Victims of Crime Reform Bill

The last time I was speaking on this bill, the Committee rose during my second call but I was saying that Labour was in support of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, which we still are. But, my word, what a difference a couple of weeks can make to the tenor of a debate. This is the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. We have seen before us in this House today the most extraordinary performance by the Minister who is the sponsor of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins.

There are victims of crime. There are people who suffer because of the crimes that are committed against them, and this bill seeks to address that. But one of the victims of this Minister’s actions to date has been truth. We see truth as a victim in this particular matter. I see that it is entirely apposite at this point to reflect on the sponsor of this bill because her performance in the House has jeopardised any understanding or any confidence that we might have about her ability to speak the truth to this Parliament. Her ability to speak the truth to this Parliament has been called into question by her own actions—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 1 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. That is not a licence—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. Yes, the debate is just going through Part 1. When we are on the parts of the bill in the Committee stage, these are narrow debates focused on what is actually in the part. That is actually what we will now be focusing on. So we are on Part 1, and I would ask the member to come back to those provisions that are contained in Part 1.

In Part 1 of this bill there are, of course, all of the initial provisions that one would expect: the principal Act being amended, the interpretation, the treatment, and so on. One of the things that does come up here is the purpose of victim impact statements. This is something that members of the Justice and Electoral Committee turned their minds to quite substantially because there were a number of submitters who spoke to this point. This certainly is a matter of some debate. In the course of the submissions that we heard, there were comments made by members of the judiciary that it would be better if they still had the ability to control this in a way that allowed the court to proceed without undue delay but also without cutting off the victims’ statements too quickly, so that they would still feel that they had achieved something in making their victim impact statement available to the court and have that moment in court to address the concerns that they had and the injury that they had sustained through the crime.

This was something that is certainly a matter of balance. Supplementary Order Paper 424, which the Minister of Justice has put up in her own name, fundamentally rewrites parts of this bill and addresses the changes to victim impact statements in clause 11 and clause 12. I just want to say that victims should be allowed a chance within the safety and the control of the court proceedings to give voice to their concerns.

Where I was about to go in my last speech on this bill was to talk about a case that we knew so well from the media. That was the case of Sophie Elliot and the need for her family to be able to say what the impact had been on them and, at the same time, to address the kind of trial in absentia of their daughter by virtue of the defence’s ability to misrepresent her—in fact, to say things about her that the family felt were inappropriate, unreasonable, wrong, untrue, and in need of rebuttal.

This bill allows the victim impact statement to be presented to the court. Its purpose is to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending and to assist the court in understanding the victim’s view of the offending, and also to tell the offender about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective. This is a critical point. This is something that we support. Even though there had been submissions from members of the judiciary who felt that it could lead to some disorder or to some lengthy hearings that were not enhanced by victim statements going on for too long, I would err on the side of giving people the opportunity to have their say. So whether a victim impact statement is read to the court by the victims themselves or read on their behalf by somebody else, I think it is part of the process in this Victims of Crime Reform Bill that allows us to support this legislation.

We have got no doubt that the situation of victims in law and otherwise has improved greatly since Parliament first dealt with the issue in 1987, and we do not oppose that. We do feel that this bill represents another little bit of incremental change. The bill following this one this evening will demonstrate another piece of incremental change that could really have been done with a bit more boldness and a bit more of a comprehensive approach, and we could have got more in it.

I do not wish to incur your correction again, Mr Chairman, but I am concerned that the Minister who is presenting and sponsoring this bill and the Supplementary Order Paper that makes a number of changes to the bill has done herself and this Parliament damage. We would not wish to see this piece of legislation damaged by the irreparable harm that has been done by the Minister of Justice sponsoring this bill by virtue of her own admission—by virtue of her own words. This is an omnibus bill that addresses and changes four discrete pieces of legislation, and it should be able to proceed. Even if we do believe that it is incremental in its approach, it should be able to proceed unsullied in its passage through this House. But, quite frankly, everything this Minister touches now is sullied, and it is that reputation that is part of the shadow that now hangs over everything that this Minister touches. This bill is one of those things that she has sponsored, but it is a good bill.

