Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14157] 
Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Extended supervision orders 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 At this point National is supporting the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill with substantial reservation. I say substantial reservation because the whole patchwork nature of this parole legislation calls for a comprehensive and careful review. National has instanced in earlier speeches tonight its real concern about the situation whereby a person charged with the rape of a child and sentenced to 9 years’ jail can under the current penal policy of this Government be eligible for parole after a period of 3 years. 
I am glad that Minister Barker is with us tonight in Committee because there is one issue that troubles National members greatly. In the haste to pass this legislation changes have been made in relation to electronic monitoring that may be particularly significant. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to new section 15A inserted by clause 6A which deals with electronic monitoring. New section 15A(1) states: “A condition referred to in section 15(3)(f) that requires an offender to submit to electronic monitoring may be imposed only on an offender who … (c) is or will be on parole and electronic monitoring of the offender is necessary in order to provide the supervision required to ensure that the offender does not pose an undue risk to the community or any person or class of persons;”. 
The issue that I am seeking that the Minister respond to after consultation with his officials is whether this change will have a wider application—given that it is an amendment to the Parole Act—to persons other than in the scope of this intended bill which is to provide a new extended supervision regime that will actively manage high-risk child sex offenders. Electronic bracelets may be all very well but people can commit significant society-harming offences whilst wearing electronic bracelets and certainly members of this Committee who represent the Opposition parties would be extremely concerned if by sleight of hand an unintended consequence of this legislation is to open the floodgates to permit an even greater access to parole. 
It will be obvious from what has been said to this point that National members have real concern about the parole regime. At this point we are supporting this legislation solely on the basis that there is clear merit in introducing a new extended supervision regime that will actively manage high-risk child sex offenders. In this part of the legislation which is subject to Committee comment it is relevant to note that the Attorney-General whose views on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are often of concern to members of this House has found that the provisions of this bill are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
 I must say that I quite warm to the comments made by an earlier speaker who said that we should not be so much focused on legislation such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but that we should be seeking to craft a “New Zealand Bill of Responsibilities”. The point he made which is a very fair point is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is substantially concerned with the position of offenders. It is right to say that it is a hallmark of this Government that the legislation that has been passed to date regarding the penal sector is very much about the rights of offenders and not as I suggest it should be about the rights of victims. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will make just a few introductory remarks. This part of the bill has been introduced so that the Government can put in place active management of child sex offenders. I make the observation to the member who has just spoken that this is part of a complicated web. The previous legislation has made changes. For example preventive detention is now available on a first offence not as it was previously on a second offence. The age for preventive detention has been lowered. The third element is that the range of offences for which preventive detention can be imposed has been widened. The current law addresses a number of those concerns. Judges now have the option to impose preventive detention in more circumstances than they did before. So we see that going forward we will be incurring fewer concerns. 
What this bill seeks to do in part is to address the inadequacy of the sentencing law historically where it was left undone. The second point I make in response to the member who talked about people being eligible for parole at a third of their sentence is that this is true but there has been eligibility for parole in many many instances at a third of a sentence for a long time. 
Richard Worth 
: No it was a different regime. It wasn’t the Parole Act. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member cannot deny it. But what has changed—and the member will not like listening to this—is that under the previous legislation an offender was automatically eligible to get out of prison after serving two-thirds of his or her sentence regardless of the circumstances. So an offender serves two-thirds of his or her sentence and then effectively that person is out of prison. The law has been changed now so that offenders are not entitled to automatic parole at two-thirds of a sentence. If the circumstances are such that the offender is not contrite shows no remorse or exhibits bad behaviour he or she can be held in the system for the full extent of his or her sentence. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says that we could but everybody knows that there is automatic parole on serving two-thirds of a sentence. 
The other point I want to make is that this is aimed at improving the management of sex offenders in the community. We are modelling this work on what has happened in other countries such as Britain and Canada where they have seen these provisions put in place. We are looking to be able to have some effective oversight of these offenders for an extra 10 years beyond the length of their sentence. I stress to the member that we are very concerned to ensure that people do not get the wrong impression. For example the previous speaker made reference to section 15A inserted by clause 6A. I say to the member that there is a Supplementary Order Paper to strike that clause out of the bill because there was a concern that it could have the unintended consequence of letting more people out of prison thereby weakening the legislation. This section has been drawn out because we do not want that to be the case. We do not want that to be the unintended consequence. I think the member would be very happy to see that his concern is being assuaged somewhat. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s what you call an effective Opposition. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: An effective Opposition maybe but we appreciate all the good advice we can get. Sometimes it is good and sometimes it is not. There are those elements of it. The overall effect of this is to strengthen the control that the State has on sex offenders beyond the time they have served their prison sentence. I am sure that all in the community would welcome that. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Nothing that the Minister has just said will alter New Zealand First’s view on this matter. We do not want sex offenders getting out of jail early. It is as simple as that. The community does not want sex offenders getting out of jail early. It does not want them out of jail after serving one-third of the sentence put up by the judge. Those people should be punished. They should stay in jail until they are at least nearing the very very last months of a lengthy sentence and they should be given treatment while they are in jail. 
The only valid aspect of this bill about treatment extended supervision orders and the like is that they should continue. They should be put in place after those people have served virtually all of their sentences and the treatment should be for the 10 years proposed by this bill. That is where we differ. We could go along with an extended supervision order after these people have almost completed their sentence and after they have received treatment in prison. 
I have appeared for some of these people. I would not want them out of jail after what they have done. I have been in the No. 1 police cell in Auckland. I did it in the 1970s the 1980s and the 1990s. I have acted for some of these people and they are despicable. To some extent they do need treatment. Lawyers start their plea in mitigation for these people by saying they need treatment. The problem with our system today is that they do not get treatment. They just come out of jail and the same old problem arises again. They should be in jail. They should serve their full sentence and they should get treatment in jail. Only then perhaps they may not reoffend but one does not hold one’s breath. When these offenders come out of jail they should always as suggested spend the next 10 years under supervision. 
Section 15A deals with electronic bracelets and they are an utter waste of time. What use is a bracelet? An offender can be wearing a bracelet and can be anywhere. No one knows quite where these people are unless there is a proper satellite link and a map of the country and the type of device that is in some police cars. What use is a bracelet? This point was raised by Ron Mark in the first reading debate when we somewhat reluctantly agreed to let the bill go to the select committee. New Zealand First does not support this bill we do not support this section and we will be voting against Part 1. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In dealing with the release of offenders who are subject to automatic release the likes of McIntosh and Ryder I wonder whether the Minister would take a call and explain to the Committee why in the case of sex offenders reaching their statutory release date the Government has not sought to apply section 105 of the Criminal Justice Act or whatever is its successor. That is the section that says the Secretary for Justice may apply to the Parole Board before an offender’s final release date to have that offender not released. That would appear to me to be the means to meet Mr Dail Jones’ concern and the concern of all parties about not using the full power of the law to maintain such people in custody. I wonder whether the Minister would get some advice from his officials and advise the Committee on that question. Can the Minister do that? He could just bend over and ask the question or otherwise we will just keep taking calls until he does. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It sounds to me like a threat actually. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are asking a question. We are wondering whether the Minister will ask the officials. Thank you; I appreciate that. It is quite a serious question and we just want an answer. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The officials are not quite sure what the member’s about. Would the member like to explain? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Under the previous regime when a specified number of offenders meet their statutory release date at two-thirds of their sentence there was a provision in the Criminal Justice Act—section 105—that allowed the Secretary for Justice to apply to have those people not enjoy an automatic release but to fulfil the rest of their term. [ 
Interruption 
] That section still exists. [ 
Interruption 
] Now it is section 107 of the Parole Act. 
Why is that section not capable of being used more frequently for sexual offenders of this nature? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I think the member— 
Hon David Carter 
: Well the Minister should be aware of the legislation. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think it is a valid point because the problem with this is that many of this group are reaching their automatic release date under the previous legislation. The secretary can apply to have them do the remaining third of their sentence. Why is that provision not being used as frequently as we would like it to be used in order to maintain custody of those people before they enter the extended supervision period? 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on the Committee stage of the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. We are discussing Part 1 which is the part that creates the new regime for child sex offenders. Of course they are now the lepers of the criminal community. This provision allows them to be supervised after their release for up to 10 years. This is a very sensible set of provisions and it should be extended across all offenders and not just for 10 years. If every offender served his or her court-given sentence so that we had truth in sentencing the offender should then be subject to a period of supervision of the kind contemplated by this bill but only for sex offenders. 
