Victims of Crime Reform Bill

This bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, is an omnibus bill in four parts, amending the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, the Parole Act 2002, and the Sentencing Act 2002. The proposals will strengthen existing legislation for victims of crime. Agencies working with victims will be made more accountable and responsive to victims’ needs.

This bill supports the Government’s work programme to reduce the impact of crime on victims. This programme includes our Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, the Parole Amendment Bill, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill, the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill, and the Harmful Digital Communications Bill—all of which will put victims first. Our Better Public Services targets also focus on identifying victims who are at high risk of repeat victimisation and providing them with specialist services and support to help keep them safe.

This Government continues to work on a range of initiatives to provide additional support to victims. We have introduced the sexual violence court victims adviser service in courts around New Zealand and the offender levy, which funds 15 entitlements and services for victims of serious offences, and have enacted the Crimes Amendment Act (No 3) to strengthen offences related to violence against children. A victim centre has been established in the Ministry of Justice to purchase services and support for victims of serious crime, oversee victims’ rights and services, and act as the Government’s central point of coordination for victims’ issues.

I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its thorough consideration of this bill and the sensible amendments it proposed. The committee received 34 written submissions and heard 12 oral submissions. A number of the oral submissions were from victims of crime and their families, and I want to thank those people for their courage and their willingness to share their experiences with the excellent committee, chaired by Mr Scott Simpson MP.

I note that most submitters supported the bill, stating that it marks a positive step forward for advancing victims’ rights. Some submitters thought that it did not go far enough to address victims’ needs in the criminal justice system. Others commented that further changes are needed to the system itself.

It is important to note that New Zealand has an adversarial system. The Crown prosecutes the accused in a fair and open court to ensure just convictions in the interests of society. The bill appropriately preserves the requirement for a balanced and independent prosecution, while acknowledging the need for a system that is more transparent and responsive to victims’ needs. The Victims Code required through the bill and the victim impact statement guidelines being developed will help manage this balance and will clarify victims’ rights and entitlements.

The committee made a number of recommendations to widen the support provided to victims and to improve processes to better address victims’ needs and wishes. Part 1 of the bill amends the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 to ensure victims are better informed of their rights, improves the functions of the victims notification system, and widens the scope of what victims may say in their victim impact statement.

Improvements to victim notification will increase requirements to ensure agencies have up-to-date information to notify victims. Further amendments recommended by the committee will improve notification for victims of crimes committed by perpetrators who are detained in facilities other than prisons. This will ensure that victims are informed when the perpetrator reaches a stage in their treatment that involves reintegration into the community.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 to ensure that victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. A core feature of this is increasing the support of victims at hearings of Youth Court, which is currently a closed court. The Justice and Electoral Committee also recommended that victims and their representatives be entitled to bring support persons to Youth Court hearings, rather than having to seek prior permission from the judge.

Part 3 of the bill amends the Parole Act 2002 to ensure that victims are informed about an offender being considered for release on parole and about how they can participate effectively in the parole hearing process. The bill will restore rights and entitlements that were inadvertently removed by the Parole Amendment Act 2007.

Part 4 of the bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 to enable victims to be compensated for losses not covered by ACC and to provide more opportunities for victims to participate in restorative justice. Restorative justice provisions have been improved to focus on the wishes of the victim. Evidence shows that restorative justice can result in positive outcomes for victims and offenders, and it is a further opportunity for victims to actively participate in proceedings. However, restorative justice will not be appropriate or desirable for some victims, and it is important that individual needs are taken into account. The committee recommended that the victim’s wishes be specifically included in any inquiry into restorative justice.

I believe that the amendments recommended by the committee effectively acknowledge the concerns raised by submitters. Once again I would like to thank the committee members and their chair for the work that they have done on this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

The issue of victims’ rights in our criminal justice system has been a subject of much debate over many years now. Much of the victims’ rights legislation that we have has been the product of previous Labour Governments, because Labour has always taken that issue seriously, unlike the present Government. This issue has been presided over by the laziest Minister of Justice we have had in 40 years—the laziest Minister of Justice we have had in 40 years. This bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, is just another example of a Minister of Justice who, once again, fails to get to grips with the real issue at hand. She is quite happy to go tripping off to Shanghai, supping up tea with her husband’s mates, endorsing their products, and breaching the Cabinet Manual. She is quite happy to do that, but when it comes down to sitting down and taking seriously the issue of victims’ rights, she will not do it. This is yet another piece of victims’ rights legislation from this Government that is piecemeal, that is ad hoc, that lacks coherence, and that is just doing bit by little bit by little bit. It is time that we actually had a Minister of Justice—such as is usually supplied by the Labour Government—who takes the issue seriously and is prepared to look at the issue as a whole and come up with a set of solutions that actually address the problems that victims are talking to the Government and, indeed, all MPs about.

