify that they want assistance and they want to change and they are not able to access those services. So that is something that we could potentially support.Other concerns we have with this bill are that we have been told that part of the reason for it is to be able to take the stress off victims. That of course is a very important consideration. However we are aware that only 5 percent of victims attend parole hearings and we have been told that their attendance actually has very little impact on the parole decisions. So it does seem potentially a bit disingenuous to try to present this as something that is going to be increasing its focus around victims’ rights. We are also worried that there may be unintended consequences but we look forward to exploring the real issues and the community’s perspective in the select committee.