Why this provision is only for sex offenders has not been explained by the Minister. It is a sensible precaution against further offending. Sex offenders according to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report and the figures we were given by officials are less prone to reoffending than most other offenders. The officials would have told the Minister that a typical serious or high-risk offender is likely to reoffend and cost the community up to $500000 in the 5 years following release on serving a sentence for other crimes. Many of the offences they might have decided to prevent by electronic monitoring or any other kind of supervision will be at least as bad from a victim’s perspective as they are for the victims of child sex offenders. I have no doubt whatsoever that the families of murder victims would be very happy to see the sorts of people who commit murder rape robbery or the sort of thuggery that leaves people injured for life under some kind of supervision at the end of their sentence that is as effective as is contemplated for child sex offenders. So my first comment is that although this provision may be sensible the limitations on it are very telling. 
I also want to mention the amendments I have put forward in Supplementary Order Paper 228 that would fill a gap. There are repeated references to the rights of victims in the Parole Act but no one seems to know what they are. Minister Goff tells us that the rights of victims are the rights to get information. Well I have seen the reports that accompany a parole application. The reports that come from the Parole Board have a single page that states the offender has attended a course of X and completed it or did not complete it; the offender has been in prison for such and such a period and that is it. The victims thought that they might at least get some sort of comment from the prison authorities or from a prison officer about the behaviour of the offender whether he or she is showing remorse the psychological assessment the predictions and what the predictions might be based on as to his or her reoffending risk. But no they get nothing of that. 
Well we do have a benefit in this bill. At least now for child sex offenders new ground has been broken and the Parole Board is allowed to provide the victim with more information if it chooses. The board is allowed to provide victims essentially with whatever it thinks is relevant subject to a right to withhold things that may unduly breach privacy or the effectiveness of the conditions. I have suggested that this is the opportunity to define what are the interests of victims. My Supplementary Order Paper that I mentioned lists those interests. They are not novel; they are precisely what the Minister has said is the object of sentencing. They are to make sure that parole does not undermine the denunciation that the public can expect and does not undermine accountability. That is the cute word used by the anointed leaders in the justice area to mean I think paying the price—what would more honestly be called retribution or even utu if people were ready to acknowledge what is really happening. 
My amendment does not break new ground in the sense that it records the expectation of victims that sentences should deter. I do not remember the number of victims whom I have represented or drafted submissions for—I think it is three. I have been to the Parole Board with two victims. I must have had at least 10 victims tell me that the key thing they really want is to know that the offender cannot do it again and that other offenders will know that it will not be worth doing. In their own words they are saying that they do not want the deterrent purposes of sentencing to be undermined by parole. So my Supplementary Order Paper suggests that this bill has the definition which should have been there right at the beginning that it is the right of victims to have the Parole Board give due weight—the term used in the Parole Act—to their interests. They need reassurance that so far as sentences may deter and as we all know there is a great argument about that the sentence is adequate to cause the offender and potential offenders to feel that it is not worth committing or commissioning similar offences against the victim or others. That is one amendment I will vote for and it is in fact Marc Alexander’s definition. It is a very fine definition and I will be very happy to vote for it. 
The way in which I have phrased it in my Supplementary Order Paper is as a reassurance that the sentence actually served will still deter the offender or others from committing the same or a similar offence. We are both aiming at the same thing—filling a gap in the Parole Act which means that “the victims’ rights to be considered by the Parole Board” is an absolute charade. 
I have also suggested in my Supplementary Order Paper that we show some genuine respect for Maori concepts of justice. I do not believe they are any different from the concepts of justice that are known all over the world and that every culture upholds—that is there is a levelling of the scales; there is something in the sentence that tells the victims and their families that justice means equality so that victims are not left feeling that the crime has damaged them and left the offender better off. And many offenders feel that. They see offenders getting something as simple as free dental treatment and free education which the victim has to pay for. They see them getting tenderly cared for as it appears to them and getting counselling and the victims are left without it. This Government has given $3 million to look after victims and about $500 million to look after the criminogenic needs of offenders. All that my Supplementary Order Paper asks is that the Parole Board takes into account and gives due weight to a victim’s expectation that there is a levelling of the scales and that justice is served. Mr. Benson-Pope can bray at us about this. This is what almost every New Zealander would think was the elementary minimum requirement of the justice system. It is only the anointed in the criminal justice establishment who could even be surprised at it. 
My amendment also puts in other changes to make sure that parole conditions or release conditions do not conflict with what the judge said when he sentenced an offender. It should go without saying. But we know that the parole system was set up in fact to undermine sentencing. The parole system was deliberately set up so that the court could go through its motions. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of simple observations. When I look at my Supplementary Order Paper 226 and at clause 4 and compare it with Stephen Frank’s Supplementary Order Paper amendment to clause 4 they have the same intent and feeling. They couldalmost have been written by the same person. The concerns that are echoed— 
Stephen Franks 
: And 92 percent of New Zealanders say it too. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Yes 92 percent of them. Those amendments go to the heart of the problem—that is we have a problem with our sentencing laws and we have a problem with our parole laws. These amendments are trying to do the same thing but we are coming at it from slightly different angles. We are trying to respect the rights of victims in terms of what the bill is trying to address. We are trying to ensure that the interests of victims and in a de facto sort of way the interests of the law-abiding citizens of this country are being heard and dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner. It seems to me that when we value the interests and rights of people in this country at some point we have to make the decision that the rights and interests oflaw-abiding citizens supersede those of offenders. If we have to balance the scales of justice then they must nudge in favour of victims and the law abiding against the interests of offenders. Because they do not always go together. They often contradict each other. In terms of sentencing and in terms of this bill this is such a case. 
One of the things I would like to see done in clause 4 is to put forward the rights of victims to give them a sense of satisfaction that justice is being done to the offender in terms of denunciation of the crime and there is precious little here of that happening. Time and time again when we are looking at sentences and looking at parole the overriding consideration seems to be whether the offender if let out will pose a risk. That is a concern and it is part and parcel of what parole provisions should be if we are to have a parole system but it should not ever be at the expense of the sentence. Because the sentence is the time at which we give satisfaction to the victim. It is society’s way of saying to the victim: “We have measured the offence against you; this is the legitimate punishment that we impose.” Why suddenly do offenders get a break? Why do they get a discount at some later point? It is as if to say to the victim: “We erred on the side of the offender. We erred on the side of the offender in making the legitimate decision to say what the sentence was at the time of sentencing and we are now going to retract the impact that the crime had on you.” That approach cannot be justified. 
We know that 92 percent of the population argued against that approach. This Government has not listened. If the Government wants to impose the failed experiment of parole the failed experiment of sentencing on the law-abiding citizens of this country then it is on its head; it is on its conscience. The responsibility for future victims of crimes committed by offenders let out far too early will rest upon this Government. 
My Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 10 by substituting new subsection (b) of section 107A—“(b) provides that an extended supervision order may last for as long as the offender is capable of committing further offences with no time limitations;”. My rationale for doing that is simply that it should have been addressed with the sentencing. These individuals should never be allowed out of incarceration again. But they will be. The least we can do is then to go back and impose a supervision regime to ensure the greatest chance that they will not commit an offence again. I look forward to support for that amendment from other parties in the House. 
I turn to Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks. The amendments essentially want the same changes as mine and who would disagree? An amendment to clause 4 “Interpretation” inserts a new definition “rights of victims”. The definition includes—satisfaction that the sentence actually served will show denunciation; reassurance that justice has been done; reassurance that the sentence actually serviced will deter the offender. These are all things we cannot possibly disagree with. The intent is that the judgment falls in favour of the victim and against the offender. The offender had his or her chance. The offender made a conscious decision to cause an offence against an innocent law-abiding citizen. It is now in the interests of justice to place the interests of the innocent the victim ahead of those of the offender. 
I note Stephen Franks’ amendment to insert new clause 8A to direct that home detention will not negate or undermine the purposes of the sentence for the offender. Again how could one disagree? The point is obvious. This is a matter of saying that the sentence is supposed to deal with society’s punishment of the offender. Over and above that home detention and other such provisions—supervision and so on—are about maintaining the ability to ensure that the public is not disadvantaged or put at risk. They are two separate things and one should not be at the expense of the other. 
In Stephen Franks’ explanatory note of his Supplementary Order Paper he states that the purpose of these amendments is to empower and direct the Parole Board to take account of the judge’s reason for sentencing. In a nutshell he says it and who could disagree? The judge is in the best possible position to be able to determine the impact of the crime on the victim and to determine the sentence. Why is it that a third of the way into a sentence the Parole Board in its great wisdom can turn round and decide to let the offender out of prison? The board does not have the judge’s wisdom; it was not there at the time of the sentencing but it can decide to reduce a sentence by up to two-thirds. 