I should say, notwithstanding our support for this bill—because, after all, something, even a little something, is better than nothing—that this bill clearly does not go far enough. This bill does not go far enough. It is interesting that the Minister should proudly boast about the new aspects in relation to restorative justice, but let us see what it says in clause 6 of the bill about restorative justice. In new section 9 to the Victims Rights Act 2002—another fantastic piece of Labour legislation—it says that “A member of court staff, a Police employee, or, if appropriate, a probation officer must, if satisfied that the necessary resources are available, refer the request …” for restorative justice. There is no guarantee to victims of crime that they will have access to restorative justice. It all depends on somebody else being available to deliver it or some other resources being available in a ministry and, in fact, in an entire Government bureaucracy that is slowly being crimped, scrimped, and squeezed, and that has no money to do anything. That is a hollow promise. This bill provides a hollow promise to victims of crime who would like to pursue the avenue of restorative justice. That is hardly surprising when you have a lazy Minister of Justice who passes this legislation through her consideration and through Cabinet without hardly a by your leave. No further consideration was given by the Minister on this. She just lets it sail through with a hollow promise to those victims of crime who want to seek a restorative justice response.

She talks about compensation for costs for victims. There is a limited scope in this bill at the sentencing stage for some reparation of costs, but that is not the issue. What victims have been calling for is some advocacy assistance to negotiate the criminal justice system from the outset. From the time that they suffer a crime or are the victim of a crime and they are interviewed by the police or come into contact with the police because a family member or a close friend is the victim of a crime, what they want is someone to assist them through the machinations of the criminal justice system. That is not provided for here. What they need to know is that if they have to go to court either to witness and observe it or to be a witness at it, they will have their reasonable costs met. That is not provided for, or at least not guaranteed, in this bill. This bill is inadequate when it comes to reform of victims’ rights.

The promise that Labour makes is that we will have a comprehensive, cohesive, and coherent piece of legislation covering all victims’ rights, so that a victim of crime knows that the minute they become attached to the justice system, through no choice or fault of their own, they will have assistance, they will know what the mechanism is, and they will be led through. It is great to have some of these things here, to have improvements in terms of victim impact statements, and to know that you can present your victim impact statement with limited ability for it to be amended, curtailed, or, indeed, shut out at all. That is all good stuff. But, actually, what victims most need is to understand how the system works and to understand why it is that a defendant can get access to criminal legal aid, whereas they, as the victim, might not get any assistance at all. They need to know that. Actually, they need to know that they can get some assistance if they are out of pocket for having to go to court to hear or watch the defendants of the crime that they are part of put to justice. That is not guaranteed in this bill.

So although this bill does some things, although it helps in terms of victim impact reports, and although it helps in terms of those appearing in the Youth Court, it does not go anywhere near far enough. It is time that we actually have a Minister of Justice who is prepared to deal with the real problems when it comes to criminal justice and the place of victims in it. We have to do more than just more incremental change. We actually need to have a Government that listens to victims. We need to have a Government that listens to victims. It is all very well that in relation to perpetrators of crime and those who are convicted of it, this Government has done some things in that regard. I am not sure how much consultation it had with the Sensible Sentencing Trust in that regard, because it does not talk much about when it talks to the Sensible Sentencing Trust. But when it comes to victims—when it comes to victims—this Government is big on words and is big on promises, but, actually, it is just little by little. In fact, it is far too little and often far too late. We need to see something that is a lot more and a lot better.

The issue for most victims is that they do not choose to be part of the criminal justice system; they are there because of the actions of another. The biggest deterrent to crime, as we know, is detection and bringing people before the courts. Victims need to know that when that happens—when they have been burgled, assaulted, violently harmed, or, indeed, when they are the family member or close friend of somebody who has been killed at the hands of another—they can get the means to understand the system, be assisted through it, and have any cost that they unfairly face or reasonably face properly defrayed.

We know that as this bill went through, the Law Society expressed some concern about the courts system, and particularly sentencing, turning into a free-for-all, and we need to know that the voice of victims is going to be heard but that it will not compromise the efficacious and good running of the criminal justice system. But let us go back to the critical point. It is high time after 20 years of debating and making incremental change to victims’ rights to come up with a comprehensive and cohesive package. Nothing less will do. This Government will not do it. Labour will do it because it is needed and it is overdue. We will hear in the rest of this debate about some of the most serious victims of crime—that is, the victims of sexual crime. Their needs are very special and need to be heard and understood, and other members from Labour will talk about that. We will pass this bill but we will build upon it and come up with something good for all New Zealanders and all victims of crime.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill in the name of the very hard-working and best Minister of Justice we have had in many, many years, the Hon Judith Collins. “Too little, too late” was the slogan they used in New Plymouth at the last election, and we have heard another “too little, too late” speech tonight from the member across the House who has just resumed his seat, Andrew Little. In New Zealand we are rightly proud of our criminal justice system, and although we must preserve its excellence, we also need to make sure that the system is not immune from the need to modernise and to change as requirements change in society.

