Adams Amy: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2384] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 When I usually rise in the House to take a call in support of a bill I begin by talking about my pleasure in doing so. I am very much in support of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and I am certainly pleased to have the chance to promote it to this House. But I have to say that those feelings are tempered with equally strong feelings of disgust that the House has to grapple with issues like this—of keeping our children safe from depraved individuals who would use them for their own selfish gratification. That this sort of scum even exists in our society revolts me and I make no apology for the strength of my language. 
I am the mother of two of the most beautiful and loved children that one would find anywhere and I am the auntie of a bevy of equally treasured nieces and nephews. The reality that laws like this are necessary to keep them safe and the thought of what offenders whom this bill seeks to address have done to New Zealand children fill me with a primal rage. I am sure that people who are not parents would never understand that rage but those who are will know exactly what I am talking about. The fact remains however that these crimes are committed and we must ensure that our laws are able to properly deal with those offenders who have been convicted. Although a significant bill—the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill—addressing the wider issues of parole is currently before the Law and Order Committee this bill seeks solely to amend section 107K of the Parole Act 2002 in respect of the imposition of extended supervision orders to ensure that they operate as originally intended. It is a limited part of the primary Act but a significant one. 
 As we have already heard this amendment bill fixes errors in the Parole Amendment Act 2007. That amendment created residential restrictions on extended supervisions orders to ensure that the Parole Board can impose part-time residential restrictions. That effectively means there can be an electronically monitored curfew at any time during the life of the extended supervision order which can be up to 10 years and not just in the first 12 months. The full-time restrictions that are also possible under these orders remain limited to the initial 12-month period following release. The 2007 amendment also inadvertently applied to the parole test of the board being satisfied that the offender agreed to the conditions of the residential restriction. That is appropriate for parole because if the offender does not agree then he or she can be made to remain in prison. If one was going to parole them one would obviously want to see that the offender was motivated to comply with those conditions. But that is not appropriate for extended supervision orders. These are mandatory so that sort of agreement requirement is quite inappropriate in this context. This bill removes the requirement for the offender to agree to the conditions before they are imposed and I think there can be no doubt about the absurdity of a requirement that an offender must agree to limits on his or her freedom of movement or about the need to urgently address this matter. I am so pleased to see the House working together to ensure that this oversight can be quickly and effectively remedied. 
This bill goes to the efficacy of extended supervision orders that are used upon the release of those who have committed serious sexual offences against children. If I work very hard to control my emotional response to that sort of situation I can objectively look at what we know. We know that such orders—as I said they can last for up to 10 years—are essential for the safety of the public at large and our children in particular. The reoffending rates of these types of criminals do not tend to decline over time. I take on board and concur with the comments made by the previous speaker Rahui Katene and the riders about the reported recidivism rates and the caution that needs to be taken when using those statistics. 
In many cases this sort of offending—serious sexual offences against children—occurs during the hours of darkness so the inclusion of the ability to impose curfews over the whole course of any part of the supervision order is a critical part of preventing further harm. This is because it addresses the specific weaknesses of those individuals and removes them from further temptation although I find it slightly repulsive to use that word. But none the less it does avoid their being in situations where they may give in to their baser instincts. The serious harm caused by that sort of offending goes without saying yet it needs to be to said. When children are subjected to sexual offending it causes scarring on a level that can never be overcome. It changes the whole fabric of who those children are and worst still it often creates a cycle of further offending that can last several generations. There is certainly plenty of evidence that children who have been victims of sexual offending will often go on to become sexual offenders themselves. We need to be very cautious because we must reduce the extent of that sort of offending in our society wherever possible not only for the children who are the victims but also for the adults that those children will grow to be. 
This is insidious offending of the worst kind. It includes offenders spending long periods on building trust with their intended victims and grooming them in the most callous and calculated way. I am pleased to say that I will always stand up for the rights of children and all victims and I consider those rights far and away the most important rights to take into account. I suggest to members that those are the rights that this House should primarily concern itself with. The rights of children must be our first consideration. 
In preparing to speak on this bill today I looked at a number of case studies around serious sex offenders and their conduct upon release. The number of times one sees reports in the media of serious offenders proceeding to start a pattern of reoffending immediately upon their release—even if it is just the early grooming behaviour—tells us if we need any further evidence that we must work very hard to monitor them for a long period of time after their release. The extended supervision order system that the Minister of Justice spoke about in his address is an important part of doing that. It is why we have those sorts of orders why we are able to monitor those offenders for periods of up to 10 years after their release and why the residential restriction system was put in place. The full-time restrictions can act for up to the first 12 months after release. The part-time restrictions need to be able to apply throughout the course of the order if required. The offending records are horrifying. In the statistics that I found—admittedly some 6 months old—we had 126 offenders nationwide on extended supervision orders. The thought that those people or people of similar ilk could be roaming the streets after 12 months is scary. It is not the sort of society I want for my children. It is not the sort of society that I want to stand up as a member of this Parliament and say that we think it is OK. 
I am proud to commend this bill to the House. I thank the House for its support in addressing those oversights and for addressing them urgently and I encourage the House to always consider and put the interests of our children first and foremost.