Criminal Justice Reform Bill

What a privilege it is to speak on Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill about these important amendments. I would like to start, in the short time that I have remaining, by saying that it seems—and it always has seemed—to me that when one talks about reform there is an element of added value, an element of goodness, if one likes. The quintessence of the legislation should be captured in what is proposed.

But that is not so in respect of Part 2 of this bill, sadly, because here we see a raft of amendments on a whole lot of really important issues, which perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, should never have been placed before this Parliament. The Sentencing Act was much vaunted. It was, from the Government’s perspective, as good as it got, and probably as good as it would ever get. Certainly, that was on offer as to what was involved. Yet I think we see, through Part 2, nothing but unrelieved sadness—a failure of Government policy to come to grips with issues that are incredibly important.

I am sorry to delay standing, but I was just reminding myself of the vast array of Supplementary Order Papers that have been put before the Justice and Electoral Committee by the Minister of Justice in an attempt to clean up Part 2 of this bill. It just seems to go on and on. There is a serious matter at hand—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: What is it?

The Minister should not be so quick to be so glib. I would like him to answer this question, which relates to clause 96, “Start of process”, which amends the Parole Act. It talks about the victim’s discussions or relationship with the Parole Board. This is a substantial change to the current law, and it does warrant comment. This clause amends the Parole Act so that a victim has to be invited by the board to present oral submissions to the board if the victim’s written submissions or other material are relevant to either of the following matters: whether the release of the offender poses an undue risk to the safety of the community, or ways of managing the risk posed to the safety of the community or any class of person by release of the offender. The select committee heard evidence that that was a change to the current arrangements—which it clearly is, otherwise the bill would not amend it—but Victim Support—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Strewth!

This is actually quite a serious matter, I say to Mr Cosgrove. Victim Support appeared before the select committee to discuss this clause and raised concerns about it. It said the victim of a crime committed by an offender who is up for a parole hearing should have the right to appear before that Parole Board panel, to put forward the case for the impact the release would have on the victim. I wonder whether the Minister could explain to the Committee why, under the amendments to the Parole Act, a victim will have to be invited to appear before the panel to make submissions about a potential release.

Although the Minister and I have had our disagreements over the years, I do not believe for one moment that this Minister wants to pass legislation that would create difficulty for a victim to appear before a Parole Board panel at the point of the hearing, nor do I believe that this Minister would intentionally deprive victims of a right to be heard. But, on the face of it, the change to the Act states that “the victim may be invited to present oral submissions”, rather than have a right to appear. This is a serious matter, and if I have got it wrong I am happy to hear from the Minister that that is the case. But it has to be said that clause 96 invites ambiguity.

One thing this Committee does not want to do is send a message to victims of crime that although at the moment they are able to appear before a Parole Board panel and make submissions, this new amendment to the Parole Act seems to indicate that unless they are invited to appear they lose the right to make a submission based on public safety or, indeed, the impact on them as individuals. The one thing we want to avoid is the victims of crime having to relive those crimes constantly, but part of the process of gaining that control—which may have been taken away by that crime having been committed—is being able to front up to legal institutions to put their case forward, to have their feelings aired, and to have their views heard. The last thing we want to pass is ambiguous legislation that, on the surface, appears to deny them that right.

Debate interrupted.