Faafoi Kris: Parole Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Parole Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1528. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Thank you very much Mr Chair for your wise ruling. It is a pleasure to speak to this Parole Amendment Bill because I believe having been a former member of the Law and Order Committee that there were lots of variables that the select committee and of course the Government were trying to balance up—one of them obviously being the rights of the victims. We have heard of many many cases. One of the considerations given under this bill was the revictimisation of victims who were made to go through what may be unnecessary Parole Board hearings.On the other side of the equation of course were the rights of the offenders and their right to be heard for parole and to be assessed for their eligibility for parole and whether or not they were ready. Of course there are some efficiencies trying to be gained here with trying to get rid of the unnecessary parole hearings that were being held where there could have been instances where they were either unattended or there was absolutely no chance that an offender who was up for parole was going to be granted parole at all. So with those factors and I am sure a number of others were considered by the Law and Order Committee I think my former colleagues on that committee have come to the right balance in making sure that we do get the efficiencies right and that the rights of the victims—we have heard some harrowing stories of many families. As Jacinda Ardern has pointed out many organisations that have been offended against have had to go through the horror or the pain of the offending and have been through that because of the process of the parole hearing. Also I guess it is about making sure that the rights of those who are seeking parole are met as well.This bill in its purest and simplest form gives the Parole Board the ability to increase the maximum time between hearings for parole hearings from 12 months to 2 years. I think I am right in referring to clause 10 which inserts new section 21A. If the Parole Board does not give an offender parole it then has the ability to set a date for the next parole hearing if it does decline that parole. If that date is 12 months beyond the hearing that has taken place I think what you do give there is an incentive for that offender—I guess you know in a crude way—to shape up and to have these activities that they are given as targets. This is to ensure that if they do come back at a later date—and I know the word “milestones” was not used in the legislation; it was changed to “relevant activities”—they have taken some action to get back on to I guess what you could call the road to redemption.If some of those activities were fulfilled then I guess the Parole Board would say: “Yes you can come back to the Parole Board to have your eligibility assessed.” In some cases if by some miracle someone before that date came forward and came through with these relevant activities well before 12 months there is the ability for the Parole Board to bring that parole hearing forward. So I believe—and that is why we on this side of the Chamber are supporting this legislation—that the balance between those three main factors has been struck. I understand from some of my other colleagues that it was a relatively good working relationship between members on this side of the Chamber and members on the other side of the Chamber. I know there is some dissent from the Green Party but all in all most members around that select committee table believe that the balance that was struck is the right one.I know that there will be some people out there who would say that the offenders really do not deserve any more rights. As Kelvin Davis has said that is probably the view of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. But we would say that the balance has been struck because there will be a lot fewer—