New Zealand First does support this bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. We see the bill, and especially Part 1, as another very welcome step forward in the emerging movement to do more to support and consider the rights and needs of the victims of crime. That movement appears to me to have the support of all of the parties of Parliament because we all do want to see victims of crime better supported and considered than they have been in the past, so we especially welcome Part 1 of this bill. New Zealand First also supports the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 424 for the same reasons.

I especially wanted to commend clause 10, which concerns section 16 of the Victims’ Rights Act. It ensures that reference to all of a victim’s contact details, as are now listed in the bill, will be restricted, to ensure the privacy of the victim. That, of course, adds very greatly to a victim’s sense of security and privacy while allowing them the opportunity to take a full part in the process. It is a minor amendment, but it is a very important amendment for victims, for those reasons.

I also wanted to refer briefly to new section 17, inserted by clause 12, which actually requires a 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 that they can be taken into account for sentencing and, presumably, reparation purposes. The words used are that the prosecutor “must make all reasonable efforts”, and that puts the onus on the prosecutor to find out the necessary details so that they can be taken proper account of in the process in the court. That means, of course, that the prosecutor has to be proactive, which was not a requirement in the past. They relied on the victim themselves to make sure that those details were provided, and, of course, they not always were. So I think, again, that it is a relatively minor improvement, but it is a very important improvement to the legislation so that the necessary details actually do get before the court, and that is as it should be. So New Zealand First is very happy indeed to see that particular provision in the bill.

The information to be sought is actually set out in the new section 17(1A), and it refers to: “(a) any physical injury or emotional harm suffered by the victim through, or by means of, the offence; and (b) any loss of, or damage to, property suffered by the victim through, or by means of, the offence; and (c) any other effects of the offence on the victim; and (d) any other matter consistent with the purpose of victim impact statements …” as set out elsewhere in the legislation. I think that this is a particularly good provision. It is comprehensive and it does the job.

The value of these amendments is that they put the victims first, and that is what New Zealand First has argued for for a number of years. The rights and interests of victims have for far, far too long been secondary to the process of convicting the offender. Now we are seeing more and more this movement by which the effects on the victim are being taken account of more and more, and real and practical means are being put in place to make sure that they are supported and that their rights are protected. So, for all of those reasons, New Zealand First is particularly pleased to be able to support Part 1 of this bill, as it does the bill as a whole.

As chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, it is a pleasure to speak during this Committee stage on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. The previous member, Denis O’Rourke, made, I thought, some very valid points in relation to the changes. But, first, may I speak for a moment or two on the contribution of the Hon Maryan Street, who, whilst indicating that Labour will support this legislation, indicated in her speech that this was by some way a small, little step of just not such significance that it would need to be anything other than a minor piece of legislation. Well, I take exactly the opposite view. I think that this is a comprehensive and innovative step that the Minister of Justice has brought to the House. In terms of the purpose of this bill, which is to change the law relating to the victims of crime and to give victims a much greater voice in our criminal justice system, this is an important and very significant step in our justice system.

We know that this is an omnibus bill. It amends the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989, the Parole Act of 2002, and the Sentencing Act of 2002, as well. As a Government, we on this side are absolutely unapologetic about putting victims first in our judicial system, and it is partly because the victims are not there in any way other than as innocent participants. They do not get involved in our judicial system by dint of wanting to be there; they are the innocent victims. So I think it is right and proper that as we consider the Committee stage of this bill we do keep a very clear sense of focus on the rights of victims.

I want to turn just for a moment to the provisions in the bill that relate to the information that is to be contained in the impact statements. The bill provides that information ascertained from a victim in a victim impact statement may include photographs, drawings, or visual representations. That is a new step, and it is something that I think is quite important. It is particularly of use where there are young victims who may not want to have a process where a formal document is written out, but they may want to prepare a picture, a drawing, or a diagram that is representative of the impact that the crime of which they are a victim has impacted them, their families, and their loved ones. So I think that is an appropriate step.

What it means is that it will enable the victim to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending as it relates particularly to them. Of course, it is going to assist the court in understanding the victim’s views about the actual offending. Further, it will go to informing the offender, who is actually the root cause of the proceedings in the first place, about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective. Too often, that victim’s perspective is not well founded in our judicial system, and it is something that has over past years been lost sometimes. So this change is, I think, an important one.