This is a Government that is very proud to put victims first in our criminal justice system. For too long the victims have been bystanders in a judicial system that they have not really felt party to or connected to in any meaningful way. One thing that the previous speaker did mention was that victims are not there in our criminal justice system voluntarily, and, indeed, they are not. For too long our system has not placed enough focus or emphasis on victims, and this bill seeks to change the law relating to the victims of crime and give victims a much greater voice within our criminal justice system.

This Government was elected to improve the justice system, amongst many other things, and so a major focus of the work that this administration has been doing in terms of improving public services has been in the justice sector. Victims of crime absolutely do not choose to be participants in the criminal justice system. They are, at best, reluctant participants. They are there, by definition, because they have suffered an inconvenience, as an absolute minimum, but more often far worse suffering has occurred. This is a Government that puts victims first and we are not embarrassed or ashamed by it. We are not soft on crime.

Exactly what does this bill do? Well, it expands the rights of victims who have been subjected to serious criminal offences. It gives victims a much greater opportunity to be involved in the system rather than just be mere bystanders. Victims will be much better informed about their rights and their ability to be active participants within the system. Most members of the public would be, I suspect, astounded if they went and visited a court, because, until recently, until this Government started meaningful and real reform and modernisation of our court system, people observing a criminal court process would have seen a rigid, complicated, user-unfriendly workplace. Under previous Labour administrations they would have seen a culture that seemed to tolerate waste, delay, and frustration for victims. Those people who suffer most from those failings have, of course, been the victims and they suffered most during what was an already traumatic event or period in their life. This bill expands their rights and it does so appropriately and accordingly.

The Justice and Electoral Committee came up with several recommendations to improve the scope of the support provided to victims, and I am very pleased with the work the committee did. It was another example of the select committee process working to the advantage of the New Zealand public in terms of producing, I think, a better piece of legislation. One of the areas that is most worthwhile is the area of impact statements where matters such as photographs, drawings, and other visual representations will now be able to be included in an impact statement, and I think that is a very progressive and forward aspect of this bill. I could go on for a great deal longer but I do not want to further take the time of the House. I commend this bill thoroughly to the House and suggest that it be adopted forthwith.

I rise to speak, along with my colleagues, in support of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill in the second reading. This bill, as others have said, is a step forward, albeit incrementally. This bill has been a long time in gestation, shall we say—and I will come back to that in a minute—but certainly there is no sense that any of the reforms in this bill will be harmful. They will improve the situation for victims of crime to a greater or lesser extent.

As my colleague Andrew Little has said, however, a future Labour Government will want to look at changes that are more than just incremental. There is a need for victims to have a greater role in the criminal justice process because there is a lack of a visible complaints process at the moment and a lack of oversight of victims’ rights. As we would all agree in this House, victims of crime did not ask to be put in that situation. They are not responsible for that situation. They often have to go through very gruelling processes, and we would want to support them. In fact, it is fair to say that the changes that have been put in place for victims of crime have actually all happened under Labour Governments, so it is important that all those who get into the rhetoric of being tough on crime and all of those things actually look at the facts.

This particular bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, actually arose following an inquiry that the Labour Government of the time put in place. It was actually the Justice and Electoral Committee, chaired by Lynne Pillay, that did an inquiry into victims’ rights in 2007 and highlighted some of the issues that are now being addressed in this bill. She noted at the time—and I think that it is actually quite an important point to put on the table—the need for a bipartisan approach on the issue of the interests of victims of crime. I think that is a point that is well worth thinking about. Certainly tonight I am sure we will find across this House agreement for the changes that are in this bill.

You would not think that caring for victims of crime was a priority, as those across the other side of the House are saying, given the way this bill has gone through this House. This is another thing that is disappointing. In fact, I had almost forgotten that I had spoken on the first reading of this bill, which took place in October 2011. That is right; October 2011 was when the first reading of this bill took place, after being introduced in August of that year. It was then referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which presented a report back in June 2012. Since that time this bill about helping victims of crime has languished on the Order Paper, so it does not actually give a real sense of any real priority. There are a number of pieces of legislation—

💬 Tim Macindoe: I think the member has the date wrong.

Is that right?

💬 Tim Macindoe: I think so.

Well, I will check that. But, anyway, we get a sense of what the Government’s priorities are that a bill that was introduced—and this is correct, I say to the whip across the House—in August 2011 and referred to the select committee in October of that year is having a second reading—

💬 Tim Macindoe: The House wasn’t sitting, because there was an election campaign happening.