The Hon Tony Ryall made a very good point. The offenders who are coming up who will come under this supervision regime and about whom we are trying to push this bill through have the possibility of serving an extra third of their sentence because they come under the previous sentencing provisions. Why on earth are we not enacting that proposal? Why is it that the full measure of the sentence has not been visited upon the offender? If we are so eager to turn back the clock and use a bit of retrospectivity then why not simply just extend the sentence? Because United Future would back it I am sure National would back it I know ACT would back it and 92 percent of the population in the 1999 referendum showed they would back it. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I wonder whether I could draw the Minister’s attention to new section 107H in clause 10 of the reported-back bill “Conditions of extended supervision order”. I think this provision gets to the heart of my concerns about this bill. Everybody wants us to have some sort of regime in place for the small group of highly dangerous sex offenders who have come to the end of their sentence. The officials have assured me that they use section 107 of the Parole Act on these people to try to ensure that they serve their whole sentence. So everyone wants a regime for when these people come to the end of their sentence. 
I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker to take another call and talk a little about the actual nature of the monitoring. Minister Goff said that these people will be subject to 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week monitoring. This bill provides that the parole authorities in exercising an extended supervision order can impose special conditions and those special conditions can include the person living as if he or she were on home detention for a year. Then we get into the ongoing monitoring by the probation service. New section 107I(1A) states that an offender is subject to a special condition that “… may include a requirement that the offender submit to being accompanied and monitored for up to 24 hours a day by an individual who has been approved by a person authorised by the chief executive to undertake person-to-person monitoring;”. The concern here is that if the Minister is saying he will give 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week monitoring why then is this a discretionary provision of an extended supervision order? The provision states that if an offender is subject to a special condition referred to in subsection (1)(b) the condition may include the requirement for 24/7 in-person supervision. 
The Minister in the chair has talked about how there would be 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week in-person supervision. The use of the word “may” suggests that not everyone will be subject to that level of supervision. I wonder whether the Minister would take a call to explain why that condition is discretionary to the board rather than a requirement that a person is subject to that 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week monitoring he talked about. He said in the Chamber that eligible offenders would be subject to that monitoring. We all thought that that would be in person—the sort of monitoring that Barry Allan Ryder had for the first part of his sentence before it got too expensive and the authorities cut it back—but it became clear that the Minister was talking only about home detention. If the Government is prepared to put in this provision why is it discretionary and why is it not mandatory that anyone on an extended supervision order have that 24/7 supervision in person which would provide a level of security and safety to the community that traditional home detention would not? 
The problem is that after the 12-month period of home detention conditions for these people we are back to the hopeless level of parole supervision by the probation service. We heard about quarterly contacts and I do not think that is as good as it could be. This bill is better than nothing but surely the Government could do better on this. I wonder whether the Minister could explain why the provision for the 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week in-person supervision is discretionary when the Government is saying that there is this very small cohort that needs to be dealt with firmly by this legislation. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 This morning we passed legislation that allowed for a national register of dogs that are dangerous and might bite people repeatedly. The Minister of Justice this year said that he would support through this Parliament a national register of sex offenders yet we have seen this Government do whatever it can to knock that legislation kick it into touch and get this legislation in instead. 
This legislation will not do anything to protect people from sex offenders. I have just been reading the latest research to come out of Canada. It took 14 years for Canada to introduce a sex offender register and it was done after an 11-year-old boy was abducted raped had his throat slit and was then left to bleed to death in the woods. This crime was done by one Joseph Fredericks who was released on parole on mandatory supervision—the same sort of supervision that is being created with this legislation. It was after people saw that the mandatory supervision had failed that Canada decided to go ahead and bring in a sex offender register. 
In the United States the community is trusted also to be involved in community supervision of sex offenders. Americans have access to registers through CD-ROMs and computers. Parents are trusted to do everything they can to keep their children safe. 
In this country parents are not trusted to do that. This could be the safest country in the world; it would not be hard. We are an island where it is easy to protect our borders. We could protect the people within our borders. We could do it right by passing legislation that sends a message to repeat high-risk dangerous offenders that they will not get away with their crimes. 
When I did my sex offender registry I was contacted by a repeat sex offender in Canada who has written several articles on his rehabilitation and he admitted that the thing that finally rehabilitated him was the sex offender registry. He realised it was a law that worked and that he lived in fear of and he was terrified of breaking it because he never wanted to go back to jail again. He could not trust himself to be released. It was not until Ontario introduced a sex offender registry called Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry) 2000 that that man was able to get on with his life. When he was interviewed for a job he could tell people about his past and that he was a serious sex offender because he knew he would never get away with it. His exact words were: “Only a public registry will work.” He said it was a law that made him go straight and not reoffend. 
My colleague Stephen Franks has done an excellent minority report in which he states that we go into the dangerous area of double jeopardy and we do not need to do that. It is just because of our stupid privacy legislation and conventions which put the so-called rights of the offenders ahead of the rights of victims that we have to pass laws that breach all conventions of justice. We would not need to do that if we just got tough on crime and kept our word about supporting legislation going through Parliament and supporting each other. I said I would support the Minister’s legislation because he said he would support mine and the legislation would go through together. Instead this Government is keener to pass a law for a national registry of dogs than a national registry of sex offenders. The Government thinks it is funny but I do not think it is very funny at all. 
Several years ago when Peter Liddell was released on parole I went on the  
Holmes 
 show. The Parole Board thought that he would not reoffend. Peter Liddell ruined the lives of children and drove them to suicide and parents to despair. What happened? The Parole Board deemed him ready to be released and last week he was back in jail. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to insert new clause 4A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 6A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to insert new clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to insert new clause 8A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to section 107A(b) in clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; United Future 8. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to add new section 107A(e) in clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 107BA(1) the following new paragraph: 
(aa)that sentence was received prior to the enactment of the Sentencing Act 2002; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 107I(1A) the word “may” and susbtitute the word “must”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of section 107I(2) the words “only within the first 12 months of the term of the order.” and substitute the words “for the period of the extended supervision order.”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 and Supplementary Order Paper 230 and the typescript amendments to clause 6A. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are we doing all the Minister’s amendments as one vote? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are doing all the Minister’s amendments as one vote. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The ACT party would be happy to vote for one of those amendments but if they are all put together we cannot express that. One of them deletes section 15A(1) in clause 6A which is something we are quite prepared to vote for. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to vote separately on two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230. One is to clause 6A to delete new section 15A(1) and the other is to clause 20. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I further seek leave because we have an issue with that seeking of leave. We want the amendment to clause 6A voted on separately but we would also like the rest of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230 voted on separately from the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will deal with the first seeking of leave. Is there any objection to the leave sought by the Hon Tony Ryall? There appears to be none. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 Our voting will differ depending on which Supplementary Order Paper we are dealing with. If we are voting separately on the amendment to clause 6A on Supplementary Order Paper 230 does that mean we will do the rest of the amendments on that Supplementary Order Paper as a block? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes. 
ROD DONALD 
: Then will we do Mr Barker’s amendment as a separate vote and deal with the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote? Is that correct? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Atthe moment as I understand it we have essentially a vote for all the amendments except the two that have been identified as Mr Ryall’s. So at this stage there would be three votes. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 Could the Chair please just clarify which three votes are we are having now? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: They are clause 6A and clause 20. So there will be votes on those two. At the moment we will be voting on clause 6A clause 20 and the remaining amendments by the Minister. Is that all? 
Nandor Tanczos 
: In that case I seek leave to also treat the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote from the remainder of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230 after taking account of the leave sought by Mr Ryall. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
:  
So do we want Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote? That is OK. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is that all clear now? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Clause 20 is in Part 2 I am reliably advised. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What does Mr Ryall think of that? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That is OK. Then we will have it later. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 So we have the amendment to clause 6A the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 and then a vote on the rest of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230. Is that it? Right. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 6A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 12A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 and the following amendments in the name of the Hon Rick Barkerto clause 6A be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 15A(5) the words “of each class identified in subsection (1)”; and 
to omit from paragraph (b) of section 15A(5) the words “of each class identified in subsection (1)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 23 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002 and Parole Act 2002 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 A good starting point in talking about Part 2 is to note it in its context and its context is that there are before the Justice and Electoral Committee 17 amendments at the moment either proposed or passed that have been placed before it by the Government—17 amendments. They are contained in Supplementary Order Papers 223 229 and 230 and I have probably been generous to the Government in counting them in the particular way I have. 
The interesting thing about all this is that this bill—the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill—has only just been reported back. It was reported back in mid-June. In that short time the Government has found 17 deficiencies in the legislation. It is a wholly unsatisfactory circumstance. While National is supporting the bill we are doing so on the basis that there is really only one redeeming feature of merit in the bill which is the introduction of a new extended supervision regime that will manage high-risk child sex offenders. We have real reservations about how effectively this legislation will be administered by the relevant agencies and we have good grounds for those reservations given the comments of Justice Ellis as chairman of the Parole Board the other day and the comments that the Minister of Justice Phil Goff made in reply. 
