Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider the bill. This bill demonstrates the Government’s support for the victims of serious violent and sexual offences. The bill would create a new civil order, called a non-contact order, to reduce the likelihood of a victim of the serious violent or sexual offence coming into contact with the offender once they are released from prison.

Research shows that the impact and effect of serious violent and sexual offences can last for a significant period of time after an offence has been committed. The healing and recovery process of victims can be hindered by ongoing fear and anxiety about the offender. Victims can suffer significant setbacks in their recovery if they come into contact with the person who offended against them.

This Government is determined to support these victims. Through a non-contact order, the court will be able to impose conditions prohibiting an offender from contacting the victim in any way and prohibiting an offender from living or working near the victim. The order will be available on application by the victim of the serious violent or sexual offence that resulted in the offender being sentenced to 5 or more years in prison for that offence. This will ensure that only the most serious offenders are captured by the order. The bill shares the definition of the “victim” in the Victims’ Rights Acts 2002, and a victim can include the close family members of a murder or manslaughter victim.

There are already a number of mechanisms to restrict or monitor the behaviour of an offender. These include a mixture of conditions imposed at sentence and orders imposed on application. Examples of these are parole conditions, extended supervision orders, and civil and criminal orders. The purpose of these existing mechanisms is to manage offenders after their release from prison, to enhance public safety, and, in the case of protection and restraining orders, to protect individuals from perpetrators of domestic violence or harassment. However, these mechanisms do not cover all situations. If an offender is not subject to restrictive parole conditions, or in a case where a victim does not qualify for either a protection order or a restraining order, the current law does not provide any mechanism for preventing unwanted contact with the offender.

This creates the need for the non-contact order. Situations like the one we have seen in Invercargill where a convicted rapist moved near to his victim clearly demonstrate that everyday events such as walking past the driveway of the offender can be very stressful for the victim of a serious violent or sexual offence. Where these situations arise but the victim does not have either a restraining order or a protection order against the offender, the police cannot take any enforcement actions unless and until the offender commits a subsequent offence. We want to ensure that victims are not left feeling unsafe in their homes and unprotected by the law.

The new order is flexible, to ensure that a judge can decide how many or how few conditions are necessary and which conditions are practicable and workable in the circumstances of each case. This flexibility should ensure that the order can be effective for victims, no matter what their circumstances. For example, it should be able to prevent or limit contact with the offender, whether the person who offended against them has moved next door, two blocks away, or 5 kilometres away. Breaches of the order will be punished by the same graduated penalty system as for breaches of restraining orders. The maximum penalty available will be up to 2 years in prison for multiple breaches within a 3-year period. This penalty ensures the breaches will be dealt with seriously.

This order will help fill a gap in the justice system where victims are not able to access existing legal protection mechanisms. It shows the Government’s support for the victims of the worst offences, and it will help those victims feel safer while they continue on their journey to recovery. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill and say that the objective of this bill is a very important objective—in fact I would go as far as saying it is an essential objective, and we have no objection to it. That objective is to protect victims of violent crime and to protect them after the perpetrator of the crime against them has either been convicted and served their sentence, if they have been incarcerated, or, if they have not been incarcerated, at least are managing their post-conviction processes.

But the problem with this bill is that the way it has been promoted by this Government is just totally cynical. The Hon Chester Borrows talked about the Invercargill case, which is the case that prompted this bill in the first place. The reality of that Invercargill case is that a rapist was sentenced to a term of 4 years and then, post-release, harassed and basically made a nuisance of himself towards his victim. In that case the victim would not be able to avail herself of an order under this bill, because the threshold is too high. When we look at the detail of that particular case and at what is in this bill, actually, the argument by the Government begins to unravel. It is not only the very high threshold that would apply in relation to victims who might be looking for just this type of protection and assistance, it is the very fact that it is the victim, once again, who has to take the initiative to protect themselves from something that the criminal justice system ought to take responsibility for. The burden falls on the victim. This, yet again, is from this Government, which boasts about, crows about, supporting victims. This is not a victims’ rights piece of legislation. This, once again, yet again, by this Government, puts the burden back on the victim. It revictimises the victim. That is the problem with a Government that seeks to push red-hot buttons around the electorate, but has no real commitment to fixing the problem at all. It is just cynical.

Let us go through some of the issues in this legislation. There is the one I have already referred to, which is the cost to the victim. It is the victim who has to meet the cost, because it is a civil proceeding. Worse, the victim will have to front up to court to square off against the very person whom they are seeking a non-contact order against. That revictimises the victim again. Then there is the threshold, which requires a 5-year prison sentence, which is just way too high. There are victims of sexual offences and violent offences where the perpetrators do not get sentences of 5 years or more. They get much lesser sentences. But after the completion of their sentence, that perpetrator is equally capable of harassing and intimidating and threatening the victim of their crime, as in any other case. Why should those victims not have a remedy, if this Government is serious about victims?

This bill is totally inadequate. This is probably one of the laziest pieces of legislation I have seen, in my short time in Parliament. When you look at the regulatory impact statement, it is quite clear that the Ministry of Justice and the advisers to the Minister of Justice considered a range of options. They considered an amendment to the Harassment Act so that it would apply in these sorts of situations. But the Harassment Act, again, provides for a civil proceeding. A civil application is required for a restraining order, under that legislation. But the other sensible suggestion that the advisers came up with was an amendment to the Parole Act. I think one thing they failed, however, to suggest was an accompanying amendment to the Sentencing Act. They argued against, or advised against, an amendment to the Parole Act on the grounds that they were concerned about uncontrollable costs. The problem with that piece of analysis is that when they drew that conclusion they seemed to have forgotten that they expected there would be about 10 applications for this type of order each year, but they said they thought there would be a snowballing sort of effect. I think that could have been dealt with, ameliorated, by putting term limits on the extent of the application, with a right to renew on subsequent occasions.

But the fundamental point is this: this is a bill that deals with victims of crime—victims of criminals. The criminal justice system is the part of our judicial system that should take responsibility for managing all aspects of the criminal—not leaving it up to the victim, once the criminal justice system has disposed of and washed its hands of the offender. It should not leave it up to the victims to have to make applications to further protect themselves. That is the responsibility of the State. That is the responsibility of the criminal justice system. We are saying that the intent of this bill, the objective of it, should be achieved, can be achieved, under something like the Parole Act and perhaps the Sentencing Act, but should not be left to the victim to make application for.