There has been quite some time since that election. However, it is not the only example of things that should have been a priority that have been delayed by this Government. Let me give you another one. What about legislation to try to restrict the activities of those who prey on families, vulnerable families, by predatory lending practices—those people also known as loan sharks? The Government was going to get tough on them in 2011 as well. There is still no legislation through this House on that issue either. It says a lot. Who is it whom this Government governs for? Well, it is not the victims of crime and it is not the people being harmed by loan sharks. Those people are often in low-income areas. Truck shops—if you happen to see them in low-income areas, you will know the damage they do. That is another piece of legislation that has languished after a very long process to even get it introduced into the House. What I am asking is who it is whom this Government prioritises. Well, it is certainly its corporate mates and not ordinary New Zealanders, and that is something that will be very different under a Labour Government.

The legislation itself actually does some things that are useful. It strengthens the existing general provisions. It expands the rights of victims in serious offences. It gives victims more opportunity to be involved in criminal justice processes and ensures that they are better informed of their rights, and it increases the accountability and responsiveness of Government agencies that are providing services to victims of crime. So that is useful. But, as my colleague Andrew Little said, there is more that needs to be done, and we would take bolder steps.

Our adversarial criminal system does not really serve the interests of victims well, and it is possible to make modifications that do not damage the fundamental nature of that system. Certainly, there are issues like advocates for the victim, which would not violate the balance inherent in the adversarial system but would give greater protection to victims of crime and greater support to them. Another issue is around providing greater support for, and recognition of, Victim Support, which does a good job with very limited resources. These are some of the areas that this bill does not go near and that need to be addressed.

I want to move on to the issue of a particular group of victims of crime, and that is those who are victims of sexual violence. There have been some horrific examples in recent months. There has been a lot of coverage in the media. There has been a lot of public outcry, quite rightly. There was a series in the Sunday Star-Times called “1 in 100”, because 90 percent of sexual offences go unreported. Of those that are reported, about 10 percent actually lead to a conviction. The victims of sexual violence are among those who have the hardest time in the criminal justice system because of the nature of the crime committed against them, and because often they are the key witness as well as the victim of that crime.

What is the Government doing? Well, actually, the Government is doing nothing. There are things that should be done immediately, which include support services for those who have been victims of sexual violence and funding those organisations properly. That could be done now while the select committee does the work of looking at sustainable funding. We do not have to wait until the outcome of that select committee work to provide some interim support now. What about rape prevention education? Less than 50 percent of the schools in Auckland have any sort of rape prevention education. It would really make a difference. If we could reduce the level of sexual violence in this country, which is very high, and if we could make sure that issues like respect in relationships, healthy relationships, and consent are issues that we deal with and have a culture of change about, then that would make a difference. That would reduce the number of victims of sexual violence. But the Government is doing nothing to deal with those issues.

There are also changes that could be made now to the way that our police officers deal with sexual violence and sexual crimes. There are things about them playing a greater role in prevention. We are still awaiting results from the review of the way that they handled the Roast Busters case, but certainly there is a need for improved behaviour and work by the police. This is not to undermine the fact that there are some good initiatives there.

There are changes that need to be made in terms of the Crimes Act—for example, issues around the legal definition of consent and looking at that whole issue. But I know that most people listening to this will know that the victims of sexual violence have a very, very hard road in dealing with the crimes against them and dealing with the aftermath of them. The costs—the personal costs—of those crimes on the individual, on their family, and on our communities are huge. We need to make sure that we are doing more.

It is also the economic costs of those sorts of crimes. There are estimates that each incident of sexual violence costs the country $72,000. It makes sense for us to be doing more in this area, but the Government is failing to act.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take, I think, my first call on this Victims of Crime Reform Bill. This bill has lingered a while. The dates of the previous speaker, Carol Beaumont, were quite correct, according to my records, as well. I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee, but it is a bill the Greens will be supporting because it does some good, but only some. I would not go so far as to say it also does some harm, but there are provisions in this legislation that will be at least problematic, particularly around victim impact statements, and I will say some more about that later.

Essentially, the bill is a very incremental approach. It is a bitser approach. It adds a little here; it takes away a little there. It is not the comprehensive look at victims’ rights and improving our justice system generally that is really what is wanted, and I am afraid I cannot share Mr Simpson’s glowing opinion of our justice system. In international terms, yes, it is very robust and it has some excellent qualities, but it is far from ideal. There is a great deal more we could be doing and, indeed, should be doing.

