Garrett David: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Garrett David: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2381] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 As I understand it this Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill returns the situation concerning supervision orders or whatever they are called to the 2007 status quo before an amendment created residential restrictions and inadvertently extended the 12-month limit. It is interesting that the previous speaker made much of the report made pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which I confess to not having seen either. However in my view the very fact that this report exists is because the present Attorney-General is being extremely diligent in the discharge of his duties. Clearly that was not the case in 2007 under the previous Government when the Parole Amendment Act 2007 was passed. As has become very clear in the short time of this Government the previous Labour Government was extremely cavalier in its attitude to section 7 reports. To some extent this Government has created a little difficulty because of its own diligence but one could hardly criticise it for that. 
Although I have not read this report I am very aware that the last time the issue of a section 7 report highlighting a supposed or possible breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act arose when I read that report it was very very different from the way it had been characterised both in the media and by the Opposition. In a nutshell the Attorney-General’s report in that case said that the proposed “three strikes” law or elements of it may breach sections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As the lawyers in the House will know there is an absolute world of difference in law between the words “may” and “does”. When I looked more closely at the report it was even less threatening if you like in that the bulk of it reaffirmed the constitutional position in this country—that Parliament is sovereign—and quoted from several New Zealand Supreme Court cases which in turn quoted with approval Canadian Supreme Court cases very firmly asserting that position. Without having read this report I am somewhat sceptical that it is as devastating as the previous speaker may have suggested. 
Be that as it may this bill attempts to ensure the safety of potential victims of sex offenders particularly children. As a father of young children myself I am very much more concerned with their rights than with the rights of sex offenders. Frankly whether those offenders might commit further offences is of less concern to me than the safety of my children and my neighbour’s children. The raw reality is that no sex offender will have been put under an order like this with the flaws that have been inadvertently created unless he—and it will invariably be a “he”—is perceived as being a very very real risk. The State does not monitor people in the community for up to 10 years for no good reason. Although I stand to be corrected on the gravity of the section 7 report the ACT Party will be supporting this bill.