Victims of Crime Reform Bill

As my colleagues have said in the earlier discussions on this bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, at this very important Committee stage, it is absolutely crucial that this Parliament continues to recognise the important role that victims must play in the administration of criminal justice. They are the party who have been most overlooked.

We have inherited the administration of our criminal justice system from Britain, and we have adopted the principles that go with it—that is, the interests of the victim are subsumed into the interests of society at large as the court system addresses criminal wrongdoing. But that has not been good enough in the modern age, when getting through the requirements of a prosecution—and if there is a conviction, then sentencing and the disposal of the matter—has overlooked the impact of offending on a victim.

Over the last 20 years the rights of victims and the place of victims in our judicial system have changed significantly, and for the better. That is a good thing. It is right that we should gradually and over time improve and amend the way the place of victims is represented in court, and that their rights and the rights—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Thank you for the opportunity to resume what I was saying before I was interrupted by the ever so important dinner bell, and to say, as I was saying, about how this is a very important area of endeavour not only for lawmaking but for the conduct of the law in the criminal justice system. It is not an area that is taken lightly by this House and the members in it or by anybody whom I am aware of—not least, of course, the victims who are affected and who benefit from the laws and the improvements we make in them from time to time. But it is also an area of the law that requires a champion in the form of a Minister of Justice who is beyond reproach and conducts themselves with considerable integrity. The victims look to our criminal justice system for their share of justice, if you like, so that their interests and their cause are heard by the courts and are taken into account when criminal matters are being disposed of.

This is a very crucial area and we should ask the question: what if somebody holding public office were themselves to be convicted of a designated crime, a crime that the Commissioner of Police said ought to be one of those affected by this piece of legislation? Who is the victim of somebody who commits a crime in public office or who misconducts themselves in public office? It is the people of New Zealand. So we need to make sure that when we are making rules for every other citizen—for those who transgress the law and those who are victims of those transgressions—we are ourselves people of principle and operate with integrity.

With that in mind I come to Part 2 and these provisions here, and these relate to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act—at least, to those parts of that legislation that cover the administration of justice for young people and children who commit crimes, or at least have allegations of offences made against them. These changes extend victims’ rights to those who are victims of crimes committed by children, and that is right. So when the Youth Court is dealing with young people and when the issue of, for example, their being considered for bail is considered by the court, then it is right that victims of that criminal offending should know about it and should have a say on that, because they are the ones who have been affected. Even though it is a bail hearing and the issue of guilt or non-guilt is yet to be determined—there is no issue of a conviction being entered—nevertheless, generally speaking, by that time the issue is not whether the person before the court has done anything wrong. That is usually clear. It is, of course, whether or not they are guilty of the specified offence and that the elements of the offence have been made out and therefore a conviction entered. But even at the bail stage when all that there is is an allegation or a charging document laid, it is still appropriate for the victim of an offence in those circumstances to be heard and that their views and their interests are considered. We accept that and we think that this makes a reasonable addition to the rights that the primary legislation provides for.

The next significant change is the right to attend a family group conference. This allows the victim of an offence to attend or to be represented at a family group conference that is dealing with a young offender. Again, that also is an appropriate measure. For a Government that, creditably, has been doing good things in relation to restorative justice, this is effectively a restorative justice measure. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is not a fan of restorative justice, and there is a story about an offshoot of the Sensible Sentencing Trust meeting in a hotel last year at the same time as a national conference on restorative justice was being held. That offshoot of the Sensible Sentencing Trust approached the hotel management and instructed the hotel management that if the folks in the hotel who were meeting to talk about restorative justice were not evicted from the hotel and did not have their meeting shut down, then this offshoot group would itself leave the hotel and would not be paying its bill.

