Little Andrew: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15092. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on the Parole Amendment Bill and to indicate from the outset that the Labour Party will support this bill at the very least to the Law and Order Committee. It is a bill that meets some obvious problems that there have been and we have seen in the management of parole in this country and it comes up with some useful solutions to them. It is worthy of examination by the select committee.I just say that this Government is basking in the success of the work of the previous Government in the criminal justice area—no less than the work of my colleague the Hon Phil Goff who will talk in this debate about his great achievements. The Parole Board as we understand it today was established by Mr Goff—probably one of the most far-sighted and visionary justice Ministers we have had in this country. He is entitled to take credit for the many positive achievements that have been made which this Government of course takes credit for and has no business doing so. I note in the regulatory impact statement the observation that the number of offenders who having been released on parole are committing offences has almost halved since the creation of the board.So the board is getting it right—it is moving in the right direction—but nevertheless there is a problem still. Too many parole hearings are being convened relating to prisoners who really have no prospect of success in an application for consideration for parole. The nature of their time in prison the passage through their sentence is simply not such that they would warrant being released on parole even under the strictest of conditions. This bill does address an obvious issue that needs to be considered so if there are changes that need to be made to accommodate that then all well and good. Let us ascertain whether the changes proposed in this bill will actually provide the remedy being sought.I want to make the point too—and we will come with this in mind in terms of examining this piece of legislation—that notwithstanding the fact that there clearly are unmeritorious hearings being conducted we do not want to lose sight of the fact that theParole Board continues to provide very important and very effective oversight when it comes to the management of prisoners who are serving out their sentences in prison.The truth is that some prisoners particularly those serving longer sentences may take some time to get to a point in the course of their sentence where they realise that they have to change. Whether or not they openly admit and acknowledge their wrongdoing and their fault as part of that journey towards change many nevertheless get to a point where they are willing to change and we would not want the deferral for a further extended period of the opportunity for consideration for parole when they may in fact be a suitable candidate for that. We would not want it to be pushed out so far that it becomes a hopeless prospect for them. So let us bear that in mind. We do not want those prisoners who are fit for parole whether under suitable conditions or not to be denied that opportunity when releasing them on parole would be not only better for the prisoner in terms of their rehabilitation and social integration but actually better for the criminal justice system and the community as well. So let us not ignore what the Parole Board is there to do and what the purpose of parole itself is notwithstanding the naysayers in our community who want to abolish parole altogether.The other point I want to make is this: this bill appears to be yet another in the growing heritage of criminal justice legislation under this Government that is haphazard uncoordinated incoherent and largely about responding to the odd sort of flare-up in public opinion. You know you need only look at some of the provisions in this bill. I am looking specifically at clause 14 and the proposed new section 29AA which relates to conditions being imposed on prisoners by the Parole Board—not something that is new but it now provides for special release conditions. Yet only a month or two ago we had the first reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which requires victims at their own expense and their own cost to go to court to get special conditions put on just-released prisoners. How absurd is that? I said at that time and I maintain it again now that when it comes to the protection of victims of offenders the criminal justice system should take responsibility for that. That is what a responsible criminal justice system does. That is what a Government that is genuinely understanding of the needs of victims would do. Would it not be a jolly good idea if a creative Minister of Justice and creative members on the Government side of the select committee could see that perhaps we could integrate parts of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill into this Parole Amendment Bill thus obviating the need for the former and making the latter even more relevant than perhaps it might otherwise be?I think that this is a bill that opens the opportunity for fruitful debate and we are prepared to do that and we want to do that. But most of all—if I could make this plea to those members who have the ear of the Minister because I do not know who does in this House starting from the Prime Minister down—we think that it would be nice to have a justice policy or a justice strategy that actually develops and progresses the justice system so that it is coordinated and it is coherent and so that the time of this House is not taken up by sort of knee-jerk responses to yesterday’s headline. We should actually have an approach that is about having a good justice system and good criminal justice that is about looking after victims that is about managing offenders effectively with a view to minimising recidivism and ensuring rehabilitation and that is about that being better for the country as a whole.I want to just express this disappointment when we come to consider this bill. It is interesting in the regulatory impact statement that when it adumbrates the benefits of the bill the first thing that it comes to is the cost saving as if cost saving is the only thing that matters when it comes to managing prisoners. Yes of course it is desirable if the Government can save a dollar and not have to spend it if it does not have to but thetruth is that when we are dealing with matters of criminal justice and we are dealing with the awkward sometimes nefarious and sometimes utterly bad personalities who pass through our criminal justice system there is actually an investment that we make in getting the system right not only the processing of it through the hearing of crimes and the imposing of penalties but also the management of those who are sentenced. Whether it is imprisonment or whether it is other forms of punishment we actually do need to make sure that that investment is made for the best possible outcome. So just achieving a cost saving is not enough on its own in terms of supporting those measures.But as I said there is some worthwhile and fertile ground in the bill for debate discussion and scrutiny and we will give it that but we will go into that with Labour’s approach of wanting a coherent well-coordinated well-managed constructive and productive criminal justice system.