The reality is that the outcome of fiddling around with the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act has been complex and densely-worded legislation. It is full of subtleties. It is beset with qualifications elaborations and ambiguities. Members may recall that when the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act were first passed there was trenchant criticism from the Court of Appeal. In fact the legislation was described as being akin to the Hampton Court maze. Well it has been made more complex more subtle and more difficult. In Part 2 we see again a raft of changes running right through the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Part 2 is in two subparts. Subpart 1 is “Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002” and Subpart 2 is “Amendments to Parole Act 2002”. That in itself is not strictly accurate because there should be a third subpart in which the miscellaneous amendments to other legislation should be. 
It is far reaching—there is no doubt about that—because it touches in the amendments to the Sentencing Act on issues relating to reparation reports and cumulative and concurrent sentences of imprisonment. There is a provision dealing with minimum periods of imprisonment in relation to fixed sentences. The issue of preventive detention has come up again for review. There is material about home detention and deferring its start date which I would like to develop in later calls. The whole issue of discharge without conviction is being revisited as is the question of orders to come up for sentence if called upon. The whole aspect of review of non-association orders is thrown into stark relief and the Government has seen fit to make a number of changes to legislation such as the Misuse of Drugs Act the Bail Act—the changes to bail on deferment of sentence are quite significant—and the sentencing regulations. As if that is not enough for one part substantial changes will also be made to the Parole Act. 
The Minister has surely reached a position with the patching that has been done to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act since their enactments where he can hardly say as members heard him say as he stood in the Chamber that he is proud of this legislation and that it is a triumph of the Government. In reality it is wholly flawed. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 This is the first call I have taken on this bill. I start my speech by simply saying one thing: stop and wake up! I draw to the attention of the people who are voting for this legislation that everything in Part 2 is aimed at achieving a new extended supervision regime that will actively manage high-risk child sex offenders in the community. Members should think about that. Everything I read in Part 1—which I did not get the opportunity to speak on because I did not get the call when I asked for it—and everything in Part 2 is aimed at putting high-risk child sex offenders into the community under supposedly 24-hour supervision. We all know that nothing in this legislation will guarantee that. 
How do I know that? I know that because even yesterday there were articles in the paper stating that a home detention individual who was monitored with an anklet went missing for 4 months. Get that! Four months! I have one message for everyone on the Government benches who votes for this legislation. The day a high-risk child sex offender commits another crime on another child as a result of that offender supposedly being supervised 24 hours a day 7 days a week under this legislation I will do everything I can to put a billboard in those MPs’ electorates stating that they personally voted for it to happen. 
They should know that this legislation is fundamentally flawed. I go back to the third reading of the Parole Bill when Winston Peters stated that this legislation was fundamentally flawed. There are arguments in this Chamber to the effect that it does not matter what one does with parole. Frankly parole is past its use-by date. Eighty percent of people who are paroled offend within 5 years. Know that! Members should think about that. This legislation is all—a term I cannot use in this Chamber because it is not parliamentary; “Bravo Sierra” is an army term that springs to mind—Bravo being “b” and Sierra being “s”—and that is what this is. The crime here is that members like Mr Barker Ms Pettis Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Gallagher will all sit here and pass this legislation and working-class people will bear the results. Boy am I looking forward to the hustings the day after the first recidivist offender offends because I will nail them all as responsible. We over here in New Zealand First will vote against Part 2 because it is fundamentally flawed. 
There are some things that I can endorse. Why? Because we told the Government they were shortfalls and failures and it would not listen the first time around. Take the deferred sentencing. Why are we dealing with that issue now? Why is it in this legislation? Because the Government would not listen—and is that not interesting: again it is not listening. The result we had from deferred sentencing was that people who were sent to jail did not go to jail. Where did they go? They went back out in the community on deferred sentence pending a home detention application. What happened? There is a high-profile case of a man who committed aggravated robbery was sent to jail did not go to jail and was put out in the community. They suddenly find that hello DNA evidence shows he was involved in four other aggravated robberies and when they went to pick him up from the place he was supposedly living on his deferred sentence he did not live there any more. He had gone—flown the coop. No one could find him. 
Hello! If he had been locked up in jail for a start the police would have known exactly where to go. Well! The Government suddenly realises that it has a problem so it is moving to block that hole. But is it not also interesting when looking at the beginning of the bill to realise this Labour Government supposedly cloth-cap working class and union representative is now bleating the cry of an employer who wants to get off home get a deferred sentence because he is a rich guy. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Firstly I say to the Committee that this debate reminds me a little of the fabulous old cartoon with Bill Rowling and Rob Muldoon looking out a window. The cartoonist observed that it was interesting that one could see blue sky and the other could see only mud. Law and order debates are very interesting because despite what the Opposition says the facts are that since the Bail Act was passed more high-risk defendants are being denied bail than before. Opposition members do not accept that. The second point is that there are projections now for an increase in New Zealand’s prison population of over 20 percent in the next 7 years. Those are not the statistics Ron Mark would have when he says we are soft on crime. The fact is that since 1996 when crime in New Zealand peaked there has been a continued drop and all members should say that is a good thing. But the Opposition members for their own purposes have to go and scare and terrify the electorate by saying there is more crime. 
I want to come back to Richard Worth who made an interesting point when he identified that a number of corrections were being made to the legislation. He put that forward as a criticism. I think Richard Worth should say it is a positive thing. If things are not right we try to constantly and incrementally improve the law. No one gets it absolutely perfectly right the first time and anybody who believes that is a fool. The Government has identified areas for improvement. For example there is concern about the deferral dates for the start of sentences. We are now tightening the rules on that in the light of experience and practice because we have now found that the words we wrote before which we thought were adequate are not. So we are now to require exceptional circumstances instead of special circumstances—we are going to do that. We are also to make it clear in sentencing that when considering non-parole periods of greater than one-third of a sentence those should be imposed in cases where the statutory minimum would be insufficient to deter denounce and punish a serious crime. I think that is a very positive amendment and the House should support it. Those are constructive amendments to improve the quality of our legislation and I think people should applaud them. 
Some people will condemn those amendments. Of course they will because it is the nature of the Opposition—oppose oppose—to lock themselves into that mentality. But the Opposition cannot deny the statistics. The facts are that the crime rate is on the way down the prison population is going up longer sentences are being imposed and it is now much tougher to get bail. So there are some positive matters and I think the Committee should have that put on the record. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill has a whole raft of minor patch-ups to the Sentencing Act. I want to look at one or two of them. The first one is in clause 15 “Proof of facts”. In the Sentencing Act Mr Goff’s brave new gift to criminal justice in this country we had a complete code about the evidence that a judge has to take into account on sentencing. It is in section 24 of the Act. Let us look at what Mr Goff is now proposing: that in section 24(2)(c) the words “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be inserted. It now states that a prosecutor the guy who is trying to get a decent sentence must prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of any disputed aggravating fact. That means any fact that would increase the sentence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutor must negate beyond a reasonable doubt any disputed mitigating fact raised by the defence—that is the guy who is trying to get the offender off a sentence. 
Let us then look at what the offender has to do. The offender must prove on the balance of probabilities the existence of any disputed mitigating fact not related to the offence. So let us think what a disputed mitigating fact may be that is not related to the nature of the offence. It is something such as the offender had been nice to his or her mother. How can the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was not? Or the mitigating fact may be that the offender gave lots of money to the SPCA. How is the prosecutor going to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt? Whose interests is Mr Goff serving when he comes forward with that sort of fatuous amendment? 
Ron Mark 
: “I’ve become a Christian.” 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The offender may say he or she has become a Christian so the prosecutor must disprove that. The offender may say he or she has become a Christian and will never commit the offence again. Mr Mark has raised an excellent example of what seems to be deep at the heart of Mr Goff’s priorities for the reform of our criminal justice system. 
Judith Collins 
: Any chance of Mr Choudhary becoming a Christian? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am not sure whether it would be of sufficient mitigation. If Mr Choudhary became a Christian I do not think people would forgive him either. However looking back at section 24(2)(c) in clause 15 I cannot even see an explanation of why that is being done. I have no doubt that Mr Goff has a reason to now make the prosecution negate beyond a reasonable doubt the claim by an offender that he or she has become a Christian but I would really like to see how that would be done. 
Clause 17 states that when reparation is ordered against the poor dear offender the court must not impose a condition that it be paid as a lump sum unless it is satisfied that the offender has sufficient means to pay it immediately. The poor offender may have to sell his or her house. Reparation of course is simply compensation to the poor victim but now in all the toughening-up that Mr Goff has been telling us about he is making sure that a court does not make the mistake of putting the offender under time pressure. We would not want that! 