We will support this bill, with these very severe reservations. We will support the bill at its first reading, to get it before a select committee, so we can hear from advisers and, perhaps, from the Minister to provide some further rationale, but also to see if we can come up with a piece of legislation that is a real victims’ rights piece of legislation, not the piece of whitewash that we have in front of us at the moment. The Minister in an article, at least in relation to the “Beast of Blenheim”, had the temerity to come out and say that she is sick and tired of hearing from people like the lawyer for the “Beast of Blenheim” and his defence of that case, and the argument for his rights. The Minister, in fact, was quoted as saying: “Frankly, I’ve had enough of listening to people like the lawyer for the Beast of Blenheim, worrying about their rights—and I am far more concerned about victims and their rights.”

Well, that is a piece of bunkum, that is just hocus-pocus, by probably one of the laziest Ministers of Justice we have had for a long time. But I want to say this. Frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing from a Minister of Justice who does all the window dressing she can but does not deal with the real issue. She does it on victims’ rights. She does it on other issues as well. She does not care. She does the minimum she can, to get away with the appearance of doing something meaningful. But this is not meaningful, as indeed are any other pieces of legislation that she has been responsible for. I was going to say “championed”, but she is not a champion of anything, apart from herself.

This is a hopeless piece of legislation in its current form. It has good objectives. We should be doing something for victims of violent crime. We should be protecting them. We should be making adjustments to the criminal justice system so that those victims are protected. We should not be putting the burden back on victims, so they have to stump up, at their cost, and front up and face the person who has abused them, has raped them, has violently assaulted them. We should not be putting victims in that situation. We should be providing proper protection. This bill does not do that. Let us get past the hocus-pocus and the bunkum and all the window dressing that this Government and this Minister of Justice represent, and let us do something meaningful. Let us not only make the criminal justice system responsible for dealing with offenders who, upon conviction, are then punished and, if necessary, incarcerated and serve their time, but also make the criminal justice system truly responsible for protecting the victim. Let us come up with a system of orders that will properly protect the victims, at the State’s cost, so that they do not face the threats and intimidation that were exemplified in the case in Invercargill. This bill simply does not do that. If we are serious in this House’s drive and call to provide better protection for victims, we need to do something way better than this very lazy piece of legislation, coming from a very lazy Minister.

We will support this bill at its first reading. We will get it in front of the select committee, and we will pull it apart. We will hear from officials why they have abandoned their advice to the Minister to amend the Parole Act and to consider the Sentencing Act. Let us see if we cannot, together, if the National Government is serious, come up with something that will afford proper protection and be a genuine victims’ rights piece of legislation.

It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the first reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, which is in the name of the Hon Judith Collins. It is always interesting to follow that member Andrew Little, who is a good old-fashioned socialist from way back. In fact, I am disappointed that he is not contender No. 4, because with a speech like that you could rightly believe that he was a contender in every respect, other than being a nominee in the contest that is so captivating members of the Labour Party at the moment. As is in the best tradition of good old-fashioned socialists, there is something that is buried deep in the psyche that somehow wants to create victims who are victims again.

I am delighted to be able to speak in support of this bill, which proudly, and I think rightly so, puts the victim first in our criminal justice system. This is another piece of legislation that the Hon Judith Collins has championed in a way that has become almost a hallmark of her administration, and it is one that I support. She, as I do, makes no apology for putting victims first in our criminal justice system. It is completely unacceptable that victims of serious crime cannot be free from ongoing intimidation and persecution from those who have done the offending against them. The fact people cannot be allowed to get on freely with their lives, to return their lives to some sense of normality, after being victims of serious crime strikes me as being completely unacceptable in a modern society. So I make no apology on behalf of the Government for putting the rights of victims first in our system.

This new piece of legislation is introducing a restraining order to protect victims of serious crime, or indeed sexual crimes, from further unwanted contact with those people who have perpetrated attacks upon them. It is completely unacceptable that a situation like this could have been allowed to occur for so long. Victims can feel intimidated. In fact, it can be more than just a feeling of intimidation; it can be actual real intimidation by having, for instance, a previous offender moving close into the victim’s neighbourhood, maintaining contact with them, and being able to further persecute them even after the sentence that they have been convicted of has been served. This piece of legislation seeks to remedy that, and I say that it is about time too.

Currently, protection and restraining orders are available only where there has been active harassment in a situation where there is a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim. Unfortunately, that means that for some victims there is currently no legal protection available to them, and I say that that is simply not good enough. These new orders, which will be issued by the District Court, will impose a range of conditions upon offenders, including restrictions on visiting particular locations or geographical areas where the victim may be. This is a new mechanism. It is established to recognise the ongoing effects of violent offences on those victims. Fair and anxiety about unwanted contact is a very, very real factor for many of those victims. It can impair their recovery and their pathway back to a free and normal life after having become the victim of serious crime.

As a Government we want to ensure that all victims can be protected from unwanted contact with the person who has offended against them and can get back to enjoying normal life. This bill establishes a mechanism to do exactly that. It introduces a non-contact order that will prohibit an offender from having any form of contact with a victim, and it may also prohibit the offender from entering any specified area or from living or working in that specified area. The District Court is able to impose any conditions or directions in relation to any prohibition that it considers reasonably necessary in those circumstances. I, for one, think that is a good thing. An application for a non-contact order, it is important to note, cannot be made by a victim if there is already in existence a protection order against the offender under the Domestic Violence Act 1995.

In summary, this is a good piece of legislation brought to the House by a very capable and proactive Minister who is doing a terrific job on behalf of the victims of violent crime in our society. I commend the bill absolutely to the House. I will watch with interest its progress through the select committee.

I am rather sad that this legislation, the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, was promoted in the way it just has been by Government members, because this bill does not do what do the member Scott Simpson actually said. The purpose statement is absolutely supported on this side of the House. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to reduce the likelihood of a victim of a violent offence coming into contact with the offender subsequent to the offender’s release from prison in any case where that contact would be detrimental to the victim. (2) To achieve this purpose, the Act empowers the court, on the application of a victim,”—and that is something we have an issue with: on the application of a victim—“to make a non-contact order prohibiting the offender from having any form of contact with the victim.” What we have just heard from the member is the suggestion that this is going to resolve something that should have been resolved a very long time ago.

