Davis Kelvin: Parole Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Parole Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):The member opposite Alastair Scott has just said that there are 5000 parole hearings a year and I believe that this bill will reduce that number by 800 and as I have just heard save $500000 in the process. I think that is a commendable part of the bill. I would like to see those resources that are being saved actually going to address the issues that David Clendon raised in that one part of this bill is to incentivise prisoners to address their offending the causes of their offending and possibly move their parole hearings forward a bit so they can get released. Yet the member David Clendon raised a really good point: if all these prisoners are motivated to have their parole hearing moved forward will there be enough resources enough money to actually support the Parole Board to make that happen? I thought he raised a very good point there about the lack of resources to support this whole process to happen but over here we are hearing of a saving of $500000 with 800 fewer Parole Board hearings and I can see how that cost if the Government is willing can actually be transferred to what David Clendon was addressing.The bill does amend the Parole Act 2002 and it does increase the maximum time between parole hearings from 12 months to 2 years. Why would we do this? Quite simply there are some prisoners who have little or no prospect of being released at a parole hearing—as many members have described today. Why would that be? The offender possibly has taken no steps to address their offending they have not acknowledged the offending or the harm that they have caused to the victims and they still pose a risk to the community. If this is obviously the case then there seems to be little point in holding a parole hearing for no reason when the conclusion is all but foregone. It seems a much better idea to meet with offenders who have addressed their offending and have a chance of being released. The hearings we have heard cause undue stress to the victims.Also listening to what David Clendon said only 7 percent actually put in a written submission and 3 percent front the offenders. All the same knowing that your offender is going to come up for a parole hearing with little chance of him being released will still cause undue stress and anxiety in the victims. It is bad enough experiencing the crime in the first instance without having to relive it emotionally every 12 months for no apparent reason—in particular if the offender has no chance of being released. For many reliving the events every 12 months is as bad as the actual crime itself. So the bill includes a process to motivate the prisoner.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.KELVIN DAVIS: We are debating the Parole Amendment Bill. We have heard some really interesting arguments here. Most of the members of the House support this bill; the Greens do not. I listened to David Clendon’s arguments and I understand them. What was really interesting to hear was the point made by the previous National speaker that there are 5000 parole hearings heard a year. This bill is going to reduce that number by some 800 parole hearings a year saving some $700000 in the process. It would be great to see that $700000 used to actually allay the issues that the Green member David Clendon raised around the number of inmates who will be so motivated by this bill that they will want to meet the conditions and they will want to have their parole hearings moved forward so they can get released. David Clendon’s concern though was that there would not be the resourcing available to support that process to happen but because we hear that $700000 is going to be saved it would be great to see that money used for that purpose.Again just to go over things the bill amends the Parole Act 2002 and it increases the maximum time between parole hearings from 12 months to 24 months—to 2 years. It does this simply because there are some prisoners who are not going to get paroled but who still have to go through this annual process. One of our concerns is for the victims who every year as the parole hearing for the perpetrator of the crime against them comes forward is going to have their anxiety their angst and their stress levels raised unnecessarily when we know that quite possibly that perpetrator will not be granted parole. It seems to be a waste of time a waste of resource and a waste of emotional energy from the victims. Why is this? Possibly because there are some prisoners who have taken absolutely no steps to acknowledge their crimes to rehabilitate and there is still a risk of them reoffending; therefore they are not really going to get parole as they should.As we say if this is obviously the case then there seems to be little point in holding a parole hearing and going through the motions simply for the sake of going through the motions. It seems a much better idea to meet with offenders who have addressed their offending and have a chance of actually being released. As I have said the hearings or the impending hearings when the hearings do happen cause undue stress on the victims even though as we have heard again from the Green member only 7 percent of victims actually put forward a written submission to the Parole Board and only 3 percent actually attend the Parole Board hearings. There is no burden on them to actually front up to the offenders. However just the whole process as I have said creates stress and anxiety for the victims and often that is unnecessary. So the length of time between parole hearings has been extended to 2 years.The bill includes a process to motivate a prisoner to address their offending and address the reasons for their offending by including a process for bringing their case forward when milestones are achieved earlier than expected. We do not want prisoners who are fit for parole to actually be denied that opportunity to seek parole when releasing them would be better for both the prisoner and their rehabilitation and social integration and also better for the criminal justice system and the community. Like I say it is better for the justice system that 800 fewer Parole Board hearings are likely to be heard because of this bill.We must work to support and protect the victims of crime; that goes without saying. They should be in the forefront of our thinking. Victims as I have said can feel this unnecessary stress from having to prepare for the pending Parole Board hearings. Labour’s vision is for a New Zealand that guarantees civil and human rights provides equal and full access to justice and achieves real public safety rather than just delivering immediate and punitive measures. It gives us pleasure to support this bill. We hear and understand the reasons why the Green Party does not support it and I respect those members’ views. But we in the Labour Party believe this is a good bill which is going to help victims. It is going to help offenders address their offending and it is going to be better for all of New Zealand. Kia ora.