Davis KelvinSecond ReadingHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I move That the Parole Amendment Bill be now read a second time. First of all I'd like to thank members for their contributions to this bill in their first reading speeches. I've listened to the views and I'd like to address some of the points people made. Firstly around what members of the National Party said about why this is happening now and what happened since the High Court judgment. The timing is unfortunate that we are on the last day of Parliament but the June decision meant that we needed to have something before the House rose for the election.Because public safety is the paramount principle in the Corrections Act that governs all of the Department of Corrections' actions driven by this since the High Court judgment our officials have explored all possible options to respond to the judgment including a thorough assessment of possible litigation strategies that are unlikely to be successful but the officials had to look at all those particular options. Operational changes were deemed not to be feasible as Corrections would have to separate out the residential providers from the programme providers and that would just take too long to set up. Given the impact of the judgment and the complexity of the matter it took some time to work through not only the legal implications but also any potential operational solutions. Over the month of July the implications of the decision became better understood. Following advice from experts on the intricacies of the judgment it became clear that operational solutions were not viable and that the key public safety risk lay with the daytime programme conditions being unenforceable. What that means is that these people on extended supervision orders (ESOs) would basically have been free to wander in the community. These are people with the most heinous violations of people—in particular there's a number of child sex offenders and other sex offenders. We simply cannot risk having them free to wander around in the community.If I think about the Green Party's contribution and I'm disappointed that they and the Māori Party are choosing to vote against this I'd say that for us to take this through the whole process—you know a proper process; not through urgency—it would have meant probably nine months of engagement to get to this point. That means nine months where people on extended supervision orders are free to wander around the community—and they are the worst offenders. Now the notion was raised that maybe public protection orders—believe me Corrections has applied for these people to be put on public protection orders but the bar is so high that they have missed out despite the nature of their offending.I really appreciated the contribution of Arena Williams when she said Is being rehabilitated in the places you reside actually a punishment?" So looking at a typical timetable of one of the ESOs they are supported to have walks in the community to go shopping to eat out in the community to participate in things; but it's all supported. They have quite a lot of free time. As Arena Williams asked is it really actually a punishment for them to be supported in the programmes that they are supported to do? Is it detention given that they get to go out shopping and participate in things in the community—they're supported to do that sort of thing so is it really detention? Is it punishment? I think that the majority of fair-minded New Zealanders would say no it isn't.So there have been some good contributions from around the House but I consider that the amendments in the bill are necessary to enable Corrections to continue to manage these high-risk offenders in ways that provide them with wraparound support through a single-provider model. All we are talking about is the ESOs: if they reside at a certain place with certain providers the High Court judgment says that they cannot receive the daytime support—their programme—from the same people. I think most people would say "Isn't that great to have 24-hour wraparound support where they can stay somewhere where they can actually be supported to engage out in the community?"As I said in my first reading speech using a single-provider model to deliver both the programme and the residence conditions for these high-risk offenders is a longstanding practice of Corrections. It ensures these offenders have wraparound support and supervision during their reintegration in a stable and structured environment. While the ESO regime was introduced in 2004 the part of the Parole Act that today's bill seeks to amend was introduced in 2014. Section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) was not intended to affect this longstanding practice of using a single-provider model and the wording of the Parole Act has done so inadvertently. Instead this section was intended to avoid offenders being subject to daytime programme conditions that were in fact de facto residential restrictions. We need to pass this bill to urgently ensure that Corrections can continue to enforce these high-risk offenders' programme conditions despite the June judgment and can continue to impose these conditions in the future to support the reintegration of these offenders and to keep the public safe; in particular to keep our children safe. I further believe that the bill should be progressed urgently to mitigate risks of formal challenges which would undermine the rehabilitation and reintegration of these high-risk offenders. I'd like to take the opportunity to again address some of the points first raised at the first reading. Can I start by thanking the Hon Judith Collins for her contribution and by echoing her support for staff at Corrections who have dealt with an incredibly complex issue here. For example because these are the most high-risk offenders currently able to live in the community all have exhibited long-term patterns of serious sexual and/or violent offending pose a real and ongoing risk of reoffending and most have histories of child sex offending. Many also have significant or complex health challenges such as diagnosed disabilities fetal alcohol spectrum disorder schizophrenia and personality disorders. As the Hon Judith Collins said corrections officers work with these people whom most people would never want to engage with. I think her speech answered some of the points raised by the Hon Paul Goldsmith in his contribution in particular with regards to the timing of this bill today. When this law was changed the previous Government and Corrections were confident in their interpretation of the Act that the purpose of section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) allowed for offenders to reside with their programme provider. When the Parole Board sought a declaratory judgment Corrections was therefore dealing with an incredibly complicated legal situation with outcomes that were incredibly difficult to predict. It is not generally good process to use an urgent amendment to try and pre-emptively override a potential court judgment so Corrections found it appropriate to follow the legal court case and explain the historic interpretation of the section of the Act and the Government's intent in amending it to read as it does. As has been said this morning the court case has now issued its judgment and this bill is here today to do what as parliamentarians is a core part of our role. For me public safety and especially the safety of children must always remain our number one priority. So I thank the House for accepting the legislation today and we will pass it accordingly. Also in response to the Hon Mark Mitchell I would like to emphasise to him paragraph three of the legislative statement to ameliorate some of his concerns. There is a low number of affected offenders but due to the high-risk profiles of these offenders Corrections and its contracted providers have continued the longstanding approach of managing these offenders through a singleprovider model since the June judgment. Corrections has continued to protect community safety since the judgment—in other words whilst working through a very complex topic with the potential for significant unintended consequences if the wrong amendments were to be made.I am running out of time but turning to my colleague Golriz Ghahraman I understand of course that this bill has intersections with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as I outlined in my first reading speech. However it remains my view that Parliament was right to legislate with this regime in 2014 and that upholding it today is appropriate therefore as well. These are serious offenders as has been well canvassed and we cannot ignore the public risk that would come from letting these conditions lapse.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."