In fact, let me quote from the regulatory impact statement, which, I have to say, is dated 12 September 2012. So this particular regulatory impact statement is nearly a year old. So what has taken the Government so long to address this issue if it is so imperative in terms of resolving the problem? Let me just read to the House why the review of the law was ordered: “In response to an incident in late 2011, where an offender who had served a prison sentence for rape moved into a property next door to his victim, the Minister of Justice requested a review of the existing orders and options available to protect victims in similar situations.” The bill we have before us will not protect that victim and would not have protected that victim if it had been in place at the time. Let me just read why. Clause 5 of the bill states: “In this Act, violent offender or offender, in relation to a victim, means a person who at any time—(a) has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more in respect of that offence.” That rapist was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. So the very case that gave rise to this Government’s sudden concern about this particular matter is not addressed by the bill.

Perhaps the next speaker from the National Party could explain why the very case that actually sparked off the review has lead to a bill that would not address that case. Perhaps that would be something that they could begin with. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we have a legal framework that is able to address these issues. That is why I have been such a major supporter of the regulatory impact analysis process. What we have to do is we have to learn in this House how to actually state what the problem is and what the objective is, then we have to set out a range of options about how we might achieve that objective, and work through each one of those. That is what the Ministry of Justice did for this. But does anyone know whom the Ministry of Justice consulted with in relation to this particular matter? The consultation it did in order to progress this important issue was with three community law centres, two victims’ representatives, and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Actually, it received only four responses—two in support and two opposed. How on earth is that a quality regulatory impact analysis? That is nonsense. That is about coming to a conclusion and then finding a post-facto justification for the decision that the Government has already made.

This was written on 12 September 2012. Do not tell me that there could not have been a much broader engagement with the victims’ rights organisations and with others about what would be the most sensible approach. Why are we requiring the victims of crime to actually themselves go through this process? One of the recommendations was to amend the Parole Act to allow for an indefinite non-contact residential parole condition. What was wrong with that option? That would have put the onus on the State to protect the interests of victims, and not put it back to the victim to go to the District Court and be subject to a legal aid assessment. Why on earth was this option not put up as the top priority? Oh, I know why: “This option is likely to result in significant cost increases to the Department of Corrections over time.” That is the only reason that this one is ruled out. So I think that people on that side of the House should think very carefully about the way that they are presenting these.

I want to make a comment in response to the suggestion that the rights of the perpetrators of these offences are somehow more important than the victims. So let me just read from the regulatory impact statement. It said there was a problem with the proposal of the Harassment Act being extended because “… it relies on judicial discretion to determine what is necessary to reduce the likelihood of unwanted contact in each case. A risk is that this will vary depending on the circumstances in each case and some victims may not consider the order offers them adequate protection. This risk could be mitigated by conditions applicable to their situation being imposed. For example, in a small town where the victim and offender have support networks and live near each other a judge may consider that making the offender move out of town is an unjustified limitation on their rights. In this situation the conditions imposed would be designed to help the victim feel safer by preventing contact between the offender and victim wherever possible e.g. curfew, specific prohibition from visiting certain place(s) unaccompanied. In addition, to comply with the condition the offender would have to be aware of the victim’s location, which could increase the fear and anxiety a victim has in regard to the offender.” So that issue was raised by the Ministry of Justice.

I just want to tell a story about a conversation I had. When I first arrived here in Parliament, I was an associate spokesperson on justice and we made a decision to travel around all the different prisons in order to get a real sense of the whole of the justice system. I recall a conversation that I had with a prison officer back then. He described what has actually become the process of restorative justice, but it was initiated by the victim of a terrible rape. The two rapists, who were completing their sentences, were about to go home to small-town New Zealand. So stop thinking about victims as just being in large cities or towns where people can have freedom of movement. In a small town, this is very real. So this is a real story. This woman approached the prison and said she wanted to meet the rapists before they returned to her small home town. The prison service was not used to this, and it was very concerned about what that might mean. So after much discussion, it arranged for the meeting to occur. The real reason that it agreed to it was her motive in meeting with the offenders.

The trouble was that they had pleaded not guilty. Coming back to that home town meant that the town was divided. Half of the town believed her and half of it believed the offenders. Half of the people in her town believed that she had made up the story of being raped, and she wanted to confront the offenders before they came home and re-entered that whole victimisation process, where she was a victim of half of the town’s opinion. She sat there in that room with them—and this was reported to me by the guy who observed this happening—and she looked at them and said: “You’re coming home. You must tell the truth. You’ve served your time. Tell the truth now.” And they admitted for the first time that they had raped her. That, to me, is much more meaningful, much more real, and much more beneficial to the whole of society than anything that this bill will ever do. How dare the Government put it back on the victim to sort this out. Why does the State not play its role and protect the victim? It could do that with an amendment to the parole legislation. I believe that that is what the Law and Order Committee has got to seriously look at in considering the future passage of this bill.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I have listened with interest to the contributions from the Labour Party speakers in particular. I think it is fair to say that in the Greens, we have come to a similar position. We will support this Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill as far as the Law and Order Committee, but our support is highly conditional. We have major concerns about this bill. If its purpose is the proposition that we need to offer a level of protection and a level of comfort to people who have been the victims of violent crime, then undoubtedly that is entirely a wholly tenable proposition and one that we can support. But in terms of the mechanism, the content, and the detail of this bill, we see so many fish-hooks in it that we do have serious concerns about whether those can be ironed out sufficiently. We will be supporting the bill going to the select committee. We look forward to the select committee process. Clearly we will engage with it, and we will re-evaluate our position and our support or otherwise at the conclusion of that process.

As I said, the proposition that it is desirable to offer comfort to victims of crime and criminal offending is at the forefront of this legislation. It reminds me again, though, that we seem to see a number of bills that seek to incrementally add some level of service to victims of crime. This country desperately needs a clean sheet of paper, an overall review, a sort of zero sum game about victims’ rights. How do we address victims’ rights across the board? That is something that successive Governments seem reluctant to engage with. Again, it has been a Green position for a long time that we need to get cross-party agreement that in all sorts of ways we are not serving victims well in this country. We need to sit down and work out how we can do that, strategically and in an integrated way, and not relying on these amendments and additions and the meddling round the margins of legislation.

What will eventuate if this legislation is enacted is that a non-contact order will be created. As we learnt from the explanatory note, the non-contact order would prohibit an offender from having any form of contact with a victim. It may also prohibit the offender from entering any specified area or from living or working in any specified area. That is an extremely potent set of conditions to impose on a person—to determine where they may or may not live, where they may or may not work, and what areas they may or may not enter.