I was pleased to hear Mr Little say that the Labour Party is committed to a comprehensive review of all of the issues around victims and, indeed, the dispensation of justice. I will hold Mr Little to that when we have a new Government next year. I recall in 2005 the passing of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, which the Greens supported with a sunset clause on the reassurance that it would lead to a comprehensive overview of victims’ rights. Sadly, that did not occur and still has not occurred. So we look forward to the time when we will be able to initiate that to have a clean-sheet look at how we can do better in terms of dealing with offenders and ensuring that victims are given the best possible treatment.

This legislation talks a lot about victims’ impact statements—giving people the right to say their piece in court, to express their views and their feelings, and to address the offender directly and speak to them in terms of what the offending has meant to that person who is the victim of that offending. On the face of it, that is a good thing and for many people it will be cathartic. But it can also be quite a frustrating and also quite a limiting experience. If a person is there delivering their statement, looking at an offender who might be giggling, pulling faces, or clearly not in the least bit moved or concerned about the statement, that will not be helpful for the well-being of the victim. So the impact statements, although at one level, at a superficial level, are a good thing, they are somewhat more complex perhaps than this bill would have us believe or, indeed, than is reflected in the text in the provisions of the bill.

I note that there was some concern from the judges, or from some elements of the judiciary, about the original drafting of the bill, which almost seemed to indicate that the judge should listen carefully and respond to the victims’ comments about sentencing. Of course, it is up to the judges, to the judiciary, to make sentencing decisions, and the judges were very nervous about the idea that somehow the victim might believe that they have an opportunity to influence the judge’s sentencing.

On that note, I think some of the commentary we got at the time that was given to the committee by Kim Workman from the Rethinking Crime and Punishment organisation was quite helpful and quite insightful, as ever. In that contribution there is a reference to an assumption—what Mr Workman calls a flawed assumption—that there is an imbalance between offenders’ rights and victims’ rights, and that in order to restore the balance between victims’ and offenders’ rights, it is necessary to reduce offenders’ rights. That is a very muddled set of thinking, but that thinking is very prevalent and we see it constantly and, dare I say it, we saw it today at the committee, hearing commentary from some of the submitters. The correct move, of course, is to advance the rights of victims and do all we can for them. It is not a trade-off. We do not have to be so-called tougher on crime or tougher on offenders, in order to ensure that victims get a good outcome and a fairer outcome.

There is a lot of reference in this bill to the rights of victims to do such things as be informed about sentencing and about the potential release on parole of an offender. If an offender absconds or, indeed, dies in prison or is about to be released, the victim has a right to know that, according to this legislation. That is a good thing. There is also reference to a code for victims so that we can be assured that victims are told their rights and legal processes. But, somehow, a lot of that feels like events have overtaken the legislation. Most of that is common practice now, and one wonders almost at the necessity for this legislation. Perhaps it simply codifies best practice or current practice. I am not really sure on that. But it does seem to have been overtaken by events a little bit.

I guess one of my concerns about this legislation is that to some extent it almost seeks to define the victim as a victim rather than as a person who has been offended against. There is a difference in that. We do not want people to be trapped into this self-awareness or this perception that they are a victim and will remain so for ever and ever. Yes, people are victimised by crime, but it is important that that does not become the defining characteristic of their self-identity. I think some of the—well-intentioned, perhaps—provisions in this bill actually take us down that road. I am fortunate; I have never been the victim of a serious crime. Probably the nastiest thing that has happened to me is that I had a motorcycle stolen that I had invested quite a lot of time and money into. I was seriously concerned about it for an afternoon. Capital punishment for motorcycle thieves just briefly seemed not a bad idea. But I got over that; I was not defined by that crime against me. In all seriousness, even for people who do suffer and who are victims of very serious offences, they ought not to have that as their defining characteristic of them as people.

I referred to Mr Kim Workman’s contribution, and I am a great fan of Rethinking Crime and Punishment. It talks about restorative justice, and this is at the heart of the Greens’ approach to justice and justice processes: to seek to restore both the offender and the victim, because working with both together in the context of a community is likely to generate much better outcomes and longer-term outcomes, and restorative justice processes are proven everywhere in the world to reduce recidivism, often by as much as 20 percent. I am sure we all agree that that would be a positive move here.

I think we need to move away as much as we can from the adversarial system. The Minister of Justice, when introducing the bill, did make the obvious comment and affirm that we have an adversarial system, and I think that is something in the longer term that we need to think through. Is that the best way? But in terms of resolving these issues to the extent that they are adversarial, there is always a winner and a loser, and I think we need to move away from that. The heart of restorative justice is about the offender taking responsibility for their offending, feeling a degree of shame and contrition, and committing to doing better in the future and to not reoffend. It is important that the victim of the crime feels that they have been somehow redeemed and that they have an acknowledgment, because, again, the research tells us that people typically are not looking for compensation in a material sense; they just want somebody to take responsibility and to recognise that people have done some harm, and then they can move on and get on with their lives, hopefully in a context where they are unlikely to be revictimised either by another offender or indeed by the judicial system. That is a very real danger. The justice system can actually have the effect of revictimising people if we are not very careful about how we do that.