Then I look at clause 19 which refers to section 86 of the principal Act. Section 86 is the provision that has been put in to do what the Court of Appeal told Mr Goff was needed. Mr Goff told the Court of Appeal that in his judgment it was unnecessary because he had already assumed that the court could do it. But the Court of Appeal said it needed to know when it could set longer non-parole periods because the Act stated that it could be done only in extraordinary circumstances or words to that effect. Section 86 is now to state that a longer non-parole period than the minimum can be set in order to hold the offender accountable denounce the conduct deter the offender or protect the community from the offender. Those are the purposes of sentencing. Mr Goff has had to state that when the court wants to set a longer non-parole period it can apply the conditions of sentencing. What can it do? It can then set a non-parole period that extends to two-thirds of the sentence. In other words the court can now go back to what the law was before Mr Goff changed it. Before it was changed violent offenders had to serve two-thirds of their sentence. Now in all his toughness Mr Goff has gone back and stated that a court can reinstate the conditions that prevailed before he changed the law. What a toughening-up that is! He has gone back to the position that Mr Ryall had imposed when he was the Minister. Mr Goff has stated the court can now get us back to where we were before he started to change the law. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 To listen to the Minister in the chair one would think everything was rosy in the garden in New Zealand. One would think that tonight hundreds of New Zealanders have not had their cars broken into that tonight many New Zealanders’ homes have not been broken into and that if those people live in Auckland they do not expect to wait 24 hours before a police officer comes. It is a fact that tonight many New Zealanders are at risk of being bashed on the streets of New Zealand. Although crime dropped during the 1990s—from the mid-1990s on—crime is on the way up again and reported violent crime is up 15 percent in the term of this Labour Government. 
If this Government is so confident of its discredited parole system it should tell this Parliament why 40 percent of people on parole reoffend within 12 months 55 percent reoffend within 2 years and 86 percent reoffend within 5 years. For some categories of offenders over 95 percent reoffend within 5 years. 
Ron Mark 
: So parole works right? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yep parole works for those people! Frankly members on this side of the Chamber are left gasping. This Government can talk all it likes about what it is doing about the prison service the Parole Board etc. but 60 percent of the people who will go to prison this year will have been there before. Of the people released from prison 86 percent will reoffend within the next 5 years. We know what that means. It means that tens of thousands of New Zealanders will become victims as a result of people being released on parole—under Governments of both colours. Tens upon tens of thousands of people will have their cars broken into or stolen or their houses broken into and ransacked or be bashed or robbed in the street. So there is a human cost to the way in which the Government deals with the parole system. 
That is the reason why during this debate National members have sought to raise a real concern about this bill. We support the extended parole provisions in the bill; they are not our first choice on how to deal with these offenders—our first choice is a law that allows one to convince a judge that these sorts of people should not be released from prison—but we do believe that this bill has some merit. But it does not go far enough. We are most worried about what will happen after the 12 months of home detention supervision. The probation service told the Law and Order Committee that these people would be monitored or contacted weekly to start with and that eventually that would reduce to quarterly monitoring. The probation service told us that nobody would be monitored for the full 10 years and that about 8 years might be the maximum. 
Frankly that is not the level of supervision National wants. I give this commitment: a National Party - led Government will ensure that the monitoring of those people is real and we will make sure that if they are out the provisions that apply for the first 12 months apply for the full period. If we are going to agree to extended supervision it should be meaningful and the National Government after the election will make amendments to these provisions. But the Minister should not tell members that parolees are not reoffending. He should not say that tens of thousands of New Zealanders are not being made victims of the offending of parolees. 
Nor should he say that New Zealanders are treating the justice system with credibility. When a young woman in North Auckland was sentenced to 7 years in jail for driving a car into a crowd of schoolchildren and killing a young girl the whole country said she would not serve 7 years but would be out in 2. That is what has happened: sentencing has become discredited. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I want to look at several issues in Part 2. Stephen Franks raised the issue of reparation and pointed out that the Government is saying we must not be too hard when reparation is being ordered; that if the offenders cannot pay it all at once in one lump sum because they do not have it or do not look like they might have it we must be kind to them and let them pay it in instalments. Can members imagine saying to someone who holds them up and demands $10000: “I don’t have it all right now.” and that person saying: “OK I’ll take it in instalments.”? That is what this measure does to offenders. 
For 30 years this country has said that if we are nice to criminals they will be nice back. It just does not work like that. We should not even have parole. Parole does not work. It is a joke. It is a lie to the community. Tony Ryall talked about people saying that the girl who had been sentenced to 7 years would serve only 2. A lot of people still do not realise that. A lot of people still think when they see a sentence of 7 years that that is good then are shocked when they read 2 years later that that person has been released. It is an anomaly that parole is given. We should not have parole at all. 
By having parole we create all these other huge problems. In fact I wonder why we even bother with a justice system when members of the Parole Board are appointed by the Minister of Justice and can be fired by the Minister yet when they consider a person’s parole they do not have to take into account why the judge set the sentence in an open court in an open justice system—except when the judge set a non-parole period which cannot be more than two-thirds of the sentence. If that is not Kafkaesque what is? Why do judges go through the process of sentencing someone to jail for a heinous crime—of stating in an open court that it was a terrible crime that the victims have been harmed immeasurably that the crime has offended the community that there needs to be a deterrent for this sort of thing and that there needs to be reparation—lulling the victims and the community into a false sense of safety and security when that person can go before the Parole Board and none of that has to be taken into account? In essence that offender goes before another secret court a secret set of judges who are appointed by the Minister and do not have to take into account any of those issues. 
The other anomaly in this legislation is the issue of cumulative and concurrent sentencing. I do not agree with concurrent sentencing at all. It is a sort of bargain bin—a two-for-one system. 
Ron Mark 
: Buy one get one free. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes; an offender who murders one person might as well murder three because he or she will get the other two free. The bill contains a ridiculous clause clause 18—which I still do not really understand even though Stephen Franks explained it to me—which provides that a court cannot “impose a sentence of imprisonment cumulatively on another sentence of imprisonment if at the time of sentencing the offender is subject to a sentence of imprisonment but having commenced serving the sentence is no longer detained under it.” Well why is the offender no longer detained? If the crime was so bad that there was a sentence of the kind that imposing another sentence would be cumulative why is the offender no longer detained? Why did we get into this situation in the first place? If that person was on parole he or she should have been recalled immediately. That is the issue with our having this nonsense of parole. 
The issue of preventive detention which the Minister of Justice has boasted about constantly in this House—about how people will be imprisoned for much longer periods—is also misleading if members look at the conditions this legislation places on the release of offenders. Not a week goes by when I do not get letters from families who know about convicted offenders— 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Any party that takes law and order seriously and that voted against the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act in 2002 must surely vote against this legislation entirely. At that stage New Zealand First said the legislation was fundamentally flawed. In fact these amendments prove that it is fundamentally flawed. We have a whole raft of extensive amendments from the minority Labour Government that indicate this legislation is flawed. One cannot rectify something that is basically wrong. As I said before west Auckland had a problem with painted apple moth. We could not do something to make the painted apple moth problem better; we had to get rid of it. 
This legislation is flawed. We have to get rid of it and do something along the lines that New Zealand First proposed in 2002 and will continue to propose when it is a part of a Government of this country. We do not support parole in the way it is proposed in this legislation. We want to replace the Parole Board with a rehabilitation board with a primary objective of minimising recidivism. Offenders are not given parole and they will be in prison for a much longer time. I support the building of all the new prisons. These people should be kept in prison and for a longer time. That is why we need more prisons. 
As far as convictions are concerned some current statistics show that the longer the stay in prison the fewer crimes are committed because the criminals are in prison. If we keep criminals in prison we will not get crime. The same people commit crime again and again but if we lock them up they will not commit crime. It is a cost on the community to lock them up but maybe it will be a lesson to their families—it will tell their families that this is what happens to criminals. The second thing is that they will not be able to get back home and encourage young children to do the same thing they were led to do when they were young children. That is one of the problems in this particular area. 
We want these people to be put in jail and to stay in jail for the term of their sentence unless towards the end of their sentence there is some indication of rehabilitation on their part. The rehabilitation board would be required to consider the actual duration of imprisonment and to ensure that offenders have demonstrated remorse and have a positive attitude to rehabilitation before it considers parole. 
Statistics can prove just about anything. On page 18 of the New Zealand Police Statement of Intent 2004/2005 the recorded crime trend indicator shows an upward trend for the years from 1999 onwards. In fact since this minority Labour Government came into office the indicator shows an upward trend for total recorded violence and sexual acts and for total recorded serious violence and sexual acts. That is what this legislation is about. To a large extent it is about the behaviour of sex offenders. And what does this minority Labour Government say? It says that it will give offenders better opportunities to go out into the public. 