The consequences for a released person could be quite profound and actually counter-productive to their continued rehabilitation and reintegration back into society. A person might, for example, be denied the right to return to a small town, despite the fact that that may be the place they are most likely to have family or other support networks. It might be the place where they might find more secure tenure and accommodation, and the place where they might find a job and actually work to put their offending behind them, and become a contributing person in society. They may be denied that opportunity, and the best opportunity they have, to put their offending behind them and to get on with life.

It just raises with me an interesting conundrum too: what would happen in the event that an offender is released from prison and goes to live in and is working in a particular place, and then a victim of that person’s offending chooses to move into the area where they are established? It is kind of a reverse sensitivity thing. I am not sure that this bill has anything in it to accommodate that particular instance. I think it is one of the little details that we would need to reflect on and think about.

Successful reintegration of a former offender demands that that person commit to changing their behaviour and that they honestly and truly put their offending behind them. But as Anne Opie pointed out in her excellent study, which she titled From Outlaw to Citizen: Making the Transition from Prison in New Zealand, there has to also be a social space. The community must also give a person an opportunity to redeem themselves, to demonstrate that they are actually willing and able to reform, and to become contributing members of society. Some of the provisions of this bill could actually be counter-productive in that sense and count against the possibility of that person having the opportunity to prove that they may once again be trusted members of society.

I am concerned at the definition of “offender” in this bill. It seems that a person who offends once will for ever carry that label. It is the Shylock dilemma—you call me dog, therefore beware my bite. It almost sets up a situation for a self-fulfilling prophecy. Labelling somebody for ever as an offender could have a counter-productive outcome on their behaviours forthwith.

I was interested to hear some of the Government spokespersons talking about the need to prevent victims from being further intimidated, and being persecuted and victimised again. In fact, the status quo protects people against those very things. If I seek to intimidate or persecute someone, the law will be on to me very quickly, and quite rightly so. In the status quo we have release conditions, parole conditions, restraining orders, protection orders, and bonds to keep the peace. These are all time limited. One of the concerns we have is that the proposed non-contact orders could be open-ended, and we see some difficulties with that.

We are told that a problem with some of the existing protection orders is that many victims are unaware of the existing orders, that they may mistrust the court system, and that they are people without internet access, or with poor English skills. These existing provisions simply are not accessible to them. I ask the question: what is going to change if we simply create another form of protection order, a non-contact order? Is that going to be any more accessible to people who already are demonstrably not able to access the restraining orders, the protection orders, and all these other mechanisms that are in place? I would also echo Ms Dalziel’s comments about the consultation. Yes, of course the consultation should include community law and should include Women’s Refuge or, indeed, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, but it is an extraordinarily limited range of opinion. It was a very limited range of views that seems to have informed the drafting of this legislation.

So I simply ask what is going to change if we do not deal with some of those limitations, some of those barriers, to people finding the existing legal protections. What is the earthly point of creating yet another layer of theoretical protection, which actually may be no more accessible to those people than what is in place already? Again, in the regulatory impact statement we hear repeatedly this notion of a legislative gap, suggesting that there is a gap in the legislation. I would actually question that.

With reference to the bill itself, what would be the effects of a restraining order? The effects of a restraining order would include that an offender against whom an order is made would be prohibited from “doing, or threatening to do, any of the following: (i) watching, loitering near, or preventing or hindering access to or from the protected victim’s place of residence, business, employment, educational institution, or any other place …”. So for loitering, hindering somebody going about their daily business, or preventing them from accessing their home, their place of education, or their place of work, we have existing legal remedies for that. If I seek to simply hinder somebody from entering their place of work, of course I could be taken to task legally. Equally, an offender would be prohibited from “following, stopping, or accosting the victim;” and from “giving offensive material to the victim, or leaving offensive material where it will be found by … [that person]”.

All of this is covered by existing law. I think this notion of a legislative gap is something we need to interrogate a bit more. Maybe we need to facilitate access to some of the existing protections for victims of crime, because, as I started out by saying, it is absolutely true that a person who has been violently assaulted, raped, or subjected to some form of violent abuse will understandably be extremely nervous, arguably, about the offender coming back into close contact in their community.

But there is a flip side to this, and we need to look at that wider picture. It has been pointed out that in all likelihood this legislation would be found to be in breach of section 18 and section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in respect of freedom of movement and in respect of double jeopardy. Are we going to for ever punish a person who may have done their time and rehabilitated themselves? Violent offending sometimes is serial, but often they are one-off events—somebody gets to a point in their life, they respond violently, commit an unacceptable act, pay the punishment, and pay for the crime. Ought we continue to punish them with a lifelong punishment, potentially, for something they have done and which they may wish to put behind them?

So to where I began—as I say, we do support the purpose of this bill. We need to do more to secure victims’ rights, and for that reason we will be supporting this legislation, but we will be asking some very difficult questions. We will be seeking to get a much more robust, a much better-balanced, and a much fairer piece of legislation, in order to look for a mechanism that will serve victims without necessarily imposing damage on others. Thank you.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kia orana and meitaki.

Meitaki maata, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill in its first reading. I am concerned about the member David Clendon because what I continue to hear, what we continue to hear, but what New Zealanders need to know and understand, is that the Greens are continually looking at, and focusing on, the rehabilitation and the rights of the offenders as opposed to those of the victims. The National Party is focused on ensuring that balancing the rights and responsibilities for the victims is clearly paramount for us. What we have heard continually from the Greens—in particular, Mr Clendon—is about rehabilitation. We have no problem with that. In fact, the honourable Minister of Corrections, the Hon Anne Tolley, has actually sought out a regime of rehabilitation that is proving successful now.

However, this particular bill is dealing with serious offenders, and in this case it irks me—and I think the rest of New Zealand should understand this—that what the Greens are saying is that we should look at the rights of the offender, let us look at their freedom to move and to be able to rehabilitate themselves into those communities, which are the very communities in which they have caused harm and concern and where they have caused trauma and tragedy for family and for victims. In particular, as the honourable member Lianne Dalziel said, when we see victims of rape and of crime and offending of a sexual nature, it appals everyone—it appals everyone. But what continues to, I suppose, offend some of us here is that the Greens continue to say that the rights of the offenders should be put forward ahead of the rights of the victims. That is not what we are about; we are about ensuring that this bill ensures that the rights of the victims are upheld. It is unacceptable to have a situation where a victim of serious crime may have unwanted contact with an attacker.

