There is one thing that appears remarkably consistent in the changing explanations of former ACT Party president Tim Jago — he wants to get out of prison.
Beyond that, the story has shifted considerably.
Jago was convicted by a jury in 2024 on eight charges of indecent assault involving two teenage boys he had mentored through a sports club. He continued to maintain his innocence and appealed both his convictions and sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed those appeals in September 2025, describing the offending as serious and repeated and noting its long-lasting effects on the complainants.
Then came another significant change.
In July this year, while being sentenced for further sexual offending, Jago, through his lawyer, admitted sexually assaulting the two young men whose abuse he had previously denied at his 2024 trial. He was also sentenced to a further 18 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to sexual violation involving another complainant.
So the history matters.
First there was denial.
Then there was a jury verdict.
Then there was an appeal seeking to overturn those convictions.
Then the appeal failed.
Then came an admission.
And now, according to reporting on his latest attempt to secure release, we are being asked to consider Jago’s contention that he has effectively grown out of his attraction to young men.
Seriously?
ARE WE NOW SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE IN SELF-CONVERSION THERAPY?
There is something deeply troubling about reducing the risk posed by a convicted sexual offender to the proposition that he has simply grown out of an attraction.
What are we supposed to call that?
Some miraculous form of self-conversion therapy?
That is nonsense.
More importantly, it confuses two fundamentally different things: sexual orientation or attraction, and sexual offending.
Being gay or attracted to adult men does not make someone a sexual offender. Sexual offending is about criminal conduct, consent, boundaries, exploitation, power and risk.
That distinction matters enormously, particularly for rainbow communities that have spent generations fighting the dangerous suggestion that homosexuality itself is pathological or connected with predatory behaviour.
Jago’s offending should therefore be judged for what the courts found it to be — sexual offending against young people whom he knew through a position of trust — not turned into some bizarre discussion about whether a person’s sexuality can disappear with age.
THE PAROLE BOARD HAS HEARD A VERY DIFFERENT STORY BEFORE
There is another reason scepticism is justified.
At Jago’s first parole hearing in September 2025, the Parole Board declined to release him. Reporting at the time said the Board considered that he had very limited acceptance, if any, of the offending for which he had been imprisoned. Jago nevertheless made clear that he wanted to get out and move forward with his life.
That is important context.
Acceptance of offending is not some administrative box to tick on the way out the prison gate.
For sexual offenders, insight into offending behaviour, recognition of harm, treatment progress and an evidence-based assessment of future risk are critical considerations.
A person cannot spend years denying offending, challenge unanimous jury verdicts, unsuccessfully appeal the convictions and then expect the public to unquestioningly accept a dramatically different account once acknowledging the offending becomes relevant to release.
People are entitled to ask what changed.
Was there genuine therapeutic progress?
What treatment was completed?
What do qualified clinicians say?
What does the formal risk assessment show?
What safeguards would exist after release?
Those questions matter considerably more than whether a prisoner now says he has grown out of something.
THREE MEN, NOT AN ABSTRACT ARGUMENT
It is also important that this does not become entirely about Jago.
There are victims in this story.
The original convictions concerned two teenagers Jago had mentored. The jury unanimously convicted him on all eight indecent assault charges. His subsequent appeal failed.
Then another complainant came forward.
The July 2026 sentencing concerned sexual offending against another young man, and the court heard about the lasting fear, anxiety, anger and difficulty trusting others resulting from that abuse. The judge noted similarities with Jago’s previous offending, including young and intoxicated complainants and an abuse of trust within the surf lifesaving community.
Those consequences do not disappear because an offender says he has changed.
REHABILITATION MATTERS — BUT SO DOES PROOF
None of this means rehabilitation is impossible.
Our justice system must allow people to undertake treatment, accept responsibility and demonstrate genuine change.
Nor should prison simply become an exercise in vengeance.
But rehabilitation has to mean something.
It cannot simply be the latest explanation offered when the prison gate is the thing standing between an offender and freedom.
The appropriate question for the Parole Board is not whether Jago can produce a reassuring explanation.
It is whether independent evidence demonstrates that he no longer presents an undue risk to the community.
If qualified professionals, treatment providers and the Parole Board are satisfied on the evidence that his risk can safely be managed, that evidence should guide the decision.
If they are not satisfied, he should remain imprisoned for as long as the law permits.
That is not vindictiveness.
That is what public protection is supposed to mean.
THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO BE SCEPTICAL
Jago’s history gives the public legitimate reasons to scrutinise what he now says.
He denied the offending.
A jury convicted him.
He continued denying it.
He appealed.
The Court of Appeal rejected that challenge.
He was denied parole amid concerns about his acceptance of his offending.
He subsequently admitted sexual offending he had previously denied and was sentenced for further offending involving another man.
Against that history, an assertion that he has now simply grown out of the attraction associated with his past behaviour cannot be the end of the conversation.
The safety of young people cannot rest on a prisoner’s self-assessment.
It must rest on evidence.
It must rest on treatment.
It must rest on independent professional risk assessment.
And it must recognise the experiences of the men whose lives were affected by the offending in the first place.
People can change. People can be rehabilitated. Our justice system depends, in part, on that possibility.
But rehabilitation is demonstrated by evidence and behaviour — not declared into existence when parole becomes possible.
#Opinion #TimJago #ACTParty #Parole #SexualViolence #SexualAbuse #Survivors #VictimSafety #PublicSafety #Justice #ParoleBoard #Rehabilitation #Accountability #Aotearoa #NZPolitics #WaateaNews #RadioWaatea