New Zealand First says that if the Government is serious about dealing with crime serious about making sure that people get punished and serious about making sure that victims realise the people who harm them are getting punished then it has to repeal entirely the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act and has to pass the legislation recommended by New Zealand First to show that it really is tough about law and order. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make just three brief points. One of the overriding concerns that I guess has been talked about at some length is the attack on the parole provisions. Nothing puts that more sharply in mind than a case of a gentleman by the name of Brian Alan Bolt. He is 48 years of age. The judge said it was clear that he offended regularly and offended as soon as he was released from custody. While on parole he committed his 636th offence. If there could ever be an indictment of the parole provisions I guess he must surely be it. 
Clause 22 states that the court may defer the start date of a sentence of imprisonment and justify it under exceptional circumstances. One has to ask why on earth we are giving the right to do that for an offender while no right of a similar nature has been given to the victim. Nobody has considered the victim’s interest in this deferral. In fact there is no provision for the victim to even make an impact statement with regard to the deferral provisions. It seems shocking that we are still going down the track of giving the weight of credence to an offender rather than a victim. It runs counter to the heart of the victims’ rights legislation that was passed not that long ago which tries to rebalance the justice system in favour of the victim. This legislation does not represent that at all. It does not mirror those concerns. 
Clause 21 deals with the fact that the court must consider granting an offender leave to apply for home detention in certain cases. Subsection (3) in clause 21 states: “The court may grant the offender leave to apply to the New Zealand Parole Board under section 33 of the Parole Act 2002 for home detention only if the court is satisfied that it would be appropriate to grant leave taking into account—(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence; and (b) the circumstances and background of the offender; and (c) any relevant matters in the victim impact statement in the case.” It seems to me that the nature and seriousness of the offence can actually be decided upon by the victim impact statement allowing the victim to have his or her say about just what the nature and the seriousness of the offence is. If anybody understands the seriousness of any offence it must surely be the victims. They are the ones who have to suffer for it. They are the ones who have to feel the full brunt of the offence. So surely the power ought to lie with victims to be able to ascertain the impact and the seriousness of the offence. I do not believe that clause 21 highlights that as adequately as it perhaps might. 
The last point I want to talk about is clause 18 “Cumulative and concurrent sentences of imprisonment”. It seems very difficult to understand exactly what this clause actually says. I am not a lawyer but I did consult a lawyer not that long ago and I asked what it means. He himself was not quite sure of it. It seems to suggest that again we are going down the track of offering people discounts for the offences that they commit based on concurrent sentencing rather than cumulative sentencing. If a person is out on parole despite the fact that he or she comes under the sentencing provisions and has another offence to answer to the possible sentence that could apply in that case should not be waived. On what grounds can the offence be diminished simply by reason of a person being on parole and not having to address the offence or the sentencing that might ensue because of another offence given them? 
I have in my name a Supplementary Order Paper that I consider to be a technical adjustment of what clause 18 is doing to at least allow the judges to take into consideration the fact that a cumulative sentence might actually hit the aims of justice a little better than the provisions that seem to be garbled and muddled as they are presently written. I look forward to the support of the Committee. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Is it not about time we stopped playing politics with the victims of child sex abuse? National is supporting this bill for one reason and one reason only. It is a small improvement on the treatment of convicted paedophiles and their behaviour in the community after they are released. It is a small improvement but at least it is a move in the right direction. Having sat through the speeches tonight and having heard New Zealand First castigate this bill and the people who vote for it I would like to ask where they were in the select committee voting. Did they vote for this bill or did they vote against it? The answer is that they voted for the bill. It is not good enough to come into this House use the victims of child sex abuse in this way and talk about this bill and say: “We’re not going to vote for it because it’s not good enough.” 
The fact is that we know it is not good enough but it is a step in the right direction and we have already signalled to this House that after the next election a National-led Government will improve this even more. We will sort this out in a big way. In the meantime are we to allow convicted paedophiles to sit and think about how they can molest little children and do nothing about it? We know the supervision scheme is bad but if it saves one child from a paedophile I for one and the National Party will say: “Thank goodness for that.” But the trouble is that we will not know which children are saved by this regime. What we will know about are those who fall through the gaps. But if it saves one child—and I believe that the main purpose and intent of this bill is to save those children—it will be worth it until after next year when we are in power and we can sort it out properly. It is an improvement and that is why we are voting for this bill. There is no point in coming into this Committee and saying in a grandstanding way: “This bill’s not good enough so we won’t vote for it.” It is not in fact going backwards; it is actually affecting these people. It is to do with people who were not sentenced under the preventive detention regime. That was not available then to them. It is now available and consequently this is retrospective legislation. 
I am appalled to see that people voted against this—as I noted at the select committee—because it is retrospective legislation. The only people I noticed who are against this bill are those who are consistently and constantly concerned with the rights of child sex abusers. Every single civil libertarian did not like this bill. Every single one came along and said: “Oh it’s bad.” That should be a signal to every right-thinking person in this Chamber that it is in fact an improvement on the current law— 
Stephen Franks 
: And the New Zealand Law Society. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: And the New Zealand Law Society—I put them on that particular list. 
Hon Member 
: Pinkos! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They definitely are a bunch of pinkos on these sorts of issues. Of course they feel that they have to do that because they are there they say to look after the rights of everyone just not necessarily the rights of the victims of child sex abuse. That is why we are voting for the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I am shocked to hear the former Minister Lianne Dalziel shouting out against us on this bill. I was convinced by her argument in the select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] I say thank you very much to Ms Pillay for her confirmation that I am right and she is wrong. Well done! I always knew there was hope for that member. 
I have to say that the Government at least has made an attempt not much of an attempt but at least an attempt. It does not help that people are now given parole after serving one-third of their sentence but at least it is an improvement. We are pleased to be able to do that. I understand why Ms Dalziel would like my speech to come to an end. It is just too embarrassing for her—people will hear that she has been abusing this speaker all the way through. She has been sitting there chewing gum and screaming like an old harridan. I say to Ms Dalziel that it is not a good look. In fact she does not want us to support this bill. I say to Ms Dalziel that I am sorry but I will not oblige. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I call the next member I have a correction to a vote. The result of the vote on the question that the amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 10 of the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill be agreed to was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 17 Noes 102. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The speech just given by my colleague Judith Collins tells us why National has taken a principled approach. It is an approach that says the bill is an improvement and it will make a difference. She also pointed out that the New Zealand First representative voted for the legislation in the Justice and Electoral Committee. So New Zealand First members are just making cheap political points tonight by changing their stance on this issue. 
Perhaps the most notable interjection today was the one from Lianne Dalziel. She proudly supports the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. How could anyone stand in this Chamber and say he or she supports legislation that allows parole for the worst offenders at one-third of their sentences? An offender sentenced to 9 years can apply for parole after serving 3 years. The Government claims that that is an improvement. [ 
Interruption 
] I have to correct Mr Mark. National is utterly and completely opposed to the whole notion of applying for parole at one-third of a sentence. 
I took the Government at its word when it said it was going to abolish automatic parole at two-thirds of a sentence. Everyone in this Chamber and everyone in the entire country was shocked to find that the Government’s solution so-called was to substitute eligibility for parole at one-third of a sentence. That is not just for the non-violent offender or for the first-time offender but also for the worst offenders. 
That is one of the reasons why I have put in an amendment today. I have sat here and listened to the questions—some of the questions were asked by Mr Ron Mark—about the scandals that have occurred with home detention. These are seriously violent offenders who commit the worst and most vile crimes whilst on home detention. Surely experience should tell us that in those circumstances those people are not eligible for home detention. It might be at the back of a sentence but in practice the actions of many offenders show it is not right. So that is why I have given Government members the opportunity to vote tonight to stop home detention for violent and sexual offenders. They have the opportunity tonight to say no to that. Will they take that opportunity? Will the Minister say that in principle he and his Government oppose home detention for violent criminals and sexual offenders? He has that opportunity. It is not something unreasonable. The Minister knows full well that he would receive the thanks of New Zealanders if he voted for that amendment. He has that opportunity. 
I have listened with huge concern over many many months as members right across the parties on this side of the Chamber have raised scandalous incidents. I have listened to the answers given by the Minister of Justice. He himself knows that it is wrong. Well tonight Government members have an opportunity to fix it. If they have the real interests of law-abiding New Zealanders at heart they will vote for the amendment that will stop home detention. The Minister might well say: “But it was put in there to provide people with an opportunity.” But experience tells us that it was a mistake. Home detention should be limited only to the non-violent offender—the person who does not pose a risk. So the amendment gives a clear instruction that home detention will be banned for violent offenders. We have the opportunity to learn from experience to say that practice shows it is too big a risk to take and therefore we should vote against it. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Is it not interesting that finally we are starting to get some indication from National as to where it might be going with its law and order policy but we will deal with that at a later stage. 