In reading the regulatory impact statement, there was some comment by the honourable member Lianne Dalziel about three community law centres and the consultation that was had with two victims’ representatives and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Again, the intent is that this is a very focused piece of legislation in a suite of other forms of legislation that this Government is undertaking. It is focused, in particular, on victims of violent sexual crime—that is here. Therefore, it was important that we go particularly to those who have specialty experience and knowledge around this.

It is fair to say that the respondents were not totally in agreement. However, what they were in agreement on is that the status quo is not adequate—hence the reason for the change. In fact, arguments against introducing a new regime and a new order included that it would breach a person’s right to freedom. However, according to the regulatory impact statement: “Two responders indicated clear support for the introduction of a new order, stating that it would provide victims with an element of certainty, and may help to reduce the levels of anxiety victims experience when their offender is released.” This is clear evidence. The fact is that the transition of this bill to its first reading and to the Law and Order Committee absolutely follows the process where submissions can be heard in a wider form of being able to be informed about how we can transform this bill. But I make it very clear from this side that we are very clear that this bill ensures that victims can no longer feel intimidated by an offender moving into their local area, near their home or their workplace.

Finally, I just want to say that when people talk about the context of what we are doing, this is not a lazy piece of legislation. This is not legislation that is taken lightly at all. In fact, in the suite of things, can I also state the fact that this is what is happening right up and down the country. We are seeing that New Zealand crime rates are the lowest on record. The fiscal year crime statistics released today show that recorded crime is continuing to drop, with a 5.2 percent decrease on the previous year. Deputy Police Commissioner Viv Rickard’s comments were that “These figures indicate that New Zealand is becoming a safer place to live. They will act as further motivation to keep our focus firmly on preventing crime before it happens.” That is the best form of rehabilitation that we are taking.

However, in saying that, we do see its importance because sexual assaults and related offences have increased by 3.6 percent. Sexual offending is known to be significantly under-reported, so it is difficult to know to what extent this increase is a result of increased reporting rather than increased offending. Hence, understanding this is the reason why this bill going through its first reading and then going to the select committee so that it can hear submissions is absolutely important. It is timely. The bill is not lazy; it is intentional. It balances the rights of victims. I commend this bill in its first reading and to go to the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

New Zealand First will support the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill going to the Law and Order Committee, with the hope and expectation that, with amendment, we will be able to continue to support it thereafter. The bill would enable a victim of a violent crime, or a close family member if the victim has died, to obtain a non-contact order against an offender where the offender has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years or more. Fear and anxiety about unwanted contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself. A fundamental duty of the State is to protect victims, and we think that this bill is very much overdue. In fact, the Government has been rather slothful in progressing it to date. New Zealand First wishes to assist its passage through the House as expeditiously as is practicable. I am unable, however, to agree with the Greens that the existing protections are adequate. Yes, there are existing ways in which people can get these protections, but they are not easy to use.

This bill, I think, is needed, but I have a number of suggestions to make so that the bill might be as effective as possible. The first concerns clause 5, which defines a violent offender as a person who “has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 5 years or more”. That definition is quite narrow, and I suggest that it should be widened. Instead of requiring sentencing to a period of 5 years or more, I suggest that it would be more appropriate instead to require only sentencing for an offence punishable by 5 years of imprisonment or more. That would broaden the scope of the legislation to capture offenders whose sentences are fewer than 5 years but who had committed an offence serious enough to enable a court to sentence them to 5 years or more. After all, if the offence was so serious as to attract imprisonment at all, then the victim should be able to use this new law.

Another issue concerns clause 7, which provides that a victim may apply to a district court for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender and that an application may be made at any time after the offender is released from imprisonment. The requirement that an application must be made after the release of an offender from prison is, I think, too late. The victim should be able to apply for the order at any time after the conviction so that the court can make an order to have effect immediately as from the date of release. My concern is that there is likely to be a significant delay between the victim learning of the offender’s release and the making of an order and its service upon the offender. That would potentially be a period of high risk for the victim, and this issue needs to be addressed by the select committee. Another point for its consideration would be the meaning of the term “release from prison”. Does this include release on parole? If not, then the victim may become subject to risk and may have to rely only on parole conditions rather than this new law, so let us have a look at that.

I also have concerns about clause 9(1), which says: “The court may make a non-contact order if it is satisfied that—(a) there are ongoing effects of the offending for the victim;”. Why does the court have to be satisfied that there are ongoing effects of the offending? What will the victim have to prove to satisfy that test? I do not think that the effects of the offending are really the issue here. It would be better for the subclause to require only, for example, that the victim reasonably believes that he or she may be subjected to unwanted contact by the offender. That is what the issue really is for the victim. So that is what the subclause should use as the test. Otherwise, it would be satisfactory to delete this test and this subclause altogether, because the other requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are sufficient by themselves with the words “ability to deal with those effects” being deleted consequentially from subclause (1)(b).

I move on to clause 11. This clause sets out the effect of a non-contact order. Such an order prohibits the offender against whom it is made from having any form of contact with the victim. In addition, the court may prohibit the offender from entering, living in, or working in a specified area. The only concern I have with this clause is that subclause (1)(c) should be qualified by the addition of an exception as to entry that is incidental to, and necessary for, the purposes of the offender’s employment. I would also like the select committee to look at whether it is desirable to require, as part of clause 11, that the court is to specify an area only as large as is necessary to enable the offender and the victim to avoid contact with each other. Although we need to make the order effective, we should also see that it does not unnecessarily cause problems for the offender in obtaining or maintaining their employment and carrying out his or her duties of employment.

Finally, I come to clause 15. This provides for a non-contact order to be discharged by the court if it thinks fit on the application of the victim or of the offender against whom the order is made. I suggest that the select committee look at whether the court should be required, in this clause, in considering whether a discharge of the order should be granted, to consider some specified matters, such as the record of the offender in complying with the order; the behaviour of the victim, which may itself justify discharge; and, obviously, the places where the victim and the offender live permanently. If one lives in Australia and the other lives in New Zealand, then I would expect that to be an important factor in deciding whether to grant the discharge.

