O'Rourke Denis: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 04 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1171. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill makes two main changes both of which are common sense. It allows extended supervision orders to be renewed as often as is needed and it will mean that the Parole Act will now cover high-risk sex offenders against adults and also very high-risk violent offenders. It clarifies the criteria to ensure that only the highest-risk offenders are eligible for these orders which would allow them to then live in the community but under strict supervision but also with the protection of mandatory court reviews.Clause 12 of the bill lists behavioural characteristics of an eligible violent offender indicative of what is called severe disturbance in behavioural functioning. New Zealand First supports this so that the courts will have the guidance needed in making an order noting of course the specific context for an extended supervision order as distinct from a public protection order. Overall these are very good amendments to the Parole Act and New Zealand First supports that bill.New Zealand First will also continue to support the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. It achieves a very difficult balance between protecting citizens from serious sexual or violent harm by people who are likely to reoffend following release from prison and of course the rights of those affected by the order to be subject to the least restrictive form of detention that might be practicable. It also ensures adequate oversight of detention through regular reviews by a review panel in the High Court independent inspector and ombudsman visits and an annual report to Parliament.These orders observe the four important principles that are set out in the legislation. Firstly public protection orders are not about further punishing offenders and the offence is to be only one of several factors that are relevant to assessing whether there is a very high risk of imminent sexual or violent offending. In this respect I would have to disagree with Mr Clendon who says that if a person is released from prison and might be found to be capable of reoffending for the same sort of offence then they would be being punished again under this legislation. That actually is not true. The reason they are being detained is to protect them and the public from that likely reoffending. I would draw a comparison for example with a prisoner of war. These people are detained but they are not being punished; they are simply being detained because they are to be prevented from rejoining the fight. So they are not being punished. There are reasons for detention other than punishment and this is one of them. That reason is to prevent reoffending which is actually for the benefit of the offender as much as of the public. So I think Mr Clendon and the Greens have got that wrong and they need to perhaps give that some more thought.The second principle is that a protection order should be imposed only if the magnitude of the risk posed by the respondent justifies that. Thirdly an order will not be imposed on a person who should be detained under the mental health legislation. Most people who are in this sort of position will probably be detained under that legislation and not under a public protection order. There are likely to be very few who will need to be detained in that way.The fourth principle is that persons who are detained in a residence should have as much autonomy and quality of life as possible and that is of course consistent with the proposition that they are not being punished; they are simply being detained for their own good and for the good of the public.There must be a thorough assessment as to whether a person is likely to offend again in terms of sexual or violent reoffending. It has to be found that the application is supported by at least two psychologist or psychiatrist reports and the court may call for an additional report. The respondent also can call for another report. Those I think are very good safeguards. It means that the court will have very good information upon which to base its decision. The crux is that there must be proof as to whether an order is necessary. The court must not find that there is a very high risk of further offending unless it is satisfied that the respondent exhibits a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of specified characteristics to a high level. So this is a very high bar to reach in evidential terms.Concerning the review provisions—a court reviewing a public protection order must consider whether the subject still poses a very high risk of imminent sexual or violent reoffending taking into account the reports that would be provided to it. If the court finds that the person no longer poses a very high risk it must make a finding to that effect. The court must then cancel the public protection order and if justified impose a protective supervision order on the person instead. Clause 80(1B) would require the person to be released from detention as soon as practicable after a protective supervision order is imposed.I am also gratified to see clause 124B which inserts paragraph (ca) into section 4(1) of the Legal Services Act 2011. That would make any proceedings under the Act a specified application which makes it easier for the person concerned to access legal aid than it is for standard civil proceedings. At the select committee I was very keen that that be put in the legislation because I felt that if a person was to be subject to an order of this kind then it was essential that they could easily get legal aid with which to defend themselves and that therefore the balance between personal rights and those seeking to detain that person would be well preserved.Another welcome addition to clause 31 would allow visits from permitted persons subject of course to appropriate restrictions. New subclause (1A) would permit a visit to be unsupervised if the residence manager considered that that would assist in rehabilitation. But new clause 56(1A) requires a residence manager not to allow a person under the age of 18 years to visit unless again it can be shown that that would assist the person’s rehabilitative needs. Rehabilitation is also an important part of this.One of the most important new sections is new clause 124A which adds new paragraph (bb) to section 120(1) of the Crimes Act making it an offence to escape from the residence when subject to a public protection order. The bill also provides for inspections of residences and an inspector can arrive unannounced at any time for that purpose. But the bill also confers jurisdiction on the court to order that a person be detained in a prison instead of a residence if it is satisfied that the residence detention would pose an unacceptably high risk to the person or to others. Again there is a good balance there.Overall New Zealand First welcomes the legislation which we think fairly and effectively fills the gap in the law to prevent very dangerous people—and there would be very few such people—from being free to reoffend upon release from prison. I want to emphasise once again that this form of detention cannot fairly or properly be regarded as a form of punishment. It is only if it is really necessary for people who are so dangerous that they would be a threat not only to themselves but more particularly to the public at large. There have been cases of that in recent years. This is a gap that needed to be filled and this legislation does it.