Tanczos Nandor: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10200] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
The Green Party supports this bill. The Green Party supported the sentencing and parole legislation when it came through this House and this bill contains a number of amendments to it. At the time we welcomed that legislation because we thought it made a number of significant advances in the area of sentencing and parole—in particular the legislative provision that it made for restorative justice and also the recognition that the safety of the community should be the primary consideration when considering parole. It removed an inflexible arrangement under the previous legislation that had provided for automatic release. So the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act allow for earlier release when that is warranted but also allow a person to be kept in prison until the end of his or her sentence if that is necessary. That legislation also amended the provisions around preventive detention and made that provision more available. It made it more likely that people convicted of particularly heinous offences will get preventive detention.  
This amendment bill has provisions to clarify the intention of some parts of the current legislation and to rectify some technical errors but in many ways the major thrust behind this bill is to address a specific problem that was outstanding from the previous legislation—legislation that was presided over and left unaddressed by the parties of the right that whenever we have justice and law and order debates come into the House and make much noise about how they are tough on crime. But of course what we hear from them is a lot of talk. As my colleague Darren Hughes mentioned when they had the opportunity to actually address the situation they did very little. 
Ron Mark 
: So did the member. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I say to Mr Mark that I was not here in Parliament then. One of the things that concerns me is hearing some members of this House stand up and describe with such relish some of the heinous acts that we are talking about. That really makes me wonder sometimes.  
Tony Ryall and Ron Mark both criticised the electronic monitoring provisions. I am not sure exactly what they suggest but it seems to me that the alternative is to suggest that we keep people locked up indefinitely after their sentence has expired regardless of that fact. The point is that this is a problem that arose under the old legislation. Under the current legislation such people would get preventive detention. The fact is that they were sentenced under the previous regime and this bill is an attempt to clear up that anomaly and deal with that issue which was so ignored by the parties of the right when they were in power.  
The bill provides for extended supervision for up to 10 years after the expiry of a sentence. The Green Party is concerned that those provisions do not comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that there are issues around double jeopardy. Effectively people are being resentenced for something they have already received a sentence for and there are clear privacy implications around the electronic monitoring provisions. We believe that those things need to be looked at very carefully in the select committee—in particular at how warranted those provisions are and if they are warranted at how best to constrain those powers so that the abuse of them is minimised.  
However the Green Party does agree that we have to do something about the situation. We have to do something to address the very serious problem of convicted child sex offenders—who will almost certainly reoffend—being released into the community at the end of their sentence. It is not good enough for us simply to say that we will wait for them to reoffend or to attack again before we do something about that and to see another traumatised child. We have to do something about that so the Green Party supports the referral of this bill to a select committee. We acknowledge that the bill attempts to balance the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns with the concern for the safety of the community. We are not sure that the bill has fully achieved that but of course the job of the select committee is to work through those details.  
As has been said one of the provisions concerns the minimum non-parole period. It is clear that the Court of Appeal has asked Parliament to clarify the intention behind those provisions of the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. The bill does that and it is important that we are responsive to the courts when they ask for that clarification. The bill talks about using minimum non-parole terms where one-third of a sentence would represent insufficient punishment denunciation and deterrent and also to clarify that the safety of the community is relevant. The Green Party is of the opinion that the safety of the community should be the paramount concern and should be the core issue that informs that decision. Again that is something we need to look at further in the select committee.  
The Minister has already talked about the provisions around home detention and the deferral of the beginning of a sentence. With regard to home detention it is clear that the proper function of the court is to filter such applications to ensure that cases generally meet the eligibility criteria. Then it is up to the probation service to identify whether specific circumstances meet the criteria. The courts have been remiss in addressing that issue and have been too prepared to allow applications for home detention. The fact that over half of them are being knocked back shows that that is the case. Again the bill contains a sensible provision to tidy that up and to reinforce and clarify the policy intention behind the legislation. Similarly that is the case around the deferral of the starting date of a sentence.  
The Green Party supports the bill and believes that it is useful. It addresses a serious problem that continues from the previous legislation. It contains some provisions to tidy up and clarify the current Sentencing Act and Parole Act. The bill contains some challenges for the Justice and Electoral Committee and it will work through those things.  
I finish by mentioning that Ron Mark did raise some very serious concerns around the issue of mental health and inmates. He is quite correct that that is a serious problem. The estimated number of people in the prison system who have mental health issues tells us that this Parliament must address those problems. We cannot continue to lock up people who are mentally unwell because we do not provide proper supervised facilities for them in the community outside the prison system or within the prison system. We agree with Mr Mark that that issue does need to be addressed and that this Parliament needs to take it seriously. Apart from that I commend this bill to the House.