Collins Judith: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionCollins Judith: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15090. Text is subject to correction.]Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Parole Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider the bill. The bill implements the Government’s post-election action plan to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings where the offender has little prospect of release. The bill also includes a range of measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the parole system. It is clear to the Government that hearings where the offender has yet to address the reasons for their offending and continues to pose a risk to the community serve little purpose. These hearings also cause unnecessary stress andanxiety for victims as they relive the offence again and again. Under the current Act the Parole Board is generally required to consider each offender at least once in every 12 months after they become eligible for parole. On average each offender has three hearings prior to release but there are four or more hearings in a third of all cases. The exception is where the Parole Board makes a special order postponing further consideration of a case for a longer period. I will talk about the changes to postponement orders in a few minutes.This bill increases the maximum interval between hearings in the general run of cases from 1 year to 2 years. This will give the Parole Board greater flexibility in scheduling future hearings. It will be better placed to align future hearings where appropriate with the completion of core components of this prisoner sentence plan. The existing requirement for a hearing at least once in every 12 months has led to a number of problems that this bill will address. Hearings often have to be brought forward to meet that strict requirement because of the scheduling of Parole Board meetings. A further hearing in a few months has to be scheduled in many cases because offenders are still completing core components of their offender plans.A third problem is that the entitlement to an annual hearing provides no incentive for unmotivated prisoners to address their offending behaviour. This bill requires the board when it declines to release an offender on parole to specify when the offender will next be considered for parole. It also gives the board the power to identify any milestones relating to the offender’s risk that it expects to be achieved before the next hearing. As an incentive for prisoners to address the reasons for their offending the bill includes a process for having their case brought forward when the milestones are achieved earlier than expected.I mentioned postponement orders earlier in the speech. Under the current Act the Parole Board can make one of these orders where it is satisfied that in the absence of a significant change in the offender’s circumstances they would not be suitable for release at the time when they are next due to be considered for parole. Under the existing legislation postponement orders can be for up to 3 years for prisoners serving indeterminate sentences and up to 2 years for other prisoners. The Parole Board makes these orders relatively rarely. There are about 20 postponement orders each year but they play an important role in parole decision-making not least by reducing the number of unnecessary hearings. Postponement orders are often made for offenders convicted of the very worst murders. They provide important comfort to the families of the victims knowing that they will not have to endure all the stress and anxiety that goes into a parole hearing for a period of years. The increase in the maximum interval between hearings from 1 year to 2 years in the normal run of cases will remove the need for postponement orders for prisoners serving sentences of less than 10 years. The bill therefore restricts postponement orders to prisoners subject to indeterminate sentences—that is life imprisonment and preventative detention—and determinate sentences of 10 years or more. The maximum term of the postponement order will therefore be increased to 5 years.The bill includes a number of other measures to improve the Parole Board’s efficiency and effectiveness and reduce the number of unnecessary hearings. For example the bill transfers the power to deal with written applications from prisoners to have their hearings brought forward from a panel of board members to the chairperson or a panel convenor. These applications do not relate to the sorts of issues board members are appointed to consider. The chairperson or a panel convenor is better placed to decide whether there has been a change in circumstances that justifies bringing a hearing forward leaving the board to deal with the substantive matter of whether aprisoner is ready to be released on parole. There are about 500 applications of this sort each year.The bill also removes the procedural steps in the Parole Act for deciding whether hearings should be held as an attended or unattended hearing. The existing processes have made unattended hearings unworkable in practice as they extend the preparation time by many weeks. This defeats the original purpose which was to increase efficiency. The bill takes the more practical approach of specifying the circumstances in which the board can conduct an unattended hearing although the prisoner will have the right to attend if they wish to do so.I am confident that the measures in the bill will make significant improvements to the parole system and that they deliver on important commitments made by the Government at the time of the last general election. I commend this bill to the House.