Finally, I quote Mr Workman and his submission at the time. Talking about the belief that decisions in relation to conviction and sentencing should be determined more upon an objective view of offending than a subjective view of the victim, he said it is unwise to allow victims, in the heat of the moment, to make law. That is our task. It must be objective, it must be done with integrity, and I look forward to a time when we can have a comprehensive look at victims’ rights and get it right. Kia ora.

Pō mārie. I will take a very brief call on this bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, because I think it has been very well explained and well canvassed by the member introducing the bill, the Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins, and also by our excellent and diligent chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Scott Simpson, who went into some detail about the provisions within the bill.

I do feel that I should also rebut some of the suggestions from the Opposition that we do not take victims’ rights seriously, because that could not be further from the truth. If you look at the work that this Government has done, including introducing the offender levy of $50, which contributes towards programmes that support victims, and other measures, including the introduction of public protection orders and other changes that we have made to legislation, there has been consistent and continual improvement over the last few years of this Government in terms of the treatment of victims in the justice system.

I want to focus on a particular part of this bill that I think is most important and very welcome, which is the way that victims are defined. Mr Clendon referred to the definition of victims, but I think it is very important that the change involving domestic violence be introduced. That is, children who are not necessarily the personal victim of an attack but who witness their mum being beaten by their dad, or a child who is in a household where domestic violence is happening, will be allowed to receive the support that the victim of another sort of a crime might receive.

Another part that will be particularly useful for those younger and more vulnerable victims is the ability to submit photographs, drawings, or visual representations as part of a victim impact statement. There are few things more heart-rending or moving than seeing a crayon or pencil or felt-tip drawing made by a child to explain the impacts of the offending against them by an offender, particularly in cases of domestic violence. This is a very good bill and I commend it unreservedly to the House.

The Victims of Crime Reform Bill amends and improves the Victims’ Rights Act 2002; the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989; the Parole Act 2002; and the Sentencing Act 2002 to better provide for victims of crime generally; to “broaden the rights of victims of serious offences; provide more opportunities for victims to be involved in criminal justice processes; ensure victims are better informed of their rights; increase responsible government agencies’ accountability and responsiveness to victims”; and to “apply consistent victim rights in adult and youth criminal jurisdictions.” These are very good objectives.

The Justice and Electoral Committee has made some sensible amendments to the bill as it affects the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. It has amended the definition of “address” in clause 4(1) to remove the reference to text messaging, and that makes sense. It is difficult to confirm that a text message has been sent and received, and text messages can be intercepted by other people. Cellphone numbers change frequently and may be reassigned. For all those reasons, it is unwise to allow text messaging as an electronic means of sending notices. Clause 10 of the bill is also amended to ensure that reference to all of a victim’s contact details in court would be restricted to ensure their privacy, and they will appreciate that. In clause 12 a new section 17 will now require the prosecutor to find out from any victim all relevant information about the victim’s injuries, property loss, or damage and other effects of the offence so this can be taken into account for the purposes of the Act and, in particular, under new section 21, inserted by clause 15, for consideration of those matters for sentencing purposes. That is, of course, as it should be.

There are also several worthwhile amendments and improvements to this Act in the requirements for notice to victims where offenders are released from detention, abscond, are released on bail, are recalled, are convicted of breaches of bail, or die. In clause 21, section 37(2) of the principal Act will now specify that a victim of crime committed by a person or offender who is compulsorily detained in a hospital or facility must be given two notifications about a person’s leave—firstly, the first unescorted leave of absence outside the grounds of the hospital or facility, and, secondly, their first unescorted overnight leave of absence. I think that is an important amendment that ensures that victims would be informed when a detainee was reaching the stage where their treatment is involving a transition back into the life of the community. Victims need to be aware of this and should not have to find out through the news media or some other informal source.

Moving on to the amendments to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, one welcome amendment to that Act is clause 38, which amends section 329 to allow victims and their representatives to bring in “any 1 or more support persons (subject to any limitation on numbers imposed by the Judge)” to Youth Court hearings as of right, without having to seek the permission of the judge. Section 329 has been a disincentive to victims having the support they have so often needed, and there has been no purpose in the consent of the court having been required, so that is a good new provision.

Another important change to the Act is the new clauses 38A and 38B. Clause 38A requires victims of offences committed by a child or young person to be notified should that child or young person abscond. Clause 38B requires that victims of offences committed by a child or young person be notified should that person die in a youth residence. Again, it would be most unsatisfactory if a victim had to find out about things like that from the news media or some informal source.