It is a bit sad that a victims’ advocacy organisation and its offshoot should take that attitude towards restorative justice. Our view is very clear: whether a victim participates in a restorative justice process is a matter for the victim, because it is not just about the perpetrator of the crime; it is about the victim having an opportunity to confront the perpetrator of the crime against them. It is an opportunity to come to terms with the offending and for them to understand. The victims I have spoken to who have been through a restorative justice process have said that usually their expectations are exceeded.

It is right that this process is available for the victims of adult offenders and that the victims of young offenders should also have the opportunity to participate in those processes that are about trying to get the young person back on track and, hopefully, avoiding a recurrence. And if there are underlying problems—social, health-wise, or other—then that is an opportunity, an early intervention, that can take place. Why should the victim not have something to say about that? Why should a young offender not be able to hear from a victim in a controlled setting about the impact of the offending on them? That is a worthwhile and good measure in clause 36 of this bill and we support it.

The other significant change is in relation to one other aspect—which I shall name shortly when I see it. It is the provision in relation to what happens when a youth offender or a young offender goes through the system and the matter is disposed of—ensuring that victims are kept apprised of that. If they are to be further processed in the criminal justice system, or if having been processed they are then to be released, or released on any conditions, then the victim of the young offender is to be notified as well. Sadly, also, if a young offender who has been detained in a facility—whether it is a prison or whether it is a youth facility—dies during the course of that, then the victim is to be notified of that as well. That is a tragic occurrence that happens occasionally and, hopefully, not too often.

My colleagues have said in relation to the other parts of the bill that this does make good and important changes for the administration of justice and for victims, and we support it. This particular part that deals with young offenders and young offending and the victims of them has useful changes that I think will go some way to addressing our criminal offending rate, helping the fate of young offenders, and stopping them graduating on to harsher offending through the involvement of their victims in the processes set up to deal with them.

It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call in this Committee stage for the consideration of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I want to focus on two particular areas of this part of the bill, Part 2, that I think will be of benefit to our most vulnerable and littlest citizens in New Zealand—the children of our country.

In particular, I think there is a very positive measure in this bill that will allow the submission of victim impact statements in a variety of formats and media. The ability for a child to depict their feelings and the consequences of the offending that they have either witnessed or been subjected to themselves, I think, is a very positive measure. This will allow people—and particularly children—to submit paintings or pictures or short stories that describe the sorts of consequences and impacts that the offending has had on them.

Another very positive measure, in my view, is the ability of those who have witnessed domestic violence incidents but who have not necessarily been subjected to them themselves to be considered as victims and to receive the support and the assistance that victims of crime get in this country. So, for instance, having a child or a young person seeing a parent or family member being assaulted or abused in a domestic situation would then deem them to be able to be in receipt of all of that support. Again, that is a very positive measure that will help our most vulnerable and smallest citizens. So I commend this bill for further consideration.

Can I begin by first expressing my disappointment that the Minister in charge of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, the Hon Judith Collins, is not the Minister in the chair. I thought that perhaps under the cover of darkness she might have snuck back into the Chamber through the back way—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member would say that he is not referring to the absence of a Minister but he is indirectly doing that, and I just caution him to not proceed down that line.

I am sure you will not mind me saying that it is better, in the Committee of the whole House stage, to have a Minister in the chair who is the Minister in charge of the bill. When that Minister is here then she might be expected to answer questions.

Having expressed that disappointment, can I say that I acknowledge at least that in the chair is Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows is not only the Minister for Courts but also the sort of man who could recognise a conflict of interest and avoid it, and if he made a mistake, would tell the truth to the House about what he had done. So in that sense the Minister in the chair is a distinct improvement over the Minister who is in charge of the bill.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Totally washed up. What a hack—what a low-grade hack.

Can I just say, if the Attorney-General stops prattling on—if he wants to take a call, then take a call. Perhaps he could stand up and explain to us why Judith Collins did meet with an unnamed official, in a clear conflict of interest. If he does not want to take the call, then he should shut up, and I will invite you, Mr Chairman, to tell him to do that. Otherwise, I will continue to ask him questions about his colleague the Minister of Justice and why the Minister of Justice should not be relied upon to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am on my feet. Right, we will debate Part 2 of this bill from this point on.