As I have said, New Zealand First does want this legislation. We do think it is necessary. We do not think that existing laws are adequate to protect victims who have justifiable fears in relation to ongoing contact with an offender. So New Zealand First wishes to vote for this legislation not only to be referred to the select committee but also, hopefully, thereafter as well, provided that we can get the most effective law possible to protect victims from those ongoing risks resulting from unwanted contact by the offender. But, as I have said, there are a number of ways in which the bill might be improved that we wish to discuss, and I hope that other parties and the Government in particular are willing to look at amendments for those purposes.

It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the first reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow what I think have been two pretty considered contributions—one from the New Zealand First member Denis O’Rourke and one from the Green member David Clendon—from opposite ends of the spectrum. The Green contribution I was somewhat disappointed with, because when we hear comments to the effect that this bill contains a potent set of conditions to impose on a person, he is focused totally on the offender. And when he thinks that the status quo is OK and talks about double jeopardy and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of the offender, I think that actually his attention is in the wrong area. We are focused on the victims. It is the victims who are the innocent ones in this situation, and we are focused on them. I also think that the New Zealand First contribution was pretty thoughtful and I guess my comment on that is that the whole purpose of having the bill go to the select committee is so that those issues can be teased out, discussed, and decided upon at the select committee consideration.

In a nutshell, the bill provides for a non-contact order that prohibits an offender from any form of contact with a victim and can impose conditions. Whether those conditions are tight enough or not tight enough, again, is a matter for the select committee. We have heard contributions from Labour members who talked about whether the threshold of 5 years’ imprisonment for the offender is actually the right threshold. Maybe it is too high. I do not know the answer to that, but, again, I am sure that that will be an issue that will be fully traversed at the select committee. But I have to say that if we really want to sum it up, it is totally unacceptable to have a situation where a victim of a serious crime may have unwanted contact with their attacker. That is the bottom line, because the priority has to be the victim, not the offender.

This bill is a good bill. It is not the only bill, of course. It is part of a programme, it is part of a suite, of measures. Actually, I think that, as a party on law and order, our record on crime and on victims is pretty good.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Outstanding.

Oh, “Outstanding.” says Dr Calder—outstanding. If we traverse that just momentarily, we introduced a $50 victims’ offender levy. Remember that at the time the Labour members said that it was a gimmick—a gimmick—and that it would not work. A total gimmick—“a bizarre piece of gimmickry” is what they said. Well, actually, the amount collected from that is $4.4 million.

💬 Scott Simpson: How much?

It is $4.4 million. That has been collected from the $50 offender levy. If we look at some of the programmes that have benefited from that, we have got the safe@home programme for the women and families who are at the highest risk of serious injury or death. We have got a discretionary grant to assist families of homicide victims. We have got funding for homicide support coordinators. Our record on this is outstanding, but that is not all. We have created 13 new services and entitlements for victims. We have also increased restorative justice. We have expanded the restorative justice services. They receive an extra $4.4 million. That actually means a total of an extra 2,400 conferences. In addition to that, we now have police safety orders to help prevent domestic violence. I understand that since their introduction there have been over 27,000 of these orders.

National is the party for law and order. National is the party that is focused on victims. This bill is a good bill. It is part of that suite of measures, and I certainly look forward to receiving the select committee report once it has come out after proper consultation and discussion. I commend this bill to the House.

Labour will be supporting the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, but I have got to say that we do so with some serious reservations. Kate Wilkinson touched on one of them, and that was the issue of the threshold. When I read the regulatory impact statement, I read that this bill was motivated by the case of a young woman in Invercargill who found that the person who had been convicted of her rape had moved in next door to her. Everybody in this House would understand the absolute trauma that a rape victim would suffer confronting, each day, the person who had been responsible for her rape, and there was nothing that could be done in that case, apparently. I thought, well, fair enough. The Government has admitted it has got a gap in its system and it has moved to address it.

Then I went back and read the Southland Times, and what did the Southland Times say about the person who was convicted of the rape? The Southland Times said that that person was sentenced to 4 years for the rape. Hang on, in this bill it says that this protection applies only if you have been sentenced to more than 5 years. So the very case that provoked this legislation would exclude the victim that the Associate Minister of Justice was crying crocodile tears about and saying that there was no legislation to help her. Minister, there is still no legislation that would help her in that case. So well should Kate Wilkinson come into the House and say that the threshold level might be too high—absolutely. Victim Support, the Shine organisation—Jane Drumm, the person who is the chief executive of that organisation and who worked in this field for a long time, asked why the hell the Government was bringing in legislation that would deny the protection to so many of the people who are victims of the crime that it claims the legislation is about.

I do not want to respond to Kate Wilkinson’s long litany of self-praise for what the Government has done by saying that the Government has done everything wrong. You know, all Governments, I hope, have a focus on the rights of victims and on protecting the rights of victims. But I have got to say that there are some much more fundamental things that need to be done in this area than what this scrappy little piece of legislation provides. I read, Kate Wilkinson and Chester Borrows, in the regulatory impact statement that this bill will apply to 10 cases—10 cases—a year. Well, look, for each of those cases that might be important; I am not knocking it solely on that basis. But what I am saying is do not come into the House full of self-praise about a piece of legislation that will help 10 victims when there are thousands of victims out there.

I want to go back to what Alfred Ngaro said in his speech on this bill. He said: “We’re bringing down the crime rates.” Well, I did a little bit of research. Members might be interested to know that in 2009 the Ministry of Women’s Affairs reported on the whole issue of women who suffer from sexual violation. What it said about that was that only 9 percent, or less than one in 10, of all sexual offences were ever reported to the police—9 percent. Only 9 percent of all of those dreadful crimes against women were reported to the police, but it does not even end there. Of the 9 percent that were reported and taken to the police, only 13 percent of those actually resulted in a conviction. So we are talking, probably, about the four in 100 victims of sexual violation who achieve justice under our current system.

If the Minister of Justice was really serious about the question of sexual violation of women and about how they can achieve justice and how they can be helped to recover from that, she might like to consider a couple of things, and I say this in all genuineness because these are things that we need to consider. The first thing is to ask whether our adversarial system is helpful for the hearing of cases of sexual violation and sexual assault. I would put it to the House that most women who have been traumatised by sexual violation would not want to be re-traumatised by having an adversarial system where their word is thrown into doubt. When women were asked why they did not report, they said that they did not want to suffer the trauma of sexual violation only to go to court and be disbelieved as to whether they were making it up, because in most of these instances there is no independent witness. I am not saying that people will never falsely report rape. Unfortunately—tragically—that happens. But in the vast majority of cases, the women who have suffered that trauma will not see satisfaction through our adversarial system; they will not be believed because they do not have independent witnesses.

