Lotu-Iiga Sam: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLotu-Iiga Sam: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4222. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):I move That the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider this bill. This bill is really about improving the safety of victims and the public. It will do so by removing some of the legislative barriers in the Sentencing Act to electronic monitoring. It will make electronic monitoring available to the courts when imposing either of the following sentences as described in the bill before you: first a prison sentence of up to 2 years with release on conditions specified by the court; second a sentence of intensive supervision. Monitoring technology has continued to improve and give the Department of Corrections and the police opportunities to protect the public from certain offenders in the community. This bill recognises the importance of this objective.The purpose of electronic monitoring is to detect and potentially deter non-compliance of offenders with conditions that relate to their movement. The Department of Corrections uses radio frequency as well as GPS technologies to do this. Where the condition is to remain at a specific address radio frequency equipment has proven to create an electronic boundary and it sends an alert if the device attached to the offender crosses that boundary. Many of these devices can now plot the offender’s location by GPS and when he or she is allowed to leave the property or does so contrary to that condition the condition instead prohibits entry to certain areas related to the offender’s risk of reoffending. I believe and certainly I think it is a widely held view that GPS monitoring is fitter for purpose.The offender will wear a device around their ankle that will send an alert if the offender enters a prohibited area. Authorities also receive an alert in the event that the offender tampers with or tries to break the device or removes it from the monitoring equipment. There is quite a strong public interest in electronic monitoring as the most timely and reliable means of detecting these offences. Breaching these types of conditions can also sometimes be a precursor to more serious offending. Electronic monitoring gives us the opportunity to intervene swiftly ideally in time to prevent harm to the public should the device be tampered with. It also increases the likelihood of detection and that should deter the offender from committing further offences.Obviously the benefits of electronic monitoring to public safety need to be weighed up with the fact that sometimes it is an onerous intervention and in many respects it constitutes a search that interferes with the privacy of individuals. So you have got to balance those rights to make it necessary for the offender to wear a device. GPS monitoring devices also need to be regularly charged by the offender at regular time intervals which some would argue actually impinges on their liberties and their freedoms. Some would argue that; I know that you do not Mr Assistant Speaker.I want to turn to some of the legislative barriers removed by the bill. The courts currently impose electronic monitoring on bail for example to verify compliance of the requirement to be at a certain bail address. They can also impose some of these monitoring devices namely for community detention and home detention and they prove quite effective in those examples. These sentences require the offender to remain at the address which makes electronic monitoring necessary in those particular circumstances but the courts are currently prevented from using these devices for the two populations that are clearly laid out in this bill. I expect members across this House—certainly I have had discussions with some members in terms of the bill’s genesis—to actually take up this bill and vote for it.So let us look at the two categories in turn. First we will look at the offenders sentenced to imprisonment for up to 2 years. These offenders are entitled to be released after serving the first half of their sentence. Their release is often subject to the conditions of release imposed at sentencing. But what we know about these types of offenders is that they have a higher rate of reoffending. On their release they do sometimes recommit crimes and recidivism is certainly one of the Government targets that I am focused on as Minister of Corrections. There is a subset of offenders that could be managed better if they were subject to electronic monitoring.One example of this is those who breach protection orders. Certainly I have heard the debates in this House around the breach of protection orders and I am sure members right across this Chamber will see this as an advance in the protection of those particularly women and vulnerable people who are subject to protection orders. Also there are stalking offenders. These types of devices will limit the ability of stalkers who are released on conditions to go anywhere near the victims of their previous crimes.Second we have got offenders who are subject to intensive supervision. This is another highly problematic population in my view because they have some of the highest reconviction rates of our prison population. It is really in keeping with the rehabilitative purpose of intensive supervision to prevent certain offenders from entering certain areas out in the public domain. For example it may be disruptive to the progress of an offender to visit areas where they have had opportunities say to sexually reoffend or areas where there are members of their previous gangs where they have gang affiliations and they are prevented from going into those types of areas. Electronic monitoring would of course under the new rules provide a pretty stern deterrent for them to enter those areas should this bill pass.One important detail in the bill is the requirement for the courts before they impose a sentence to take the advice of the Department of Corrections into account. It is certainly not mandatory to take that advice on board but certainly it will have an impact on the courts’ ability to hand down sentences that are appropriate for electronic monitoring. I think this is another progression in this legislation.Before I conclude I just want to touch on the section 7 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report from the Attorney-General. I want to offer just a brief explanation for its apparent inconsistency with this Act. We know from previous Government bills that have dealt with electronic monitoring that this was an issue. Certainly the Attorney-General’s report focuses on the electronic monitoring component of it. It is not concerned with the policy of the bill which relates to the monitoring of offenders and the administration of those sentences. I would like to recommend to the select committee that it focuses on Part 2 of the bill and not on Part 1 in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report from the Attorney-General.In conclusion I want to say that the courts have a legitimate interest in requiring the electronic monitoring of offenders when imposing conditions of release from imprisonment for up to 2 years. I have laid out the reasons why. There are specific examples clear examples where this bill will have a beneficial impact particularly on victims. Electronic monitoring can help considerably to protect the community from the risks of reoffending where there are specific geographical areas that offenders certainly should not be moving into. I expect that the bill will improve the safety of victims and the general public and that is why I commend it to the House.