I am happy to do that. Can I say that I welcome this bill and the improvements that it makes, but express another disappointment—notwithstanding the importance that I am sure the Minister in the chair would say is attached to the provisions in this bill—and question why it has taken 2½ years to get this bill back to the Committee of the whole House when these rights are being denied to victims and when every party in Parliament supports this bill. This is the sort of bill that you would have thought would be facilitated through the House. We will not hold it up unnecessarily. We have indicated that we are showing support for it. Once again, we have a bill that took damn near 3 years from the point when it was introduced to the point when it goes through. There is no reason, other than the incompetence of the management of this House, that that should have happened with this bill.

This part of the bill deals with amendments to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. The purpose of the clauses in this part is to ensure that victims’ rights in the adult jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction, and I support that absolutely. It is also about increasing the participation of victims at hearings in the Youth Court and providing support for those victims. I want to come back to Chester Borrows to ask a question about the nature of the support that will be provided to victims who appear in the Youth Court. As the Minister for Courts will be aware, court services for victims are not currently available in the Youth Court. So I would very much like the Minister in the chair to take the next call and explain to us whether the court services for victims will now be available for victims appearing in the Youth Court. It is a valid question. I am sure that the Minister will have the answer to that.

The reason that I ask the question about whether those resources will be available—[Interruption] And still the Attorney-General prattles on. The reason that I ask about that is because in the regulatory impact statement it states: “Agencies have indicated that to successfully implement some of the proposals they will need to look to reprioritise funding from other areas.” The fact that the agencies say that suggests to me that no additional resources have been provided to ensure that the rights that we are supposedly giving to victims will be backed up by the services that are there, ensuring that they get those services and that those rights are upheld.

So it is a valid question to ask the Minister whether court services for victims will be available, and, if so, how they will be funded. If it is reprioritisation, can he assure us that those are not funds taken from another part of the justice system, diminishing the rights of victims in that part of the service? They say that if they cannot reprioritise, then this will result, quoting from the regulatory impact statement, “in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” That is bureaucratese for the fact that if there is no money there, they will not be delivering the services properly, and maybe they will not be delivering the services at all.

I think that those are valid questions to ask the Minister in the chair, and I invite Chester Borrows to take a call after I have finished and address those questions. Members on this side of the Chamber believe that that is the very sort of thing that the Committee of the whole House is here for and that the Minister should be prepared to answer them. Chester Borrows is one of the better Ministers. He will probably be willing to do that.

I want to say that the things that I think are really important here are, firstly, that we do get the recognition of the automatic right of the victim to attend a Youth Court hearing. That is not currently the case; it will become the case. Having said that, in the youth jurisdiction, family group conferences are perhaps the best area where victims can participate in the process and where the process is properly restorative. At the moment the victim is encouraged to attend a family group conference to have a say on reparation, to have a say on rehabilitation for the offender, and to express how the actions of the offender have affected them. In fact, under a Labour Government, New Zealand led the world in 1989 in making these sorts of provisions for restorative justice, for the family group conference, and for the victim to be part of the process and not excluded from it. That is great.

I am not sure why in the past we did not include the Youth Court jurisdiction in this. I can back up the words of the Principal Youth Court Judge, who noted that, sadly, under the status quo the court is often left without any information on the victim. That is plainly unsatisfactory. This bill remedies that. It makes sense for the judge to have complete information about the offence when sentencing a young person in the Youth Court. There is absolutely no reason why the age of the offender should reduce the rights that victims have under the Victims’ Rights Act. So we are supporting this part of the bill because those two areas are remedied. The Ministry of Justice has rightly recommended that victims should have the automatic right to attend a family group conference, that they should be able to provide a victim impact statement—that is really important—and that there should be amendments to clarify the application of the Victims’ Rights Act in the youth jurisdiction.

