Lole-Taylor Asenati: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLole-Taylor Asenati: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Talofa lava. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the first reading of the Parole Amendment Bill. This is an interesting bill but one that aims to determine clear changes to the current legislation. There is a saying that has been echoed twice in this House before and that is that this country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. This bill is more or less aiming to achieve that for society depending on how we are going to enforce it or how it will be enforced.The main changes in this bill intend to make alterations to the nature and the process of parole hearings for offenders. The fundamental change in this bill relates to the interval between parole hearings which the Minister of Justice aims to extend from 12 months to 2 years. Every offender will be able to apply for a parole hearing and I suppose it is a good thing that this change is going to introduce some positive savings to our country. On the other hand if an offender has been subjected to a postponement order then he or she will have to convince the board especially in one particular area which is having to achieve significant changes and to achieve those changes by eliminating “risk milestones” which have been highlighted from the previous hearings.I do find it rather odd that the term “risk milestones” is used in this context. I think it could be one of those things that perhaps the Law and Order Committee would like to consider. It could think of a proper or better word to use. Most of the prisoners are in prisons because they are either confused themselves or they come from confused environments and the last thing we need is to use a term that could easily be interpreted in the wrong way. The way that it is written into this legislation at the moment it can be viewed as achievement of risks associated with the offender or a risk that the offender has been able to achieve which is not exactly what it intends to do; or as that a milestone is the new extended definition of the work “risk”. Legislation should avoid creating loopholes that will raise flags or unnecessary barriers to its implementation. The postponement order must state the offender’s next parole hearing and this date must not exceed 5 years from the offender’s most recent hearing. That is actually statedin clause 12 in Part 1 of the bill. Postponement orders are within the scope of this bill and it is important that they are used and perceived as a tool to change the so-called risk milestones.The main driving force behind this bill is to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings and I suppose that 5000 parole hearings is quite a large number to be conducted or to be carried out. That amounts to at least three hearings before release approval is granted. We see from the bill that currently one-third of offenders eligible for parole have four or more hearings. The Parole Amendment Bill requires the Parole Board to specifically outline when an offender will be next considered for parole. Furthermore it enables the board to highlight and identify the so-called risk milestones if an offender is declined release. A risk milestone is currently being defined in clause 4 of Part 1 of the bill as “a milestone relating to the risk that the offender poses to the safety of the community”. I find that this definition is almost like a twisted explanation of somebody’s full understanding or to that effect. But a key element of reintegration via the parole process is recognition of criminal activity by an offender and a proven change in effort to correct his or her life. It is also important that the offender recognises the harm caused to victims of crime in the wider community which is why the Parole Board must put the victim’s situation in the centre of this bill. Although the board may highlight and identify risk milestones it is even more important that there are enough resources and support for the process of an offender taking reasonable steps to achieve their risk milestones.A problem as outlined by the bill was the mention of the postponement orders lacking incentives for offenders to address their offending behaviour. This means offending plans for those eligible for parole as current are not working. That is the reason why this bill has been introduced to the House because the current system is not working. I only hope the Minister can assure the communities of New Zealand that these so-called risk milestones will be the answer to that problem. One would see risk milestones as the mechanism that will also determine the length of time an offender will wait for their next parole hearing. For example if an offender does exceptionally well and achieves his or her risk milestones then he or she will have their parole hearing set at an earlier time. Although New Zealand First encourages achievement by an offender to achieve the expected outcomes again it is necessary to reiterate that these milestones as outlined by the Parole Board must ensure that the offender is no longer a risk to the communities. We know all too well of many cases where offenders were granted parole and reoffended. In some extreme cases the result was often death. The system fails its communities in these cases where offenders should not have been released on parole in the first place. The Minister cannot afford to release any offender who may pose a serious risk or danger to any member of the public.New Zealand First supports measures and mechanisms that will promote community safety and ensure that offenders are taking reasonable steps towards changing their offending behaviour. New Zealand First does not believe that the safety of the public and the communities should be compromised. Community safety is an essential part of our daily lives and this bill will ensure that the Parole Board is more flexible effective and responsive. It is no secret that the Parole Board is responsible for granting release to offenders but there is a need for the board to consider community safety as a priority in its decision making. It is common knowledge that the Parole Board determines the steps that need to be taken in order for an offender to be released on parole and in order for the board to diligently carry out its duties and responsibilities it will require legislative changes to improve the way it operates.I was amazed when I was involved in the Department of Corrections that many of the prisoners were often being called to Parole Board hearings every 6 months. There isa lot of work that goes on when a Parole Board hearing is being held. It is not just about having the prisoner being prepared and taking the right rehabilitation programmes for them to address their offending behaviour. It is also about the community and those who have to assess their behaviour and their achievements. That means that psychologists are often involved. What I found when I was there was that there was a long list—always a long list—of prisoners awaiting psychological assessments. I sincerely hope that this bill will activate the importance of offenders being engaged in suitable and effective rehabilitative initiatives in order to achieve risk milestones. Reducing the number of unnecessary parole hearings does not increase the length of time offenders spend in prison. That is a good thing and it leads to savings. It gives the board greater flexibility and reduces the stress and trauma that is often caused to the victims.This bill will provide offenders with a reality check for them when it comes to reintegration which they need to meet as part of the parole milestone requirements. It also gives a reality check to this Government that our parole process is an integral part of rehabilitation reintegration and reduction in reoffending. There are too many falling through the cracks of legislative loopholes. I believe that this bill deserves to go to the select committee. This is what an investment approach is all about. It is what this bill is trying to achieve. New Zealand First would like to support the bill at its first reading. Thank you.