💬 Carol Beaumont: And why would they put up with that?

So why would they go through that, as my colleague has just said?

I want to talk about restorative justice, because Kate Wilkinson said that more money has gone into restorative justice, and I truly welcome that. When, as the Minister of Justice, I talked to a group of rape survivors, they said to me: “You know, it’s not about wanting to see the offender jailed for a long period of time.”, and I was quite astounded by this. Many times these were people who were suffering from sexual violation by strangers—sometimes the so-called date rape—but it was not about revenge. The main thing they wanted was an admission by the offender that he had offended against them. Surely, that is not too much to ask. And they wanted to see remorse from the offender. Some of them said to me, and I was astounded by this—and by their personal generosity, having been through that trauma—“You know, we don’t want to see that person locked up for 14 years in prison. We do want to see their admission publicly that they have wronged me, and we do want to see that they are remorseful about what they’ve done.”

So, you know, we are dealing with a piece of legislation in the House today that is about 10 of the thousands of people who are subject to sexual assault and violation, and maybe, Minister, we should be looking at something more fundamental than that, about how we can change the nature of the wider system to help prevent this sort of abuse and to deal with it in the majority of the cases, not 5 percent of the cases. I say that not judgmentally of the Government but as a genuine expression of the problem that we have got and the failure of the system to address that.

I want to come back to what is in the bill. The need for this bill is apparently because there was a person who was the victim in this case, where the rapist moved in next door and changed the nature of her life, which made it far harder for her to recover from the trauma she had originally suffered. A protection order does not help the victim in this case because she was not the subject of domestic violence. A restraining order would not help in this case because she was not the subject of further direct harassment by the offender. So there is a gap. I accept there is a gap in the system, and I think the victim does have to come first. I listened carefully to David Clendon and I think he was making some reasonable points in a reasonable way, but the victim must always be put first.

What we have got is a bill that we have real problems with, which I want to address in the Law and Order Committee. The threshold is too high. Five years would not have helped the victim that this legislation is purportedly about and would not have helped hundreds of other victims who are automatically excluded. I ask the Government where this figure came from. Was it just arbitrarily plucked out of the air, or was it based on cost? That is what I really fear—“Well, if we limit it to 10, it won’t cost us much.” I am sorry, but if the victims come first, cost is the secondary consideration. Secondly, there is a real concern about the time between the release of the offender and the acceptance of a non-contact order application. There should be the ability to apply for non-contact orders before the release of the offender, so that the victim is not suffering from a long period of trauma until the application is heard. That is a change that I think we should look at as well.

Thirdly, I think Andrew Little is right. This places the burden on the victim both to take the initiative to seek the order and also to pay for it. If we are trying to relieve the pressures on victims, do not put the costs on victims for what they are rightly entitled to. That is the third change we need to make. The fourth change is the limited application, which I mentioned before. There are 250 offenders of serious violent and sexual offences released a year, and this will help just 10 victims. So, OK, maybe there is a good intent here, but it does not make much difference. I think the select committee has got a lot of work to do if we are truly to put the interests of victims first.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill in its first reading in the House today. It is always great to see the House getting behind a bill as the House has today, and to see a bill that has cross-party support—at least for its first reading. This bill is about victims, and victims should always come first, over offenders.

I listened to what David Clendon said. I think he was measured, but I did not agree with everything he said. I think that the balance has to go to victims, over offenders, and that victims’ rights, safety, and security must come first. I think that most of the debate today has been measured. I think there have been some really good strong points that should be debated and teased out in the Law and Order Committee. The points around when you can apply for an order, I think, are a really important issue. We do not want victims to have to relive the crime again 5 years later when the offender gets released. The point about the length of time of a conviction has been a really good point as well today. Also, in terms of getting the balance right between victims and offenders, as much as I think it should always be on the side of victims, I think it is good to have that debate as well during the select committee process. That is what it is for—to tease out all the issues that people have concerns about in the debating chamber today.

I cannot imagine for a moment what it is like to be a victim of a serious violent offence or a sexual crime. I have got no idea how a victim moves forward from that or what they go through when it happens to them, or even what their family faces when something like that has happened, or the time it takes to recover. I could not even imagine what it would be like to be that victim, with the offender loitering around my front fence. I cannot imagine meeting that person in the supermarket. I just could not imagine what that would be like. So I think this bill is very, very important.

I think this new mechanism is very important. It allows victims to obtain a non-contact order, and that puts another tool in the toolbox for victims to actually be able to move forward with their lives and to put some of this behind them. We have had debate today about how communities can be very small and what you do when you have got a victim and an offender in the same small community and they have to live together. How does that work? I hope that submitters who are in that scenario come to the select committee and tell us what types of tools we need to make this legislation even stronger.

I think that this bill is just one of many that this Government has put forward to strengthen victims in New Zealand, where they stand, what they face, and how we can help them. But I actually think our focus—and it is our focus, as a Government—should be on the prevention of crime, because with prevention of crime we have fewer offenders and we have fewer victims. That is where we are growing and it is where our outcomes are coming—with the reduction of crime in New Zealand. I think this is a fantastic bill, and I cannot wait to hear the debate in the select committee. Thank you.

I understand the next call is a split call.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. It is my pleasure to speak on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. I really want to make just a couple of really clear points. For me, central to this piece of legislation, picking up on what my colleague Katrina Shanks has just said, is, really, the question that if you commit a heinous crime such as rape, should that for ever affect your rights to live in the same community as your victim. For me, it is central to this conversation and debate that we are engaged in that that is the question to be asked.

I am not going to labour on about what prompted this and the fact that there have been some flaws in the drafting of this bill. What I really want to focus on is the whole issue about the victim needing to initiate a non-contact order. If we truly want to support victims in their rehabilitation, they should not have to be initiating non-contact orders. There is a current flaw in our criminal justice system. We have protection orders and restraining orders, but they are all about relationships that people have and victims have with their offenders. There is an anomaly in the legislation because we are talking in this instance about victims who have no relationship with the offender other than having been raped by them. So it would seem to me that to create a piece of legislation that wants to protect victims but then has victims initiate the non-contact order themselves is actually the biggest flaw in the whole design of the legislation, as it is currently worded. So the victim has to seek that non-contact order.