Firstly I hope that when National members give their law and order speeches they will acknowledge that it was New Zealand First that brought home detention— 
Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! 
RON MARK 
: The member can laugh all she likes. She should go to the written questions because they do not lie. There is New Zealand First’s track record on exposing home detention for the sham it is. The point is in there. 
If this Parliament seriously believes that the provisions in Part 2 with regard to 24/7 monitoring of offenders through extended supervision will work it is dreaming. Take the example in Christchurch of the young man who was picked up by a taxi-driver outside the casino having called a taxi to take him home. He got to his home and did a runner on the taxi. Normally the police do not get involved in civil cases such as this because they do not believe it is their job to make people pay for their taxis. But is it not interesting that when the taxi-driver gave the address of the property he was outside suddenly police cars arrived. Why did they arrive? Because the person whom the taxi-driver had picked up outside the Christchurch Casino was on home detention and supposedly was being monitored 24/7 on his anklet. He still managed to go to the casino for an evening’s gambling and do a runner on his taxi fare. So with that in mind what confidence am I expected to have in this garbage before me? The answer is none. 
If that is not enough consider the man in Christchurch who was on home detention under supervision with an anklet on under 24/7 supervision and who was committing burglaries. He had accurately worked out that from the time he activated his alarm it took a minimum of 1 hour for the security people to arrive on his doorstep. So he knew that he could race off his property break into his neighbour’s home steal his stereo get home have it planted and hidden and when the people from Chubb Security arrived to see whether he was there he was there. He simply said: “Well there’s something wrong with your gear bro’ it doesn’t work does it? Must be something wrong.” and so they thought there was. 
That 24/7 supervision is so effective that we now have the infamous case of a person who was personally supervised by a Chubb Security guard who was standing outside the door whilst the offender—the inmate under 24/7 supervision—was inside the room sexually assaulting his cleaner. 
Judith Collins 
: As you do! 
RON MARK 
: As you do! The Government cannot tell me that this piece of garbage that should be sitting on a roll in someone’s lavatory is going to work—it is rubbish! 
With all due respect to my National Party colleagues who have a proven track record of saying: “We’re gonna get rid of the gangs we’re gonna get tough on crime we’re going to do this.” and when they get into Government they spend 9 years doing nothing— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: With help! 
RON MARK 
: Oh the member should not say “with help” because when New Zealand First came into coalition with National we put steel in the spine of that party and we brought in 500 extra police. We brought in the non-association laws and we were the motivation behind that—and I still have the coalition agreement. I still have the black and white coalition agreement signed by Jim Bolger that stipulated and laid down the firm improvements we made to law and order under a National - New Zealand First coalition. Now the problem is to sit here and tell me— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: There was no order in that coalition. 
RON MARK 
: Well I tell the Minister that in the 12 months that New Zealand First was in Government there were far better laws passed through this House than the sort of garbage I am seeing right now. Because at the end of the day the proof of the worth of this document lies in the victims and the Minister can be assured of that. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I realise that I should move on to something other than the things that have already been debated and I will do that. 
The schedules which I believe are part of this debate are of interest. I see that Form 4 in schedule 2 was approved unanimously by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I did not realise that it obliges a judge who wants to set a non-parole period to sign in effect a form of confession or check sheet. If members refer to schedule 2 they will see that a judge who wants to set a non-parole period has to state expressly that he or she considers that the minimum term of imprisonment “is necessary to satisfy all or any of the following purposes: holding the offender accountable …: denouncing the conduct in which the offender was involved: deterring the offender … from committing the same or a similar offence: protecting the community … .” Those are four sensible purposes of sentencing all drawn from the beginning of the Sentencing Act. 
But when I look at the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act I find that those purposes are only a few of the ones listed. The form does not for example allow the judge to decide that a one-third release would be offensive to the victim or to the community because it would fail to satisfy for example the purpose in section 7 of providing for the interests of the victim of the offence. If the victim is terrified and really needs to be reassured that the offender will not be out in 3 or 4 years or perhaps 5 years if a court ever ordered the maximum sentence then the court cannot find that that is sufficient reason to impose a non-parole period of 9 years or whatever because the court cannot order a non-parole period of longer than two-thirds of the sentence. 
So why do this form and the section of the Parole Act to which it relates exclude providing for the interests of the victim of the offence? Why does the form also omit the purpose of promoting a sense of responsibility? How can an offender feel that the community is taking the offence seriously when the offender hears a court order a sentence of let us say 12 years for a serious offence and knows that he or she will be out in 4 years? And it will be 4 years for a number of very serious offenders. Take for example an offender who is liable to be deported at the end of the sentence: any offender who is liable to be deported at the end of the sentence must know that he or she will serve one-third—the minimum—because the Parole Board must be absolutely certain that such an offender can be no risk to the safety of the community at the end of his or her sentence! It is absolutely rational that every foreign thug who commits an offence in New Zealand and is therefore liable to deportation must know that when the court solemnly pronounces a sentence of 9 years or 12 years at the most he or she will serve 3 or 4. How can that promote in the offender “a sense of responsibility for and an acknowledgment of” the harm of the offence? 
Yet the Minister of Justice has come here with his patch-up bill and has provided in Form 4 in schedule 2 that the only way in which a judge can give a longer non-parole period is by finding one of the four permitted purposes but not any of the others. The judge cannot say that because the offender showed no remorse he or she will set a longer non-parole period because that is not one of the purposes set out in Form 4 or in this part of the Act. Use of a weapon particular cruelty and premeditation are all aggravating factors and one would have thought it was perfectly proper for a judge to take them into account and to say that therefore it would be offensive to the community to release the offender at one-third of the sentence but the judge is not permitted to take those factors into account as far as I can see. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 37 the following new clause: 
37ASection 34 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following new subsection: 
(4)Under no circumstances will an offender be regarded as suitable for home detention if the offender has committed a violent offence or sexual offence. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 36 and the subpart heading above it be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1agreed to. 
Schedule 2 New forms substituted for Schedule of Sentencing Regulations 2002 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Madam Chair I am just looking at raising a point of order before commencing my speech but perhaps I will come back to it in a moment. It relates to the last vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Shall we deal with it now? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Yes. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It relates to the last vote and whether it was appropriate that the question was put on schedule 1 as well as schedule 2. I am just looking at it quickly as the vote took me by surprise. Madam Chair I thought schedule 1 was concerned with Part 1—I am just seeing whether that is so—yet you took a vote on schedule 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I shall just clarify the matter. That is how the schedules are dealt with now. They are put separately with no debate. The actual debate is included with the debate on the parts of the bill. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Right. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Has the member not read the Standing Orders report? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am well aware of the Standing Orders. It is excellent that that Minister is in the chair. He has had an easy ride tonight because he has chosen to stay out of the arguments. I will substantially confine myself to the title clause and commencement date although of course as the Standing Orders make clear the debate can be more wide ranging. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. 
This legislation is called the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. I would argue that it is the purpose of a title first of all accurately to capture what the content of the bill is and also correctly to describe it in legal terms. This title is right in that parole supervision provisions are extended in Part 1 and sentencing amendments are contained in Part 2. But Part 2 goes far beyond that. It makes amendments to a number of pieces of substantive legislation: the Misuse of Drugs Act the Bail Act and also subordinate legislation—the Sentencing Regulations. So we have a case here—and it may not be a matter of great moment except to those archivists who later come to research the history of these legislative changes—that the title of the bill does not accurately reflect what its true content is. 
The commencement provision is contained in clause 2. The plan is for the Act to come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. That certainly is one of the legislative drafting possibilities. I think it is a pity however that given the retrospective nature of some of the legislation it was seen by the drafters as the best mechanism for its commencement. 
I would like to talk briefly in the time that remains about the issue of electronic monitoring. The reason for that is it relates quite directly to the certificate that the Attorney-General gave on the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Electronic monitoring has been with us for a while. It started off in New Zealand in about 1999 when it was picked up by the Department of Corrections to monitor offenders on home detention. We have in this bill a special condition requiring an offender to submit to electronic compliance with conditions relating to where he or she is. It usually involves an offender being fitted with a transmitter that continuously sends signals to a receiver. We have seen in recent times with technological advances the development of the Global Positioning System technology and other technologies that offer a tool for monitoring offenders in the community. The Global Positioning System has some distance to go. It is fitted to taxicabs with no great degree of reliability. I entertain similar doubts that in trying to precisely pinpoint the location of offenders there will be shortcomings in that process. 