The bill further provides for the procedure relating to how a victim impact statement must be submitted, and so there are a couple of important changes that are featured in the new sections 21 to 22B, inserted by clause 15. They include that a victim impact statement may, upon request, be read to the court if the judicial officer sentencing the offender agrees. In some cases, victims are too emotionally distraught and overcome to be able to actually stand before a court—which, in many cases, can be an intimidating process in its own right—and then have to read out the actual statement. So this provision that allows in certain circumstances for the statement to be read by somebody else is, I think, a significant and useful step forward. The statement may actually be read by the prosecutor, the victim, or a person nominated by the victim. So the victim can actually choose, if you will, to have a voice other than themselves right in the courtroom, and I think that that will be a powerful vehicle for sending messages not only to the offender but to others who are involved in the court process. The legislation is good and I support it.

The Labour Party will of course be supporting the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I think it has some worthwhile measures in it. There is a range of questions that I would like to ask about it, and I am curious that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Immigration, is not the Minister who introduced the bill, the Minister of Justice, but I think we all understand the reason for that. With the controversy swirling around her, she would not be in a fit state of mind, actually, to manage this bill through the Committee. I would have to say, to be honest—and I am not going to dwell on this—that, frankly, there is certainly amongst many of the parties in this House a total loss of confidence in the ability of the Minister of Justice. The failure to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is surely fundamental—

💬 Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This member, who is an experienced member, is now straying far from the bill and making allegations that are—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that, and I know that the member is coming back to the point.

Absolutely—thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I will just finish that point, which is that, of all people in the House, it really is important for the Minister of Justice—most particularly—to be seen as a person who can judge conflicts of interest, who is a person of full integrity, and one who tells the full truth.

I come to the bill. The bill is incremental in the changes that it makes, and I am not saying that hugely as a criticism. We have over time really strongly improved the provision for victims’ rights. It is fair to say that when I started studying law, there were only two things that were important in the courtroom. One was the prosecutor, who was prosecuting on behalf of society, and the other was the accused, who was trying to defend their innocence, and the victim really was not part of that. It was shameful that our justice system paid so little attention to the needs of victims.

The fourth Labour Government began the process with, I think, the Victims of Offences Act in 1987, if I recall rightly, and, as Minister of Justice in 2002, I was responsible for passing the Victims’ Rights Act. I have got to say that I picked up that bill from the National Party. I am not sure whether you were here at the time, Mr Chairman. If you were, you will recall that the Victims’ Rights Bill, which was on the table when I became Minister, was a very weak affair. It talked vaguely about the rights of victims, but it actually did not do anything to cast the vague principles as explicit rights. What we tried to do in 2002 was set out the explicit rights that victims had and the mandatory obligations on specific Government agencies to make sure that those rights were upheld. Victims had to be informed about the progress in the case against the offender. With regard to serious offences, I brought in provisions that victims needed the ability to have input into the decisions on bail. I think that was really important. The victim should be able to express their fears and concerns on bail decisions; that should be taken into account. We strengthened the victim impact statements. We promoted restorative justice processes.

The interesting thing about this Part 1 of the bill is that it builds on the things that we put in that Victims’ Rights Act of 2002. I think that from time to time we do need to come back and look at whether the Act is working as well as it should do. One thing that happened under Labour in 2007, if my colleagues will remind me, was that we set up the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into victims. Building on that material and subsequent material, we have these changes that I think are worthwhile in their own right. They are not revolutionary, but they are worthwhile.

I want to pick up a couple of points—probably four major points—in relation to the bill as it has been reported back. The first thing that I want to pick up is the question of funding adequacy. What I would refer you to is page 5 of the regulatory impact statement, where it says: “Agencies have indicated that to successfully implement some of the proposals they will need to look to reprioritise funding from other areas. If funding can not be re-prioritised to provide these additional resources then this may result in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” Well, that is vitally important. One thing we know is that it is one thing to have rights and people responsible for upholding those rights, but if you do not fund it properly, then how can we be confident that this will work?