The clauses in the bill that I think are important are clauses 35 and 38. Clause 35 sets out the rights of the victim to be consulted when a hearing is being held on the custody or potential custody of a child or young person, and that the prosecutor must make reasonable efforts to ascertain the views of each of the victims. That is important. The Commissioner of Police must inform each victim of orders made by the court and any conditions, such as conditions on bail, that are applied. So this is a sensible provision. It is not a political party - orientated clause. It has been recommended by the Ministry of Justice. It makes sense and it has been supported by the Principal Youth Court Judge.

The other area is clause 38, which sets out the entitlement of the victim to be present in the Youth Court and also—I think the Justice and Electoral Committee made this amendment—to have a support person alongside the victim acting as their representative or as a support person for them. I think that that makes sense as well. Other clauses, like clause 38A and 38B, are about areas where the victim should be notified of certain things. When young people abscond from custody, of course the victim should be told about that. If the offender dies, then obviously that is a piece of information, however regrettable the death of the young offender might be, that the victim is entitled to. So I think this is a good area.

I just come back to the Minister, because I know he has been taking advice from the officials. It would be good to know why it took so long to get this bill back to the Committee. But it would be particularly good to know whether the resources are there to provide court services for victims, whether the resources are there to ensure that the rights of the victims will actually be delivered upon, and where that money is coming from. Was there any new money provided for the victim support services, or is it going to be stolen from another area, which will detract from the ability of the justice system to deliver elsewhere?

I rise in response to the comments made by the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Goff, and speakers previous to him. It is important to note the point that the honourable member Andrew Little made about restorative practices within the Youth Court and within our criminal justice system generally, which are being enhanced all the time. Obviously, as we all know, they are world recognised because, especially within the youth jurisdiction, they are world leading, and we need to be able to keep them up at that pace.

Comments have been made around, for instance, derogatory messages given by some lobby groups against such things as restorative practices and, in particular, restorative justice conferencing. People have been suggesting, for instance, that restorative justice conferencing is more about the offender than it is about the victim. What we know, of course, is that that is absolutely incorrect. When we look, for instance, at the reoffending rates of those who have been through a restorative justice conference, when tested against a control of those who were willing and able to attend a conference but it was withheld from them, what we found was that in community-based sentences where restorative justice was completed, there was a recidivism rate that was about 57 percent less, and where it happened behind the wire in prison, it was about 34 percent. That was a study by a young doctor, Heather Strang, of Cambridge University, a few years ago. So it is interesting to note that the complete opposite of what is being put about by the likes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust is actually true. Another point is that, as I understand it—and I have been made aware of it on a number of occasions; I do not know whether the position has changed, but I doubt it—the president of, or the spokesperson for, the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been given the opportunity to attend a restorative justice conference anywhere, any time, and, although he said he would, he never has. I think it is a terrible thing when people operating within a sphere of ignorance put themselves out to be experts.

In respect of the matters raised by the Hon Phil Goff, I make the following comments. Firstly, about the time delay for the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, all I can really say—he will know as well as anybody else—is that this Government has been extremely busy. The amount of legislation it has passed through—all of it is important and none of it is blatantly out there to do things like win the next election, like the Electoral Finance Act was, which we had to put up with in years gone by. But I am pleased to see that the bill has finally made its way to the Committee.

In respect of youth within the Youth Court jurisdiction, victims wanting to be represented within the Youth Court jurisdiction, and funding, when this Government came into office in 2008, one of the first pieces of legislation we put through was the offender levy contribution—$50 for every offender appearing before the court to be paid, and that money to be used for victim services. That money was used to set up a number of different initiatives or to support a number of initiatives to support victims going through the criminal justice process. So it is that money used for those purposes that will now be extended to victims within the youth jurisdiction as well. But there are a number of specific rights that are extended pursuant to this part. The member will realise as I go through them that a lot of them are not expensive and will easily be met within the funding that has been set aside for those specific purposes under the offender levy.