With regard to the Parole Act 2002, the committee—very necessarily, I think—amended Part 3 of the bill to restore the victim’s rights and entitlements that were incorrectly removed by the Parole Amendment Act 2007, so these will be reinstated as to victims’ participation in the parole hearing process. Victims will therefore be informed about the process and how they can participate. They will be informed of their right to be interviewed and so on. All of those, I think, are very important things to reinstate, and it is strange that they were ever deleted in the first place.

Lastly, amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 are aimed at improving the restorative justice process. Clause 44 inserts a new section 24A, requiring the court to adjourn proceedings to allow an inquiry to determine whether restorative justice is an appropriate thing to do in the circumstances of the case. I agree that it is important that consideration be given to whether a victim wishes to participate in a restorative justice process, because they do not always wish to do that. The amendment now explicitly includes “the wishes of the victims” among the matters that the inquiry must consider. You would have thought that was common sense to do, but it did not used to happen, and now it will.

Overall, New Zealand First sees this bill as another very welcome step forward in the emerging movement to do more to support and to consider the rights and needs of the victims of crime. The one area I think we have possibly not thought about enough is where nobody is convicted of a crime but where there is a victim and where there has certainly been a crime. Perhaps we need to give more thought to how we support people in those circumstances. But at least this bill provides some very welcome and very positive steps forward. The committee received and considered 34 submissions and heard 12 submissions. It has been a good process, and this will be a good piece of legislation as a result. For all those reasons, New Zealand First unreservedly supports it.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. I thank you and I rise to take a call on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill in its second reading. I want to acknowledge our colleague over there Mr Denis O’Rourke and his comments. As he said, he unreservedly supports this bill. This is a good bill. A Minister and a chair and a committee worked hard to ensure that we heard the submissions that had been made.

One of the points that Mr O’Rourke raised, which I think is quite important, is that Labour members on the other side did talk about the fact that in 2007—Lynne Pillay was the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee at that time—when they made the Parole Amendment Act 2007, there were inadvertent unintended consequences, so we are amending those. Although we have talked about the things that they have done, this is the thing that we are changing. I think that is important, because what it does is ensure that victims are informed about their considerations and about prisoners’ release on parole, so that they can participate effectively in the parole hearing process.

Just one other thing that I think is important about this bill is the code for victims. I want to acknowledge David White, who was in Parliament today and who spoke at our select committee. He is one of the many victims of crime, and as they share their stories we see that it is important to get this right. This Government has worked hard to do that. The select committee has worked hard to ensure that victims are at the heart of the justice system, so that they can be participants rather than bystanders. I support this bill in its second reading in the House.

I rise to speak to the Victims of Crime Reform Bill as a relatively recent member of the Justice and Electoral Committee—in fact, so recent that I was not on the select committee when this bill was first referred to it. I have been on that committee for only the best part of a year, perhaps—or perhaps less than that—but that points to one of the issues that I do want to raise about this, and that is the tardiness with which this bill has come to the House.

It was introduced on 18 August 2011. It was then referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and the report was presented on 27 June 2012. After the date of introduction, and then, of course, there was the first reading, it sounds to me as if the Justice and Electoral Committee proceeded in a suitably thoughtful but timely way, as is the habit of the chairperson, to consider this bill. The report on it was presented on 27 June 2012, and here we are on 5 March 2014. What is it, I wonder, that has suddenly provoked the Minister of Justice to resurrect this piece of legislation? Why has it suddenly become a priority, when it has not been since 27 June 2012?

💬 Kris Faafoi: Do you have a theory?

I do have a theory on this, as it happens. I do have a theory. I think it has more to do with knee-jerk reactions to polls than it has to do with anything else. I think it is also to do with the things that the Minister considers important, and she considers them important only when there have been dramatic and affecting headlines in the newspaper that would cause her to say: “Gosh! Don’t I have a bill about this somewhere in my back pocket? Perhaps it’s time I brought it out, because we can get a lot of sympathy votes—a lot of sympathy votes—if we start parading a piece of legislation that talks about the victims of crime.”

I do not want to detract from the merit of the bill at all. We support it. It has some very good measures in it, and, as other legislation in this area has done, it incrementally improves the response of our judicial system and our court processes to addressing the needs of the victims of crime. But I do wonder whether this Government is ever motivated by anything other than cynicism—anything other than simply putting its finger in the wind, trying to find out which way the polls are blowing, what are the critical issues, and then suddenly deciding: “Gosh! It’s time we rescued this from the bottom of the Order Paper, because then we can make a fanfare about all the things that we have done for the victims of crime.”

