Ryall Tony: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
Ryall Tony: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14152] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party has some considerable concerns about this bill and we simply do not believe that the Government has taken those concerns seriously. 
I want to tell the House why this bill has come to Parliament. This bill came to Parliament because Mr Goff the Minister of Justice was trying to appear to be doing something about the cases of Barry Allan Ryder and Lloyd Alexander McIntosh when in fact he had done absolutely nothing. Mr Goff made his reputation on the back of the Barry Allan Ryder case and he said he would never let Barry Allan Ryder be released from jail. He railed against Mrs Shipley New Zealand’s first woman Prime Minister and he railed against former Minister of Justice Douglas Graham. He said that if he were Minister of Justice these people would never be released from prison. 
Then we discovered that Barry Allan Ryder a paedophile who repeatedly sexually abused young children had been released under Mr Goff’s watch. What did Mr Goff say? He said he did not know about it yet this is the case that Mr Goff made his reputation on. He said Barry Allan Ryder would never be released. Mr Goff said he would never allow it to happen but Barry Allan Ryder was released and Mr Goff never ever asked what his parole conditions were. When it was the National Party that revealed the information concerning the release Mr Goff said he was not going to ask for the parole conditions. He said he could not ask that. It was not until there was pressure from the National Party New Zealand First ACT United Future and the media that the Parole Board and this Minister of Justice released those parole conditions. 
Those conditions showed that this Government could not guarantee the safety of children in Christchurch with Barry Allan Ryder in the community. He abused two young boys in Christchurch and this Minister said he could do nothing. 
Then we discovered the case of Lloyd Alexander McIntosh another offender whom the Minister expressed considerable concern about when in Opposition. We discovered that Lloyd Alexander McIntosh was being paroled and released into Palmerston North. This Minister and Mr Maharey only after pressure from the Opposition parties decided they would say to the people that they would do everything they could to eliminate the risk his behaviour posed to children in Palmerston North. Mr Goff said he would stop the release of this sort of individual but he did not. Mr Goff looked into the case only when this was raised with him. 
So now we have this bill. Mr Goff promised 24-hour 7-days-a-week supervision for Lloyd Alexander McIntosh. Well what happened? Lloyd Alexander McIntosh assaulted a young woman in his home while a security guard employed by this Government was outside the door. 
Stephen Franks 
: So they knew where he was? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: They knew where he was and that happened. Lloyd Alexander McIntosh told somebody that he had almost raped the girl while the security guard was outside the door. 
So the Government in its embarrassment brought forward this bill saying that paedophiles would be supervised 24 hours a day 7 days a week for 10 years. The National Party was able to reveal to the people of New Zealand that the only supervision that this bill provides for after 1 year is the attachment of an electronic bracelet—an attachment of an electronic bracelet after 1 year. For the first year offenders will be subject to home-detention criteria and supposedly to quite intense 24-hour 7-days-a-week supervision but after that it boils down to having a home-detention bracelet but no home detention. So we said to Mr Goff: “How does a bracelet prevent reoffending?”. 
 We are concerned about this because what the Government has not told New Zealanders is that last year senior officials of the Community Probation Service appearing before the Law and Order Committee told us that no paedophile would be monitored for 10 years. We were further told that in the first few months extended supervision would include two visits a week with a parole officer and after 2 years that it would go down to one visit with a parole officer every 3 months. How will an electronic bracelet and a quarterly visit with a parole officer stop the likes of Barry Allan Ryder from abusing young children? 
The proposal in this bill highlights the concern that the Opposition parties have raised time after time in this House and that is the discredited state of parole in New Zealand. A senior highly respected judge respected for his frankness and his directness Justice Ellis—a fine New Zealander—has commented that he was unaware of how low the level of supervision was of people on parole and I paraphrase him on that. At the select committee we were told that parole is essentially this: within 3 days of release inmates must contact their parole officer; there will be contact at least once a week for the first few weeks then that will very quickly reduce to contact once a month. That is not crime prevention. 
The National Party is also concerned about new section 15A(1)(d) in clause 6A. That provision will provide the Parole Board with reason to release these sorts of offenders from jail earlier than would have been the case if the legislation had not been here. 
Judith Collins 
: Shocking. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is shocking and we oppose that. We say that the key issue here is the safety of the public and that keeping people in jail longer is better for keeping people safe than giving offenders a bracelet and quarterly supervision. I tell the House even further that the planning for the supervision of these people is so woolly that the Department of Corrections has not yet finalised its guidelines for the management of paedophiles on extended supervision. This bill with a majority vote of this House could become the law of the land within a few days. 
Many many changes would need to be made to this bill for the National Party to want to support it. We look to the Government and other parties to move amendments to fix this bill because this bill offers no added security or protection to the young people of New Zealand from these vile offenders. A bracelet and quarterly monitoring are no supervision.