The first right is to attend a family group conference. An invitation is made for all victims to come to family group conferences. Whether or not they make themselves available for that family group conference largely depends on their own feelings towards it and their feeling of safety or feeling of really wanting to be in the room. Of course, we are very sensitive about anything that could be seen as revictimising a person who is already a victim, but the ability to be able to attend a family group conference and take part in that along with their support people is a right that is extended. Another one is for victims to be informed about the services each agency provides and their ability to be able to access the support of those agencies. If the offender is a child or a young person, they also have the right to choose whether to be informed of the progress following the family group conference plan. That is progress through that family group conference rather than, necessarily, through the court process, which would also flow on automatically. There is a right to choose whether the victim wishes to express their views, and they have a wide range of abilities to be able to do that. They can make a victim impact statement. They have the right to express their views in other ways, as has been mentioned by my colleague Paul Foster-Bell, which may not necessarily be in writing. That may be difficult if that person is a very young victim, so they will be able to do it by way of pictures or speech or other ways. There is the right to make a complaint if any person from an agency does not provide the service consistent with the principles of this particular code that I am reading from at the moment.

There are also additional rights for victims of specified offences, which might be sexual offences or serious assaults, and they include to be informed of, and to express views on, bail and other orders that may be sought by prosecution or by the offender. There is the right to read the victim impact statement in court or, obviously, to have it read for them. There is the right to choose to become a registered victim so they go on to the victims register for continued notification. There is the right to appoint a representative to receive information on behalf of that victim. There is the right to receive after the sentencing information and notifications as to the progress of the offender through incarceration and future appearances before the Parole Board. There is the right to choose whether to make a submission to a parole hearing or in respect of extended supervision orders. And, obviously, there is the right to be able to attend and to speak and be heard in respect of those matters.

Just to allay the fears of the Hon Phil Goff, the cost of this will be picked by those services that already exist. In effect, it is extending down the services that are there within the adult jurisdiction. Obviously, if there is a higher volume of victims requiring these services, then there will be an increase of cost. It is expected that that will be met within the current funding arrangements, and there is no suggestion that those would not be met. Thank you.

I also wish to join my colleague the Hon Phil Goff in acknowledging the Minister in the chair, Chester Borrows, and, in fact, to reflect on the point that our junior whip, Iain Lees Galloway, made that you would make a fine Minister of Justice. In fact, you may have an opportunity to be so quite soon.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: There’s a vacancy coming up.

Yes, there could well be a vacancy in that area. So I wish you luck with that, Minister.

Getting on to the bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, we are speaking now on Part 2 of that bill. As others have said, this part is about ensuring that victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. So that goes through Part 2, which amends the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. Part 2 talks about certain situations, including family group conferences, when a child or a young person is in custody pending hearings, and what happens in situations where children and young persons abscond. It talks about who can present at hearings in situations where there is a child or young person who is the perpetrator of the crime.

I just want to reflect here for a minute. When I spoke on Part 1, I talked about victims of sexual violence and the particular needs of that group and the particular impacts—very deep impacts, often—of sexual violence crimes. Of course, that would equally apply in Part 2, and, in fact, we have seen situations—quite troubling situations—in this country, with the so-called Roast Busters case in Auckland not that long ago, around young persons and sexual violence, where, I think, very troubling cultural attitudes were displayed by young persons around sexual violence. In that situation, in the youth jurisdiction you may well have both youth perpetrators and youth victims potentially affected by the changes in this part.

You can see in Part 2 that a number of changes have been made that I think strengthen the provisions here. In terms of better victim support at Youth Court hearings, an amendment is in this part—in clause 38, amending section 329—for victims to bring support people without seeking prior permission, while allowing, if necessary, the judge to restrict numbers. Also, clause 38A, amending section 385, means that victims of offences committed by a child or young person would be notified when the child or young person absconds from a youth justice residence. As the Hon Phil Goff mentioned, that would also apply—about being notified—when the child or young person dies in a youth justice residence. In terms of the definition of “victim” in schedule 1, amended by clause 39, that amendment aligns, then, the definition of “victim” in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act with that in the Victims’ Rights Act.

