Davis Kelvin: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1001. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):I would like to speak to clause 4 in Part 1 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. Clause 4 talks about the objective of the Act: “The objective of this Act is to protect members of the public from the almost certain harm that would be inflicted by the commission of serious sexual or violent offences.” by people who are currently coming to the end of their term.I am just going to the definition of “serious sexual or violent offending” which means: “the commission of 1 or more serious sexual or violent offences.” We are talking about a small subsection of people who are currently in prison who within 6 months upon their release are expected—despite their punishment in prison despite their attempts at rehabilitation—to more than likely be recidivists and cause harm to members of the public.I think that any New Zealander would say yes we need to have something that is going to protect New Zealanders from the threat of harm from these people. But as Jacinda Ardern has just said the public protection orders are not to be considered an extended form of punishment. We cannot punish people twice for the same crime—that is called double jeopardy—but I have to say that there are concerns around the New Zealand Bill of Rights as Jacinda has touched on.The Attorney-General expressed the opinion that this bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Attorney-General stated that “The critical issue is whether the provision for detention and other measures under the Bill in substance amounts to further punishment of sentenced offenders contrary to the longstanding rights against arbitrary detention and double jeopardy affirmed in ss 22 and 26 of the Bill of Rights Act or to civil committal as provided for in other New Zealand legislation and widely held to be compatible with these rights. The risk of breach of ss 22 and 26 was raised at the time that the Bill was proposed.”The Attorney-General concluded that “ … unless the Bill incorporated the key safeguards necessary for a civil committal regime it would not be Bill of Rights compliant. The Bill as introduced includes such safeguards at each of the stages of the making administration and review or cancellation of orders. The Bill also contains broad interpretative principles to ensure its operation as a committal and not punitive regime.” In other words there are safeguards there apparently so that people are not going to come under that double jeopardy case. Also in clause 4(2): “It is not an objective of this Act to punish persons against whom orders are made under this Act.”. Even if they are subject to a public protection order they will still be kept in prison but not in the secure wing.In fact if we go to the “Principles” clause in clause 5(d) it says: “persons who are detained in a residence under a public protection order should have as much autonomy and quality of life as possible while ensuring the orderly functioning and safety within the residence.” So they have to be kept within a residence within prison confines and they are to be given as much autonomy as possible to go about their lives but without being out there imposing a threat of serious sexual or violent offending against New Zealanders.Other principles in the bill include clause 5(a) which says: “orders under this Act are not imposed to punish persons and the previous commission of an offence is only 1 of several factors that are relevant to assessing whether there is a very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent offending by a person:”. In clause 5(b) it says: “a public protection order should only be imposed if the magnitude of the risk posed by the respondent justifies the imposition of the order:”. So there has to be some consideration of the magnitude of the risk that the offender may pose to the community.One of the principles is also that “a public protection order should not be imposed on a person who is eligible to be detained under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act …”. In other words if they have a mental disability they will not be subject to a public protection order. As I have said clause 5(d) is about giving these people as much autonomy as possible even though they will still be restricted within prison confines.There are thresholds for imposition of these public protection orders. The person must be aged 18 years or older. So obviously anybody who is under 18 years of age would not have a public protection order put upon them. Also the person must be detained and imprisoned under a determinate sentence for a serious sexual or violent offence. So for the benefit of people listening a determinate sentence basically means that they are in there for a set length of time.Another threshold is that the person must be released from detention not later than 6 months after the date on which the chief executive applies for a public protection order against the person. Clause 3 says: “chief executive means the chief executive of the department that is with the authority of the Prime Minister for the time being responsible for the administration of this Act” and that is generally the head of the Department of Corrections. We look forward to debating this bill thoroughly and going through each of the parts. Kia ora.