A specific question to Mr Woodhouse in the chair tonight is what was done in response to that concern raised in the regulatory impact statement? Have the resources been provided? Are they reprioritised resources from other areas, in which case which areas have suffered cutbacks? Or has the money not actually been determined yet? Do we face the potential prospect of setting up some very good rights and processes but with inadequate funding to make sure those things are carried into effect, particularly if I look at the question of restorative justice? I put restorative justice in the original Act. I am glad to see that there is still an emphasis on that. But in the bill it talks about being subject to resources. I know that everything is subject to resources, but will there be adequate resources to ensure that restorative justice processes can be held and that they can be held properly? Again, if the resources are not there and it is not done well, restorative justice, instead of having the positive impact that it might, can actually have a negative impact. If the homework is not done and the support services are not there, then it can turn out to be negative for the victim when it could otherwise be a very positive experience.

There are other things that seem to be missed out in relation to this bill in this part because of a lack of resources. I know that the regulatory impact statement talked about setting up a victims’ centre that would give oversight to victims’ rights, and they talked about a victims of crime complaints officer. Both of those seem to have disappeared. They are not in the bill; I cannot find them anywhere. They were recommendations but they have not been picked up. We still do have the code and I think the code is a good idea to ensure that victims have information about their rights and the services available to them—the duties and responsibilities. That goes a little bit further but not necessarily a whole lot further than the original Act. The code itself is a good idea. Minister Woodhouse might like to answer this one too. Why were those other ideas dropped? Why do we not have somebody there who will give oversight? Why do we not have a victims’ centre, as was originally looked at by the Ministry of Justice?

I think the question of victim impact statements is central. I remember watching a programme where Gil Elliot was talking. He is, of course, the father of Sophie Elliott, who was murdered. He was expressing intense frustration. He was allowed to give a victim impact statement but somebody was censoring everything he wanted to say in it. I accept that there will be a need for certain restraints on victim impact statements. It cannot be offensive in terms of the language used. It cannot direct the judge what to do, but, within reason, the victim—or the family of the victim, in a murder case—has to be allowed to vent their feelings as part of their process of being able to put that crime behind them. There must be nothing more frustrating than a victim being told what he or she can or cannot say to the judge in the court and to the offender who is sitting across from them in the court.

So I hope that this bill when it becomes an Act is interpreted in a way that actually emphasises the rights of the victim. It might be uncomfortable for the offender to hear what the family of the victim is saying, but so it should be. It should be uncomfortable for the offender if that offender has been convicted and is guilty of sometimes a terrible offence—such as in the case of this family the taking away of their beautiful daughter and the extreme arrogance that the offender expressed in the court during that process, which all of us saw in the televised accounts.

I think the bill is basically right in that the victim, the prosecutor, or a person nominated by the victim can read out the statement. I like the wording of the language that the judicial officer must agree to the request made unless he or she considers it inappropriate to do so, and there are quite narrow and specific reasons set out. I think the emphasis here must be on this process serving the victim or the family of the victim. The person has been convicted at that stage and the judge is considering the sentence. The judge needs to know exactly what the damage that has been done to that family is, and what might be regarded by them as a way of, if possible, putting things right or certainly going in that direction. There is pretty free rein given to the judge—

I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. In doing so, I want to note that this is a step forward for victims of crime, that it has taken a long time to get to this point, and that some of these steps probably do not go as far as this side of the House would like to see. But, along with my colleagues, we are speaking in support of this bill. I want to pick up in Part 1 and talk about the impact of crime and the importance of victim impact statements for a particular group of victims, and that is victims of sexual crimes. But, before I do that, I just want to make a couple of general points. There certainly is a need for victims to have a greater role in the criminal justice process and to ensure that there is more information and more weight given to their concerns and the impact of crime upon those victims. That is not just victims of sexual crime; that is all victims of crime.

One of the issues, though, is the particular needs of victims of sexual crimes. For me to be speaking this afternoon on this is quite important, having spent several hours this morning on the Social Services Committee dealing with submitters and dealing with the inquiry into services around sexual violence support. Can I acknowledge the member across the Chamber Melissa Lee, who I think is doing a very good job of chairing that inquiry. We have heard some terribly moving, traumatic information as part of that inquiry. It is an inquiry that is looking at a crime that in the end has very low conviction rates, a very low level of reporting in the first instance, very low levels of charging people who have committed those crimes, and then very low conviction rates of those who do get into the court system. In that case, the victims of sexual crime are in a particularly difficult situation because often they are the only witness to the crime.