Those are some of the provisions in Part 2. I just want to pick up a point about funding, though, because in the regulatory impact statement it does clearly say that “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 … then this may result in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” I am sure that none of us would like to see service delivery affected for victims of crime. It specifically identifies two of the provisions in this part as being within that category of the need to ensure there is adequate funding. That is the automatic access of victims of child and youth offenders to the Youth Court and also the proposals around victim impact statements in both the adult and youth jurisdictions. So I understand that the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, did comment on that, but I would just like to ask him whether he would just, really, like to comment in a little more detail, given the very clear concerns that were flagged up around this issue in the regulatory impact statement. So, in concluding on Part 2, I will leave it there.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would very much like to hear Raymond Huo.

Thank you—

💬 Carol Beaumont: Excellent decision.

Excellent decision—thank you very much, Mr Chair. Much has been said about the issues, the problems, and the situations that victims often find themselves in under the existing legal regime. Victims feel marginalised by the court system, and their anguish is often exacerbated by the justice process and the adversarial criminal justice system. Our adversarial criminal system is bipartite, and it attempts to recognise only the accused and the prosecution. Victims often feel marginalised, and it is not fair to the victims and their families.

Part 2 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill concerns amendments to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The Law Society, in its submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee, raised concerns about the move to allow children’s pictures in court, saying that young victims should be protected from the judicial process. The proposals of this bill would enable the families of murder victims to attach photographs of their loved ones to statements presented to juries and allow child victims to show their drawings to the court.

The Law Society, in its submission, supported the move in the legislation to give adult victims the right to read their statements in court, but its family law section chair told the Justice and Electoral Committee that the children who have been victims of crime should not be subjected further to the court process. He said he could not think the move to have them directly involved in impact statements would be an advancement for children’s rights.

Talking about the impact statement, the Chief Judges of both the High Court and the District Court expressed their concerns in their short but powerful submissions to the select committee. They are concerned that the proposed new section 17AB, inserted by clause 11, enlarges the purposes of the victim impact statements. That particular section is in Part 1, but the judges’ views are valid in terms of Part 2 as well. At present, section 17 of the Victims’ Rights Act limits those purposes to informing the court about the effect of the offending upon the victim, which is information the court must take into account when sentencing an offender. But the proposal under this bill—especially pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 2002—would create a certain kind of expectation on the part of the victims, which the court has no capacity to meet. So that was the reason the judges expressed in their submissions—that it would create a kind of expectation that the court has no capacity to meet, and that it would create a further confusion that could well be understood as entitling the victim to express his or her view about an appropriate sentence for that offending.

But under the Sentencing Act there is no provision that enables the court to take into account the victim’s views about an appropriate sentence, and, indeed, to do so would conflict with one of the underlying principles of sentencing—that similar offenders should receive similar sentences for similar offending in similar circumstances. So perhaps the most difficult, but arguably the most important, is the balancing exercise where all aspects of the issues, the interests, and the concerns of the concerned parties should be identified, acknowledged, and balanced.

Also, another concern expressed by the judges is related to new section 22, inserted by clause 15, because it would create a new right for victims. That particular provision creates a new right for victims of a specified offence to read his or her statement in court, unless the judicial officer considers it inappropriate to do so because of the existence of one of the conditions set out in section 22(2).

In cases where there are many victims of specified offences and many victims, they believed that a judge would be reluctant to pick and choose between the victim impact statements, to settle upon those to be read. The regulatory impact statement given in connection with the revised victims’ policy did not, in itself, quantify the likely additional demands upon the court system. But in the judges’ view, that will be significant.

