Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9846] 
8.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the purpose of the extended supervision regime for child sex offenders proposed by the Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The purpose of the bill introduced today is to provide protection for children from high-risk sex offenders following the completion of their jail sentences or upon expiry of their parole or release conditions. The new provision allows offenders who a court believes are likely to reoffend to be the subject of supervision and controls for a period of up to 10 years following the completion of their sentences. This may include direction as to where they work and live and whom they associate with. It may require them to attend rehabilitation and relapse-prevention programmes. Where necessary it can include home detention for up to 12 months and electronic monitoring—in contrast with what members opposite did which was nothing. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was far too much noise during that answer. The Minister was giving information about a request. A lot of supplementary questions can come as a result. Certainly there was too much noise when that answer was being given. 
Darren Hughes 
: Does the bill apply to those already sentenced under the existing law; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. When the bill is enacted it will apply to all high-risk sex offenders still subject to sentence as of today’s date. The reason is that prior to the Sentencing Act passed last year preventive detention criteria were less stringent and some high-risk offenders were instead given finite sentences. The law requires that those people be released when they complete their sentences even though they are likely to reoffend. Although this legislation may override the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in some respects it allows society to exercise what I believe is justifiable control over high-risk offenders so as to protect vulnerable children from their reoffending. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will the Minister not drop this spin and admit that all this bill provides is the ability for an electronic monitoring bracelet to be attached to those offenders; and how is that going to stop vile sexual predators like Barry Allan Ryder and Lloyd Alexander McIntosh from molesting young children when all that an electronic bracelet does is monitor where the offenders are not whom they are with? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the National Party in Government had introduced the sentencing law I passed last year then those offenders would have been subject to preventive detention—and the member knows it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a question. I want him to give an answer please. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is that unfortunately until the Sentencing Act came into effect last year the law on preventive detention for repeat offenders was inadequate. It was inadequate for the whole 9 years that that member was in Government. We have brought in the toughest regime that exists anywhere in the democratic world to ensure that those people who have completed their sentence but still constitute a risk of reoffending can receive the tightest possible monitoring and control that the law allows—notwithstanding the fact that that may breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why confine post-sentence supervision to sex offenders who have relatively low reoffending rates and not cover robbers burglars and other thugs who hurt fresh victims—young and old—far more predictably; and why not simply replace our useless parole system that makes every judge a liar? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question was a little wide of the original question. The Minister may comment very briefly. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This bill focuses on child sex offenders who are already convicted and likely to reoffend because of the seriousness of the consequences of their reoffending given the vulnerability of their victims. This is extraordinary legislation. It is the toughest legislation that this House has ever seen introduced and I expect the member to support it on that basis. I expect the National Party to do so in repentance of the fact that it spent 9 years in Government doing absolutely damn nothing. 
Ron Mark 
: From those answers can we now take it that this Government’s approach towards mental health issues and the intellectual disabilities suffered by the vast majority of the people the Minister is talking about are simply to be contained by him in criminal legislation instead of doing the unthinkable which is what all of New Zealand wants: accepting that these people should be treated as mental health patients or people with intellectual disabilities and putting them back into institutions where they can be properly cared for and looked after as opposed to being chucked out on the street and once again endangering the lives of ordinary citizens? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was far too long a question but I allowed it. The Hon Phil Goff can respond briefly. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is factually wrong on the nature of the condition from which the worst of these offenders actually suffer. They are not mentally disordered— 
Ron Mark 
: Yes they are. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Does the member want to hear the answer to his question? They are not— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Not the same drivel—no. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If those members are to interrupt continually I will not bother to answer this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have asked the Minister to reply briefly. He can do that very briefly and I want him to continue very briefly. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If a person is mentally disordered he or she will be dealt with under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act and could be confined in an institution. If people are intellectually disabled they will be dealt with in a different way. The sorts of offenders who are being dealt with under this legislation are offenders who meet neither of those definitions but in fact who can and should be held criminally responsible for their actions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will this Minister not admit that this bill will not protect even one child in this country because all he is planning to do is monitor where those sexual predators are not whom they are with—it is not supervision it is home detention and it will not work? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It will protect not just one person; it will protect the potential victims of the likely 350 people who by year 9 will be subject to control and supervision under this legislation. This legislation provides not simply for the normal level of supervision under parole; it provides intensive supervision for the highest-risk offenders which includes confinement in their homes electronic monitoring and where necessary a 24/7 regime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has given a long enough answer. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to do this but in the seven or so supplementary questions that have just been asked of the Minister in all but the last question the level of interjection from the Opposition was so high that sitting just four seats away I found it virtually impossible to hear the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fact there were five supplementary questions. I heard the Minister give vigorous answers. Of course there was interjection. We expect that on occasion. When I thought it was excessive I stepped in.