Also, the impact of sexual violence is very, very significant. Today a number of submitters were talking about it as a form of trauma—that it was a deeply traumatic experience. Being able, then, to ensure a couple of the things that are in Part 1—first of all, information about the proceedings of the court system, and making sure that both the victim and their support person, where they have them, are fully cognisant of what is happening and how it is going to happen, are really important in a situation where they are talking about a crime that is so, so personal and so traumatic. Also one of the particular areas that has come up when looking at the issue of sexual violence is making sure that the support people are specialised people. Victim Support is a great service that is provided, but, actually, in this area, we need to have people who are specialist, and people who particularly understand the nature of this crime and how it is then going to play out through the court system.

We were given an example today by Louise Nicholas, who talked about having in her court proceeding situation a very helpful person from Victim Support trying to do their best, but, actually, all that person did for her was cause her further anger and grief because she was unaware of the trauma that had been suffered by Louise and was using language that, in fact, those who had perpetrated the crimes on her had also used to her. So there is a need for very specialist people in this space.

In terms of victim impact statements, in this bill it talks about the purpose of victim impact statements: “to enable the victim to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending; and assist the court in understanding the victim’s views about the offending; and inform the offender about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective.” It is particularly important in cases of sexual violence, where those consequences, the impacts, can be of a physical nature, can be around the person’s health, can be about injuries they have suffered, and can also be of an emotional and psychological nature. Those impacts can be around an inability to trust people, they can be around nightmares, and they can be around reliving—constantly reliving—a crime that is so fundamental, so invasive, and so personal that the level of impact at a psychological level is often very significant.

Of course, one of the particular aspects around sexual offending that is important to understand and why the victim impact can be so severe is that often these are people who are very well known to the victim—members of their own family, people they potentially were friends with, or even people they were in a relationship with. They are not people who are emotionally neutral to the victim. They are people whom the victim often knows well. Again, that can have a particular impact and can make that trauma more significant. Those are all important factors in what might be covered in a victim impact statement in sexual violence cases.

The bill goes on to talk about the information to be ascertained from victims, and goes through some of those things around physical injury or emotional harm; loss of, or damage to, property—again, that can be relevant in these cases—and any other effects of the offence on the victim. The information that we have been provided with in the Social Services Committee is that those other effects can actually be quite significant. They can be around drug and alcohol abuse and substance abuse. They can be around self-harm. Again, we were being given examples of that today. All of those things need to be out in the open, and the person who has offended needs to hear directly about the impact of their crime on that victim. I think, as Scott Simpson has said, the ability of others to read a victim impact statement in the court is an important provision. I think there would often be situations where it would be far too difficult for the person to do that themselves. Again, the need for specialist support in the court system is really important.

I note that at the moment there is a lot of effort going into raising concerns about better outcomes for victims of sexual violence. There is the inquiry. We have waited a long time to get improvements for victims of sexual violence. There was a task force under the last Government. It did report in 2009 over 70 recommendations, most of which have not been actioned. Some of those are around the support services, some of them are around prevention, and some of them are around the court system itself. We are talking in this part about court processes, but can I say something that would seem self-evident: preventing crime in the first instance is the best way to ensure that we do not actually have victims of crime. Every submitter to the inquiry—submitter after submitter after submitter—is saying that we can prevent sexual violence in this country. We actually have to decide that we are going to do that, and we have to resource that.

I will come back to court processes. The Minister Judith Collins—a Minister who is in a lot of hot water at the moment for her own behaviour—when responding to the Hon Phil Goff about issues for victims of sexual violence, talked about this particular bill and said that reforms in this bill would assist victims of sexual violence. Well, yes, they will, but certainly not enough. There is a need to ensure, as I have said already, that there is effective support in the courts. That is going to require specialist sexual violence support services of a greater extent than we have currently, and we need to look at a whole lot of processes around how the court is conducted.

I move, That the question be now put.