The relevance of it though is directly related to the Attorney-General’s report because there were two issues expressed by the Attorney-General that were apparently of concern to her in the context of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The first related to the issue of search and seizure as contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The argument is that in terms of search and seizure there is a need for additional information about the proposed method of electronic monitoring. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Carrying on from the honourable Richard Worth it is possibly the—[ 
Interruption 
]. He is honourable. He is an officer and a gentleman by royal decree. Not all men are born officers and gentlemen are they Mr Worth? 
This bill should be more appropriately entitled “Cleaning Up Our Mess: Tidying up the Problems That We Created Because We Did Not Listen” or “Know-it-all Legislation Corrected” or “We Have The Answers To All Your Problems—Sometimes”. Those are a number of titles that could be accorded this legislation. I say that because the simple fact is that we would not be here debating this legislation if it was not a fact that the original Parole Act 2002 was flawed. 
What is good—and I will compliment the Government on this so the Government MPs need to listen up—is that this bill is a good step in the right direction. This bill will make provisions tighter for dealing with those serious child sex offenders but it does not go far enough to address the fundamental flaws that were passed into legislation with the Parole Act 2002. That is what New Zealand First cannot sign up to. By voting for this legislation we would be endorsing the original fundamentally flawed legislation and that we cannot do because we think it is wrong. We think it is wrong because this legislation allows for violent offenders to be on home detention. 
I note that the Greens have voted to allow wife-beaters to have home detention. The Green Party that advocates so often for the rights of women equality and respect for women has voted to allow wife-beaters home detention. We do not agree. We do not approve of that in New Zealand First and hence we will vote against it and tell everybody that the Greens do like it. They like the idea that wife-beaters should have home detention and be put in a position where they can bash women again. We do not agree with the fact that people voted against amendments that would have corrected that. The Opposition has done its very best to help the Government here. 
We vote against this bill because the electronic compliance that this whole bill hinges on is already known to be flawed and faulty and I will not bet the safety of a child against that. Sorry but New Zealand First will not bet the safety of a child against that electronic monitoring. People talk about the global positioning system and the Government has been really quick to say—and Mr Goff has said often—that global positioning system technology enables us to know exactly where these people are. That is fine but although Mr Goff might know where they are he does not know what they are doing. It could well be that a sex offender who has gone home on home detention and is under 24/7 monitoring can be in the house as required but is offending and the Government does not know it and cannot do a thing about it until maybe the charges are recorded. We do not accept that. 
The Government should not to talk to me about how accurate the global positioning system is. We know it is very accurate but if it is so accurate how did those British SBS guys get arrested by the Iranians? They had global positioning systems on their boats and yet those systems did not account for human frailty. Hence we have a very high-profile example of how all the wonders of science and technology still cannot stop a situation from going wrong. If this Government is prepared to bank on this technology and tell the House that it will defend and protect all the children then fine. New Zealand First is not and that is where we draw the line. 
I say to the Government that home detention is a jolly mess. It was never intended for violent offenders. The Opposition has tried desperately to move amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to reverse that decision and regretfully despite those attempts the Government has rejected it. On that basis we cannot support the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. Had the Government shown some flexibility and ability to listen to the Opposition as it failed to do when the Sentencing Act and Parole Act were passed in 2002 maybe we would be in a different position. But we are not and that is the way it is. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I am really pleased to be able to say that New Zealand First United Future and ACT have joined with National to support an amendment that would see no home detention for violent offenders and sex offenders. It is really good that they have come to that decision and supported Wayne Mapp’s amendment. But unfortunately after all the rhetoric from the Minister and all the shouting out from the Labour benches the Government has decided to side with the Greens and the Progressive Party against women and children—as Dr Mapp so succinctly puts it. They are siding against the victims of violence and the victims of sex abuse. That shows the Government’s true colours which are that they are very much for the soft option when it comes to crime. 
The biggest thing about this Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Act is its name and that is about it. As my colleagues and I have said tonight we are supporting it for one reason and one reason only: that it is at least a little move towards looking after the victims of child sex abuse. That is all it is and it is only a little teeny move. 
 I know that the Government will get out after this bill is passed—if it does in fact pass—sing from the tops of trees and say that it is the most fantastic thing. It will say that the bill is the most fantastic thing for victims of child sex abuse just like it said it would stop this automatic two-thirds parole. What a hollow promise that was! It was a cynical vote-buying attempt and unfortunately too many people—even those on this side of the House—believed that the Government meant what it said. Unfortunately it was just a cynical move by the Minister of Justice the Hon Phil Goff to get a few votes. He has been and will be forever condemned by it because we know that that man is soft on crime just like his Government. 
I notice that he has not taken a call tonight. I notice that he has not stood up for his bill. I notice that he does not care enough to take a call and that has to be commented on. It is pretty appalling when the Minister in charge of the bill really does not care enough even to take a call. What he has put to us instead is a lot of Supplementary Order Papers. Instead of getting these things sorted out beforehand—instead of working with the select committee—he turned up afterwards with a whole raft of amendments. Of course we got them at the last moment and we are supposed to agree or not agree on them. It treats us in Parliament with a great deal of contempt when these sorts of matters are brought in at the last moment with no discussion no opportunity to take them to caucus no opportunity to talk to our electorates about them and no opportunity at all to have an input into them. 
That shows just what contempt Mr Goff obviously feels in relation to this particular area. Obviously parole extended supervision and sentencing amendment bills are not nearly as much fun as foreign affairs. Quite clearly the Minister of Justice has lost the plot when it comes to justice. He is now the “Minister of Overseas Travel” and is only slightly behind “Holiday Helen Clark” in her particular movements overseas. Justice has been left in the very shaky hands of several Associate Ministers of Justice and unfortunately despite the attempts they have made they are not really coming to grips with it. That is why we get this sort of legislation. 
Any attempt made by members on this side of the House to toughen such legislation up and give it a bit of spine is treated with a dismissive wave and a “No we will not vote for that because it was not our idea.” This Government continues to treat the victims of crime with contempt continues to wave away any view that is not its own and continues to be able to oversell its spin on these sorts of amendments to try to get what it wants. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. The Minister has tabled Supplementary Order Paper 229 to divide it into the component parts and of course it will be renamed then but nothing in clause 1 properly reflects the real driver of this bill. This bill is an attempt to protect the Privacy Act. It is an attempt to avoid using ordinary common sense which would allow New Zealanders to do what they have done with sex offenders for generations until now. What ordinary communities did with child sex offenders up until the last 30 years—and indeed until the Privacy Act and the emergence of the whole “we know best” movement in the criminal justice establishment—was to try them in open court. Everyone in the community knew whom the sex offenders were. They were not lynched; they were not hounded to death. They went back to their communities and the communities who knew the temptations such offenders were subject to made sure that they did not get a second chance at offending. Sex offenders did get a second chance at working at trying to rebuild their lives and at being part of the community although they were always suspected. This bill states that instead of communities being allowed to know whom the offenders are they should leave it to the justice establishmentand the experts to do the monitoring of sex offenders. 
This bill could have been an opportunity to resolve once and for all the hassle between the police the Department of Corrections and all the other do-gooders employed by the Government over whether it is proper for the police to go around a community and tell people just what kind of exposure they are facing—to go and warn people when there is a paedophile in the community who may be hanging around a school. This bill could have been a chance to confirm that it was entirely in order for people to know that. This bill could also have been the Minister’s chance to do his own version of my colleague Deborah Coddington’s Sex Offenders Registry Bill. Instead we have the Hon Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 223 which is not reflected at all in the title of the bill or in clause 1 and is a piece of bureaucratic bumf. 
This bill is the outcome—which the Justice and Electoral Committee was not allowed to see—of the dispute between the various agencies about how far they can go in sharing information about sex offenders. When we asked officials at the committee why they did not just use the provisions of the Privacy Act that state the privacy principles are subject to law enforcement purposes they told us in a sort of—I would have to say—embarrassed way that discussions were continuing. They had not resolved the proper form of the protocols that were being developed between the agencies. What protocols? Why was there the slightest doubt about that issue? What has made the justice system—which was once open court justice where the facts would have been out in public the conviction would have been known to everyone and anyone who wanted to find out could simply have looked at the court register—into a system whereby the last residues of open justice are being buried in information-sharing protocols? We have two full pages of rules about managing the risk. What about minimising the risk? 
The Supplementary Order Paper that purports to allow information sharing at the same time states that nothing limits the operation of the Privacy Act or of section 182 of the principal Act. That insertion into the Corrections Act states that the Department of Corrections the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Housing New Zealand Corporation the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Police and any sector agency named by the Minister can share information for some very limited purposes. If that had been mentioned and if the people had realised that Mr Goff’s vaunted extended supervision was a substitute for people being allowed to know themselves whom the offenders were—a substitute for open justice being used for the purpose for which it was intended—he would not be able to trumpet it. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 229. 
Bill reported with amendment.