Davis KelvinParts 1AA 1 and 2 schedule and clauses 1 and 2KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): The Labour Party supports the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. We support this bill because it should protect New Zealanders from criminals who have been released from a sentence of 2 years or less or sentenced to intensive supervision. It amends the Parole Act of 2002 and the Sentencing Act also of 2002.Intensive supervision is a community-based rehabilitation sentence that targets offenders who are at medium to high risk of reoffending who have been convicted of more serious types of crimes and who have got complex or severe rehabilitative needs. Intensive supervision can be imposed only by a judge. That is why it is important that when they are released into the community these people do have electronic monitoring—i.e. a bracelet attached to their ankle so that their movements can be tracked.The big thing though—and we have got to get it out there right at the very start—is the fact that these electronic monitoring bracelets are only as good as the quality of the materials that they are made of. We have seen so many cases where electronic monitoring bracelets have been cut off—in fact there was the infamous story on Story where a TV cameraman cut them off with a pair of scissors. Apparently there is only about 1 percent of offenders at any given time who have cut off their bracelets but earlier this year that 1 percent equated to some 47 offenders. It is easy for us to say Look let's not get too worried about it 1 percent is not that great a proportion." but when we say there are 47 offenders who have cut off their bracelets that is 47 communities 47 suburbs 47 towns that are living with some element of fear because we have these offenders out on the loose. So it is important that we get this right—that the electronic monitoring bracelets are made of robust sturdy material and that they cannot be cut off with just a standard pair of scissors.I believe there is going to be even sturdier material that these bracelets are going to be made out of. The big thing is that sturdier material just requires a bit of a sturdier implement to cut them off such as bolt cutters or tinsnips so it is really important that the bracelets are very robust. There has to be some ease to have them cut off for health and safety reasons in case these offenders happen to be in a car accident and they have to be X-rayed and the equipment may affect the X-ray or the medical machines or the scanners or whatever the hospital uses to check up on the health of these people. So I was thinking about what could be a decent system of robust bracelets and I was thinking about how if you go shopping and you buy some clothes and they have got those tags on them—those tags set off a buzzer if you walk out of the shop with the clothes on—there is a special device used to remove those tags. Maybe that is the solution—that whatever the bracelet is made of is such sturdy stuff that the emergency rooms in hospitals actually have a box full of these little gadgets that can remove the bracelets if they need to be removed.In terms of Part 1AA it amends the Corrections Act and it mainly deals with those people who are on temporary release from prison. Temporary release is when somebody is let out maybe on compassionate leave such as for a funeral. In fact last Thursday I was contacted by the family of a woman who had passed away. Her daughter was ringing me to see what I could do in order to get her brother and a couple of nephews out of prison—the grandsons and the son of this particular woman were in prison. It was quite interesting that the two grandsons were fairly low-risk prisoners in Spring Hill Corrections Facility and the son of this woman was in prison for manslaughter and was considered fairly high risk. What was strange about this temporary release was that the guy who was fairly high risk was actually allowed out to the funeral whereas the two who were low risk in Spring Hill were not allowed out to their grandmother's funeral. There is just an element of inconsistency there. They were in two different prisons: the two younger guys were in Spring Hill and the older guy was in Pāremoremo prison. But that is a classic example of when an offender may be entitled under temporary release which is what Part 1AA is about to have to submit to wearing a monitoring bracelet.The purpose of the monitoring bracelet in that case and in fact in all other parts as well is firstly as a deterrent effect. If an offender is wearing a bracelet the belief is that it will deter the offender from running off and breaching the conditions that relate to his or her whereabouts but it is also to monitor compliance with the conditions that relate to their whereabouts. The bracelet itself can be used to verify compliance with any of the conditions—the whereabouts of the offender—and to detect non-compliance.It also can be used to provide evidence which I am assuming would be evidence to later on say: "Yes that person was meant to be in a restricted area and has gone out and breached the conditions of where they should have been." Also it could be that if there was a criminal act committed somewhere in the vicinity you would be able to either confirm or eliminate the fact that that offender may have been in the vicinity or at the particular place at the time that the offence was committed. The information from the electronic monitoring bracelet could be used to provide evidence at a later date. It could also be used to verify that the bracelet has not been tampered with because if the bracelet has been tampered with again the offender will have breached a condition of wearing the electronic monitoring.Part 1AA is about temporary release. People can be temporarily released just outside prison limits. When I say "outside prison limits" I mean outside the secure perimeter of the prison. There may be reasons why prisoners are allowed to do work outside and there are actually I believe self-care units around prisons but they are not within the secure perimeter area. So offenders may be compelled to wear these bracelets to make sure that if they are in a self-care unit outside the secure area of a perimeter they do not disappear when they should have been inside the area or if they do disappear they can be tracked. That is Part 1AA.Part 1 itself amends the Parole Act 2002 and is about people who have obviously been paroled whereas Part 1AA is about people who are prisoners but are on temporary release from the prison. The same sorts of conditions apply for the people who are on parole. They may be required to have electronic monitoring equipment attached to them—that is actually a part of the bill. It changes the law so that it makes it explicit that people might have to have these electronic monitoring bracelets attached to them whereas previously I do not think it was quite so explicit. But again Part 1 is about the offenders on parole—"