Salesa Jenny: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSalesa Jenny: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1025. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East):I stand to take a brief call in support of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Parole Act 2002 as far as it relates to extended supervision orders. Extended supervision orders are used to manage a small number of child sex offenders who pose a high risk of causing serious harm after being released from prison at the end of their sentences. These orders can last for up to 10 years. Beyond this period the Department of Corrections is not able to manage these offenders even if they continue to pose a high risk of serious harm to the public.This bill enables orders to be renewed as often as they are needed and it expands the scope of orders beyond high-risk child sex offenders to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk violent offenders. Under the current law extended supervision orders last for a period of 10 years and cannot be renewed. We are debating this amendment bill because there is a risk to public safety from offenders who still pose a risk of serious reoffending after the expiration of their extended supervision orders and they can no longer be supervised or managed by the Department of Corrections.Extended supervision orders were established to protect children under 16 from a small group of convicted child sex offenders considered to be at a high risk of serious reoffending after they complete their sentence. The sexual and violent offenders to whom these extended supervision orders would be extended are likely to be people with behavioural and intellectual disabilities who could not remain in the community unsupervised. It is estimated that the number of offenders affected is likely to be small. We are discussing this piece of legislation today because the 10-year period for some of these people who were the earliest recipients of the extended supervision orders will expire soon and at least some of them continue to pose a serious risk to the well-being and safety of our children. This bill will enable extended supervision orders to be renewed. It also expands the scope of orders to include those who are adults.I have to say that the regulatory impact statement states that only around 29 to 41 offenders will be placed on extended supervision orders every year because of this legislation. The vast majority—25 to 30—will be high-risk sexual offenders against children one or two will be high-risk violent offenders and it is estimated that around four to nine will be high-risk offenders against adults. This bill would allow extended supervision orders to be renewed without limit as required. At the moment an order ends after 10 years and cannot be renewed. People on extended supervision orders live in the community under a standard set of conditions as well as under any special conditions the Parole Board puts in place for that individual. It may be that a carefully considered extended supervision order with clear ongoing management of the offender will decrease the risks for the offender in the community and increase the possibility of the reasonable living conditions that support rehabilitation.The Law and Order Committee was presented with an assessment by officials of 10 years of experience of extended supervision orders and it found that extended supervision orders work effectively to achieve the primary objective of protecting our community. I have to note that the proposed changes to the Privacy Act 1993 may be of concern to some. The committee recommended amendments to clause 25 of the bill which would amend the Privacy Act 1993 and expressly authorise the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police to receive information from each other about offenders subject to an extended supervision order. Under the original bill the department could not share information with the police when an offender subject to a protection order restraining order or non-contact order also became the subject of an extended supervision order. Furthermore the police could not receive information from the Department of Corrections about an offender subject to an extended supervision order. This proposed bill will address that.There have been some serious issues of human rights to consider under this bill. In the written advice from the Attorney-General about this amendment bill pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Chris Finlayson stated: “I have considered this Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I conclude it appears to be inconsistent with the rights against the imposition of retroactive penalties and double jeopardy which are affirmed by [sections 26 and 22] of that Act.” So the major issue for the Attorney-General was whether or not this bill breaches section 26 of the Act which offers protection against double jeopardy—effectively punishing someone twice for the same offence. However it does seem that such orders can be seen—and indeed are seen by some offenders—as rehabilitative helping the offender to live in a community.An extended supervision order is also seen by some offenders as offering them an element of protection. The danger however that such offenders can present for the community needs to be carefully and sensitively managed to balance both community safety and the important human rights of an offender. There have been instances when community outrage has occurred and there have been threats of vigilante action—for example in my very own electorate in Ōtara when a child sex offender was placed under parole in a location near a school and a kōhanga reo without any consultation with the local community. It may be that a carefully considered extended supervision order with clear ongoing management of the offender will decrease the risks and that possibly reasonable living conditions will support rehabilitation.I would like to say that I am pleased with the fact that the police in South Auckland have been proactive in this area of protection and prevention. For example there is now a Counties Manukau child exploitation team building a proactive approach to prevent offending against vulnerable children. This team takes a proactive approach to what it calls the traditionally reactive field of child sexual abuse investigation. It works to protect children from becoming victims of child abuse. This team holds child sex offenders to account for the hideous offences that they commit against children. It has tried to put in place more effective monitoring of known child sex offenders and to create offender management plans for high-risk sex offenders. It is not a perfect system but it is a proactive and preventive system that has been put in place.Labour supports the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou katoa.