Ardern Jacinda: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 04 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1168. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):My call on this bill will be reasonably brief. As the previous speaker Jacqui Dean mentioned there is good support for these bills from Labour at least. That is not to say that we did not apply significant scrutiny to both bills because we are essentially debating two quite separate orders this afternoon.I want to begin with the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. This bill was first promised by Judith Collins and John Key back in 2011. It would have been useful I think and would have aided the passage of this significant piece of legislation had Opposition parties been engaged at that time in the passage of that bill. That did not happen and that was disappointing. I would like to thank though both the former Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley and the Minister of Corrections Sam Lotu-Iiga who took a different approach for the second bill that we will be debating. But with the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill that did not happen. That was disappointing because these are significant changes that we are debating.As has been outlined by Phil Goff we have a spectrum of orders which allows flexibility in terms of dealing with prisoners who are at significant risk of reoffending and who have already demonstrated that the areas in which they offend are of a particularly grievous nature—child sex offenders sex offenders serious violent offenders and the like. If you look at the spectrum of options available at sentencing of course you have the ability to apply an indeterminate sentence via preventive detention. What that intends to do is very much in the name. It gives the flexibility to the Parole Board in the future to make an assessment that a particular offender is simply still at too high a risk to release back into the community basing that judgment on the Parole Act which deems that you must always make an assessment as to the risk to the community. That assumes that at the time of sentencing the judge has enough information to determine that risk.It became apparent to Phil Goff when he was the Minister of Justice that there were offenders who were about to be released back into the community who perhaps had the judge had the appropriate information at the time of sentencing may have been considered as appropriate candidates for preventive detention but were not. What do you do in that scenario? That was a significant and very real concern that Phil Goff faced. There was a particular prisoner at that time I believe who was about to be released and he had to consider how the justice system would deal with that known risk. Out of that came extended supervision orders. It was a 10-year order it was very narrowly framed it was for child sex offenders and it expired after 10 years. That was the spectrum of orders available to enable us to assess risk and to act accordingly.But what if someone who was coming up for an extended supervision order actually needed more than just monitoring in the community? There was a need for there to be the ability to not even allow them back into the community. There was no real option there and so I can see why the Government looked at public protection orders. They cannot be used as punishment though. It is a step too far outside the realms of our justice system to try to relitigate a finite sentence that has been ordered by a judge and the judiciary.We also need to ensure that when these orders are used there are appropriate checks and balances. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee made some good recommendations to put those annual checks in to ensure that the orders are still being applied appropriately. Given it is a civil not a criminal regime and given it is not an extended punishment but a form of protection that is incredibly important. I want to implore Parliament to continue to take a role in oversight over these orders. They are significant they extend well beyond where our justice system has gone before and although we support them we are very very committed to making sure that they are only ever used in the appropriate circumstances and that the magnitude of risk justifies the use of the orders.We then come to the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. The orders under this bill are not residential orders; they are orders for supervision within the community. These in one sense even though they were considered a greater breach against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act than the public protection orders are actually at a lower level because they allow monitoring within the community. This is an extension of what Labour had already brought in—an extension in terms of who was eligible for those orders and removing the 10-year time lapse on them.Again I would implore this Parliament to maintain oversight over these orders to ensure they are appropriately used because they are taking us well beyond where our previous conventions have taken us. Internationally they are not used widely either. We do accept the need for these orders. We do accept the need for flexibility to manage serious offenders who continue to pose a risk to the community but we also ask that we take our role very seriously in ensuring their appropriate use and their frugal use.David Clendon: Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Jacinda Ardern: David Clendon.