One is inclined to say “5 long years” about this because, in fact, it comes out of work that was originally done by the Labour Government in 2007 when the select committee at the time decided to do a review and an inquiry into victims of crime and the assistance that they receive. The National Party took that and made fun of it, boycotted its activities, and poured scorn on it. But, in fact, it now has the temerity to pull it out of the bag—out of Minister Collins’ handbag—and present it now in advance of an election simply so that, first of all, National can get a sympathy vote and support from people who have been victims of crime. That is perhaps the worst form of cynicism that a Government can display.

Secondly, this is so that it can parade to the electorate that it is being strong on law and order, because one can bet one’s bottom dollar that law and order is starting to emerge again on the National Party’s polling radar as an issue of importance.

💬 Kris Faafoi: That old chestnut.

So that old chestnut, as my colleague says, is being trotted out once more in advance of an election. I wish that things were not thus, but they are. I have to say that the Minister of Justice, who is in charge of this bill, is probably the supreme master—second only to Nick Smith, I imagine—for escalating issues in response to polling and to some external driver rather than anything internal, like thinking that this is the right thing to do. Nick Smith has started to behave in his typically manic way around housing and housing affordability only because it is high up on the National Party’s polling radar. National knows, finally—after 5 long years—that housing affordability is a critical issue. Well, this is getting the same litmus test as that.

Although it is a shame that this is the kind of thing that motivates the Government, can I say that as a relative newcomer to the Justice and Electoral Committee, I have had a look at the report of the select committee, I have had a look at the notes surrounding this bill, and we will support it. It does the kinds of things that we prepared the Government to do right back in 2007. It was introduced in 2011, 4 years on from the 2007 work of the select committee, and now in 2014 it is finally coming to fruition. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to support this bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, because it places victims of crime at the centre of the justice system and provides proposals to further enhance the rights and services provided to the victims of crime. This is an excellent bill presented by and led by a hard-working—and, might I add, an excellent—Minister of Justice.

Crime affects society and, in that regard, everybody else, but it is the victim who is on the receiving end who pays the ultimate price. Any member who has been exposed to media reports should support this bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. It is regrettable that the good work of the previous Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, has not been continued in an effective manner. It is disappointing that it took more than a year and a half for the bill to get to its second reading after it was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. In 2007, under the Labour Government, the Justice and Electoral Committee conducted an inquiry into victims’ rights. The inquiry highlighted some of the issues that have been eventually addressed by this bill.

There are some problems with our justice system. Our adversarial criminal justice system is bipartite, and the problem is that it seems to recognise only the accused and the prosecution. It is not fair to the victims and their families. Victims feel marginalised by the court system, and their anguish is often exacerbated by the justice process and the adversarial criminal justice system. Victims and their families have to deal with their ongoing trauma, and often they have to deal with that long after a crime has faded from public memory. Borrowing Mr Power’s words: “With the State prosecuting offenders on behalf of victims and the community, victims can feel sidelined.” He said: “Victims can find the criminal justice system bewildering and have expressed frustration and a sense of helplessness in the face of a system that is slow and unresponsive to their needs.” We have been exposed to a number of such reports in the media.

At the moment victims of violence and other serious offences must ask permission from the judge to read out victim impact statements. They are often banned from mentioning a range of details, and some victims have been left upset after the police or the judge have heavily edited or censored their statements. The victims were also critical of the limitations they faced in the courts when preparing the victim impact statement. They believed that victims should have the right to say whatever they felt in the victim impact statements. The bill will give victims more freedom to express their feelings in their own words. The bill makes it an automatic right for victims to read a statement before sentencing. The victims of a crime committed by a child or young person can now submit a statement to the Youth Court and attend a hearing.

A victims code will be established, which the police, the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development, the Labour Department, Crown Law Office, etc., will all have to adhere to. After hearing that all these different organisations and ministries are not synchronised in any way, it does make sense that this bill seeks to set up a victims centre as a one-stop shop for services. I agree with what the previous Minister of Justice, Mr Simon Power, said, which is that we could never legislate away the pain and suffering faced by victims. However, the reforms introduced under this bill will help ensure that victims are not re-brutalised by their participation in the process.

I hope I get through a few words before the end of the evening. The Green Party will be supporting the Victims of Crime Reform Bill primarily because it gives victims more opportunity to be able to participate in the justice system and gives them a stronger voice in the process, and that is something that we very much support. There are some specific ways that it does that.

I do really want to join my voice, though, to the voice that has been coming from Labour tonight in saying that we do not believe that this bill is enough. It is a piecemeal and very small measure, in fact. With it being 4 years in the process, I do also question why this is only now coming back to the House. I notice that the Minister of Justice has said that domestic violence is now her No. 1 priority. It is a shame that she did not come to that earlier and that our legal aid system is no longer supporting women to be able to access protection orders without going into extreme levels of debt. It is a shame that the Family Court process and the justice process overall—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.