I note the individualism of that measure. Knowing some people who are involved in ACC through its sensitive claims unit, and the whole process of women who have been through such a trauma, trying to get on with their lives, I think that anybody who had intimate experience of that process would not be making victims apply for a non-contact order. What I hope this piece of legislation would ensure is that the criminal justice system, in fact, puts at its heart any response of people in that situation, where there is such a gap, and looks after the interests of victims in those particular circumstances. So there is an opportunity—because this bill will be referred to the Law and Order Committee, and Labour supports that—for other mechanisms to be looked at in terms of this gap in the system.

We would advocate that amendments to the Parole Act should take into consideration a systemic response, and that amendments to the Harassment Act ensure that whatever protection orders and restraining orders there are, they actually ensure victims, in this particular circumstance, are taken care of. Obviously for us, we want all of this done and that is why the parole process provides the best mechanism for these things to be in place before the person is released from jail. Essentially, what this piece of legislation does is allow a victim, after the release of the person who has perpetrated a heinous crime on them, such as rape, an opportunity to apply for a non-contact order. So I am hopeful that throughout this entire process we will keep central to this whole discussion about our response as a criminal justice system, as a community, and as legislators, the question of how we can best meet the needs of victims who do not qualify for the current mechanisms we have, to ensure that they never have to engage with the perpetrator of a crime against them.

I am hopeful that there is a lot of goodwill in the House to make sure that this piece of legislation will work to the fullest for victims and that we look at a community response to this, not an individualistic response of making victims themselves be responsible for ensuring that they live in a safe, secure environment, where their needs are central. Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and offer the Greens’ support for the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill at this stage, to enable this conversation to happen. I have been interested in the debate so far today. I think it has been constructive. I would like to acknowledge, first of all, the case that triggered the introduction of this bill, the appalling and quite heart-wrenching situation for a woman in Invercargill whose rapist moved in next door. That highlighted for us several areas for legislative review and policy and funding change. This woman actually had an indefinite protection order in place, apparently, but it did not prevent her abuser from moving in next door. The police had been for a chat and suggested he move, but stated that they could not do anything else unless he breached the order and crossed that line. In this situation, his friends had been threatening and harassing her as well, but this did not constitute a breach either. It is quite strange that in the case that has triggered the introduction of this bill, this bill will actually do nothing to solve that actual situation, because the perpetrator in that instance had been sentenced for a crime for only 4 years, which does not reach the threshold required in this bill.

The Greens have several concerns related to this bill that we are keen to explore through the select committee process, while acknowledging that there is a real problem at the moment. The concerns we have, as have been raised by Labour, are the requirement for the victim to apply for and pay for the order, rather than the State taking responsibility for the safety of victims; the situation for people in small towns where it may not be so easy to be able to define their place of living in the same way; and also the possibility that in a larger city this may create a perverse result of enabling abusers to have free rein of a city outside one specific area, and the potential that this may actually lock victims in to quite a prescribed safety zone. That may be, I think, quite a perverse result if it creates this safety zone for victims that they then become locked in to. That is certainly not something that we would want to see happen.

We are very keen to have the select committee process and to have victims and their advocates present to the Law and Order Committee to ensure that we are adequately informed on these issues. But I do want to speak now to some of the wider issues. There has been a lot of discussion around the importance of focusing on victims and the terrible situation of victims being so closely engaged with their abuser. I want to remind this House of what I believe is a completely tragic reality. Only one in 100 victims gets justice in this country. Research shows us that only seven victims out of 100 report the abuse. So we know that at the moment, because of this situation and the lack of action that has been taken around sexual abuse, most victims are on a regular basis, if not a daily basis, having to interact with their abusers because of the failure of this House and this system to actually provide them with a system where they can access justice. Of those seven out of 100 cases that are reported, only three go to court and only one results in a conviction. That is appalling—one in 100 victims in this country accesses justice. Those of that one in 100 whose offender is sentenced to over 5 years will now be able to access this protection. That is not a victim focus. Any pretence that it is is actually covering up what I believe is a massive injustice in this country.

I also would like to just speak to the fact that those who have been convicted—Kim McGregor from the Rape Prevention Education network has noted numerous instances—

I am sorry to interrupt the member. Her time has expired.

I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill in this first reading debate. As other members have canvassed, this bill brings in a much-needed and welcome measure by creating a new kind of restraining order that will protect victims of serious violent or sexual crimes from unwanted contact with their attackers. I think it is a very positive thing that both sides of the House are supporting this bill going to the Law and Order Committee. It is also positive that the debate this morning has been a balanced, measured, and constructive one.

New Zealanders have an absolute right to feel safe in their homes as they enjoy life in any of the diverse and thriving communities that make up our great country. I would say to the members Ms Logie and Mr Clendon, who have spoken about the difficulty of applying this to small towns in New Zealand, that that right to feel safe in your home and your community applies to every community in New Zealand equally, be they in the big cities, the main centres, the provincial towns, small villages, or rural hamlets.

I am proud to be a member of a National team that is building a safer New Zealand. This bill is one small part of a comprehensive programme of reform that is designed to protect our communities, to prevent crime, and to put victims first. These measures are having real effect. We see crime rates now at a generational low—a once-in-30-years low—so I am very pleased to see this bill adding further to that progress that we are making.

This bill establishes a clear and practical process to enable any victim of a violent crime—and, specifically, victims of offences of a sexual nature—to obtain a non-contact order against the person who attacked them. Such an order will be available in any case where the perpetrator has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of 5 years or more. I actually have to acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member Denis O’Rourke in querying whether that time frame is appropriate. I will certainly be going into the select committee hearings with an open mind on that issue and interested in hearing evidence on that particular issue.

These non-contact orders will ban offenders from having any form of contact with a victim. This can be used to stop an offender from entering a specified area or from living or working in a particular place, and—this is an issue that has not really been canvassed yet—the District Court will be empowered to impose any reasonable conditions or directions that it considers necessary in the individual circumstances. I think that this level of common-sense flexibility is a very positive thing. Strong sanctions will exist where there is a breach of a non-contact order, with a maximum of up to 2 years’ imprisonment for repeated breaches. Again, I think that this is a necessary measure, because without teeth any legislative measure does not have real impact.

I would like to congratulate the excellent Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins and her ministerial justice sector team. I look forward to considering the bill in more detail at the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is so ably chaired by my esteemed colleague Scott Simpson. I commend this bill for consideration.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.