As I said, the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge both expressed concerns in their submissions that it would be difficult for a judiciary officer to impose time limits on a victim reading a statement. They would be very unwilling to interrupt a victim, to avoid causing the victim further upset. They also noted that when there are many victims in a case, as I said previously, the judge would be reluctant to pick and choose, and the likely outcome would be all victims giving a statement. This, of course, would add considerably to the length of time that sentencing takes in the courts. The judges believed that additional demands on the court system would be significant. They said that the Victims of Crime Reform Bill could create expectations that a victim could express a view on sentencing that is not provided for in our law.

There is a genuine concern, and that concern relates to a certain kind of issue of how to strike a balance—on the one hand, the victims’ concerns and anguish are genuine, and on the other hand, the views expressed by the judges and the other submitters are valid. Thank you.

I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill because this is the bit that tries to align the Victims’ Rights Act with the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. So this is the part of the bill that tries to capture the answers to the problem that victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are different from those applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. That is—or was—a problem, and this part is the remedy. We support this part, as we have supported Part 1 of the bill as well, but there are a couple of things that I wanted to draw attention to in particular.

First, it has been noted, and I do not wish to labour the point unduly, but given that this was reported back 2 years ago, those of us who have found ourselves, as I have, on the Justice and Electoral Committee for only a comparatively short time—since the end of last year—have not been privy to the submissions because the report was presented on 27 June 2012. That means that going back and trying to capture the sense of what were the top-of-mind concerns for the submitters has been quite difficult. But I am going to refer to the regulatory impact statement in some detail. In the regulatory impact statement on page 14 it said that the current situation is that “the Victims’ Rights Act gives little guidance as to how its various provisions apply to the processes in the Youth Courts to deal with offending by children and young persons.” And so there was this disjunction, there was this gap, between the treatment of victims in the adult criminal jurisdiction and the treatment of victims of crimes committed by youth offenders and children. So, as a result of that disjunction, there was some confusion about the application of the Victims’ Rights Act to the particular circumstances that apply in the youth justice jurisdiction.

This bill is a good answer to that question. This is a reasonable remedy to that problem. It essentially means that victims should have the right to attend Youth Court hearings. It says that victims of children and young people—that is, victims of crimes committed by children and young people—should also be able to provide a victim impact statement to the judge, as is provided for in the criminal jurisdictions of the High Court and District Court. Amendments are made to clarify the application of the Victims’ Rights Act in the youth jurisdiction. This is particularly found in clause 39 in Part 2, where schedule 1 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act is amended. It is amended by inserting the relevant bits of the Victims’ Rights Act, tailored for this circumstance. So, for example, it says that the definition of a “victim” also includes “a person who, through or by means of an offence committed by a child or young person, suffers any form of emotional harm;”. It goes on simply to align those provisions in the Victims’ Rights Act—which this bill also amends, because it is an omnibus bill—with the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.

People have talked previously in this debate about the relevance and the purpose and the usefulness of children being able to demonstrate through pictures or drawings or some other mode of communication the impact of a crime upon themselves or of witnessing a crime. This does allow those voices to be heard in the children’s and young persons’ jurisdiction. That has got to be an improvement. We are aware that the bill itself amends four pieces of legislation: the Victims’ Rights Act; the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act; the Parole Act; and the Sentencing Act. By making sure we have some commonality between those four amended pieces of legislation, we really are moving towards something that is consistent in its approach, recognises the impact on victims, recognises the rights of victims, whatever their age—in this case, whether they are the victims of offences committed by children or young people—and allows them the right to be heard and to have their voice heard in proceedings in the children’s and young persons’ jurisdiction. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins, and the following amendments in her name, to Part 2 be agreed to:

in clause 33, replace “section 2A” with “section 2B”; and

in new section 3A(f)(iii) inserted by clause 39, replace “section 2A” with “section 2B”.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to Parole Act 2002