Jones Dail: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
Jones Dail: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14144] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 When the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act were passed by this House in May 2002 New Zealand First voted against them as shown in the  
Hansard 
 of 1 May 2002. These bills are amendments to those Acts which we opposed. The opposition to those Acts was from New Zealand National ACT New Zealand New Zealand First and United New Zealand. We believe that those Acts are bad. They are weak on criminality and do not deal with the fundamental issues with regard to the imprisonment of criminals—namely punitive justice at the beginning of a sentence and some rehabilitation at the end. Those were our comments on the sentencing and parole legislation in May 2002. Sections 84(1) and 84(2) of the Parole Act set out a non-parole period that can be one-third of the length of a sentence. That is extraordinarily short and is much shorter than it ever was before. Both Acts are bad and in New Zealand First’s view no amendments can make them better. 
When we come across a painted apple moth it is something bad that we cannot make better so we exterminate it. We get rid of it. On looking at these amendments and at the Acts they relate to we see New Zealand First cannot support these amendments. We will be voting against both bills. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Oppose oppose. 
DAIL JONES 
: We opposed the legislation in May 2002 and we will oppose it now because we are not a party that is soft on law and order unlike the Labour Party which is trying to make it easier for hardened sex criminals to get out of jail. We do not support that. That is what this legislation is about. In our view people who have done a horrendous crime should do all the time and not be let out at one-third or two-thirds of the time. Those people should do the time. Towards the end of the time—after getting some punishment and if there is some evidence of rehabilitation—but only then should one consider parole. 
Although the measures proposed in this legislation are worthwhile they should be commenced while people are in prison and continued mandatorily once they are out of prison. The current legislation contains a retrospective aspect. There is no reason why there should not be a retrospective aspect in terms of people currently in prison—or of course in relation to the prospect of people being in prison in future—and of them having the type of supervision considered in this legislation after they have done their time. It will not be supervision; it will be a degree of control. That is what we want to see. We want to see high-risk sex offenders controlled. 
New Zealand First’s policy is clear. It was set out at the last election and we have not changed from it. At the last election we said that we supported the replacement of the Parole Board by a rehabilitation board with a primary object of minimising recidivism. The board would be required to consider the actual duration of imprisonment and to ensure that a serious violent offender had demonstrated remorse and a positive attitude to rehabilitation before considering any parole. There would be none of the idea that at one-third of someone’s time maybe he or she can get out of prison by going in front of a Parole Board of the likes of the one we have today. The Parole Board chairman Justice Tony Ellis described the board members as risk takers who “live in hope” that the probation service will properly monitor inmates when it releases them. We cannot have that; it is a disgrace. This Minister should have fired the board. There can hardly be a better indication of the board’s derogation from its duty than that and if the Minister does not fire the board he ought to resign. I take up Mr Worth’s comments that we should have people on the board who are willing to deal with these people and who do not take risks. The Parole Act and the Sentencing Act are not there to let people out on parole and to take a risk that the parolees may be all right. That is absolutely ridiculous. 
As I said New Zealand First opposed the two Acts and we will oppose these amendments. We cannot go against the view of the 92 percent of the public who want tougher sentences than those supported by this Government. High-risk child sex offenders should not be given parole but should be subject to supervision once their entire sentence is concluded as this bill to some extent envisages. We do not want a sex offender to be allowed out on supervision undertaken by a probation officer during the term of his or her imprisonment. We know that probation staff do not have the capability to undertake supervision. Supervision should definitely be undertaken only after the term of imprisonment has expired and by way of retrospective legislation—as contemplated by this legislation—if necessary. These amending bills continue the fundamental flaws of the respective Acts: they were soft on law and order and the Labour Government failed to take into account the view of the people of New Zealand. 
New Zealand First’s message to sex offenders is that punishment is vital. Somehow the people who abuse young children—boys and girls—have to learn that a punishment factor will flow from the consequences of their actions once they are caught. Those people are essentially cowards. They have to be cowards to do what they do and the only way to treat a coward is to point out that the penalty will be severe. Some people may want to go much further than that but I suppose that in a civilised society we draw the line somewhere. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member is a softie after all. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is a cutting point I know but we will leave it for another day. 
There is no doubt about New Zealand First’s hard line when it comes to law and order. We are being consistent with what we said before the election of 2002. I ask the other parties who took the same line before the last election to perhaps reconsider their situations and to take the same hard line today—if it is a hard line; I think it is the only line one can take. It is not a hard line but it is a common-sense line. If the high-risk sex offenders envisaged by this legislation—and of course other offenders as well but I am limited to speaking about high-risk sex offenders because that is the tenor of this bill—commit sex offences or other serious offences they have to realise that a New Zealand First Government will be listening to what the Sensible Sentencing Trust has to say and to what 92 percent of New Zealanders have made very clear. 
Home detention is flawed. There has been an example of home detention whereby while on home detention and with the supervising officer outside the room a criminal committed another unlawful act inside. What sort of law is it that meant someone could go on supervision in that type of situation and be committing a sex offence inside a room but the officer would not allow anyone in to stop the person from doing that? It is utterly ridiculous. 
We have had a good look at this matter. We believe that our policy is consistent on this issue and we also opposed the principal Acts in 2002. Although the bill looks quite good on the face of it and is a little tougher than the current legislation that legislation is inherently soft. We cannot support such soft legislation. We ask other parties to join New Zealand First in rejecting it and going back to the views we had in May 2002 when we rejected the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. We ask them to join us in coming up with laws that show a real toughness towards all offenders and in this particular case especially towards high-risk sex offenders who should be kept in jail right to the end of their time and then have supervision imposed upon them for a long time afterwards.