Third Readings

I move, That the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4), the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. These four bills have been divided from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. These bills are an additional step in the Government’s work programme to reduce the impact of crime on victims. They improve how victims of crime experience the justice system and make the system more responsive to their needs. These bills are part of an omnibus bill and strengthen existing legislation for victims of crime. They amend the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, the Parole Act 2002, and the Sentencing Act 2002.

Over the last year the Government has introduced other legislation focused on protecting New Zealanders from violence and supporting victims. The Crimes Amendment Act (No 3) was enacted to strengthen offences relating to violence against children. The safety of protected people will also be increased via the Domestic Violence Amendment Act 2013. There are currently two bills before the House that are focused on the victims of serious offences. The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill, which is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee, will introduce civil detention orders to protect the public from serious sexual or violent offending. The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill will introduce non-contact orders for victims of very serious offences. This Government has introduced specialist court service victims advisers for victims of sexual violence across New Zealand. This is funded by an offender levy that also funds another 14 entitlements and services for victims of serious offences.

In my role both as a member of Parliament and, before that, as a lawyer I have spoken with many victims who have encountered distressing experiences as they are excluded from key parts of the justice system. I believe very firmly that courts must surely be there for the provision of justice for those who seek justice, not for the providers of services. This legislation gives victims the opportunity to be more involved in the criminal justice process and helps to ensure that they are better informed about their rights. In particular, the bill makes changes to victim impact statements that will give victims greater freedom to express their feelings in their own words and allow victims of serious offences to read their statements in court. Under the legislation, photographs and drawings may also be submitted in victim impact statements.

The legislation increases the accountability and responsiveness of Government agencies providing services for victims. It requires agencies to deal with complaints from victims promptly and fairly. Each agency must report on the complaints they receive from victims. The legislation also requires the Ministry of Justice to develop a Victims Code. The Victims Code will provide victims with information on the services available, their rights, and the duties and responsibilities of Government agencies with criminal and youth justice obligations. The code will make Government agencies more accountable in their provision of services to victims of crime, increase victims’ awareness of their rights, and improve access to information. Meeting the needs of victims of crime is central to the Government’s objectives and direction for the justice sector. The bills divided from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill represent a significant step in improving the experience of victims as they, through no fault of their own, must encounter the justice system. I commend this legislation to the House.

Malo le soifua in this, Samoan Language Week. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the third reading of legislation arising from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I note, following the Minister of Justice’s address to the House just now, that she referred to at least three other pieces of legislation currently going through the House that are dealing with various different aspects of victims’ rights and their place in our justice system. That does highlight the need now, I think, at this point in the history of our criminal justice system for a cohesive and comprehensive piece of victims legislation—a comprehensive and properly set out charter of victims rights. There is a need for one place where victims, and their advocates and their advisers, can go to in order to understand exactly how it is that they can make their voice heard and make their considerations known in the course of the administration of justice by our criminal justice system.

As it is, this piece of legislation comprises four bills to achieve yet more progress, at least incrementally, anyway, in providing for the place of victims in the criminal justice system. Once again, it reflects the growing evolution, this growing development, of the place of victims—the previously hidden, and sometimes even unknown, voice and place of victims—in our criminal justice system. It is for that reason that we support the legislation. It makes improvements. It builds upon the work that was started in the fourth Labour Government in 1987 and, again, in the fifth Labour Government in 2002. What I suppose is surprising is that this legislation started its life in 2011, and 3 years on, we are finally getting around to passing it. So this Government is in no position to say that it accords priority to victims’ rights and victims’ interests. This is an also-ran piece of legislation, if you like. Close to an election, the Government realises that it has to do something, and it suddenly puts on the pace.

But, listen, let us not quibble about it. Let us not be petty about it. This is, nevertheless—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Let’s not.

—important legislation. Chris Finlayson QC, the Attorney-General, would know all about quibbling and being petty, because if there is one thing that has defined his time in that office—that grand and high office, which is very important to our criminal justice system—it is his innumerable capacity and capability to both quibble and be petty. But I do not want to be churlish in return; I want to be generous, at least in relation to this piece of legislation, and to say that we, nevertheless, support it.

As the Minister correctly said, at the heart of this legislation is ensuring that victims have information so that they can decide and they can know when it is that they have their opportunity for input, because the criminal justice system is not just for the lawyers and the Queen’s Counsel and the highly paid and the silks; it is the people’s justice. It is for people. The overlooked part of the criminal justice system has, of course, been the victims.

The first bill, the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill, ensures that victims are given information about the progress of the matter on a trial, of the charge that has been laid against an offender, so that they know when they can take their part and provide information and what have you. It creates positive obligations on the police, on the prosecutor, on other court officials, and even on the judges, to ensure that the victims’ voices are heard, that the victims get to be interviewed, that they can prepare their victim impact statements, and that the judge has a positive duty, having received a request from a victim to read their statement, to enable that to happen, with some provisos. The provisos are reasonable and are proper.

We have to remember that in our justice system, in our form of justice—[Interruption] It is a pity that Chris Auchinvole and Cam Calder think this is a light-hearted matter where they can talk jocularly about whatever issue is entertaining them at the moment. But this is a serious matter for the rest of us, which is why members on this side of the House are giving it due solemnity.

Victims must know that at an appropriate time in the disposal of a criminal matter they will get to have their say, that a judge is required to give due weight to what they have to say, and this legislation provides positively for that. I was about to say that of course the nature of our justice system is that it is still an adversarial system. We have inherited that system. Notwithstanding what some people say about it—that it is no longer about getting to the truth, that it is a game of jousting between lawyers, presided over by a judge—the reality is that the adversarial system does actually assist in getting to the truth. It tests the case put by the Crown. That is the system we have inherited.

It is important, in terms of the confidence of the public and the confidence of society, that the Crown assumes the mantle of prosecuting the charge and that the defendant, if they do not have the means to, is assisted to provide their defence. But the case is put to the test. If, following that contest of ideas and legal principle, the charge is proven and a conviction is entered, the victim must then be able to have their say. That provides a balance that we have not hitherto handled particularly well.

This legislation deals specifically with the situation that we have seen developing perhaps more recently, where judges have taken it upon themselves to edit victim impact statements or even to prevent them from entering the court record. So this makes a useful contribution in that regard. It also ensures, in relation to parole hearings, that the victim is kept advised of the progress and when a parole hearing may be taking place—all parole hearings related to the particular offender. It also provides specifically for the victim to be notified about bail hearings and to have their views relayed, where appropriate, at a bail hearing, which hitherto had not been the case, and, when it comes to young offenders, for a victim’s point of view and the impact on them of the offending to be heard in a family group conference dealing with the young offender. These are important new developments in the framework now applying to victims’ rights.

Of course, the legislation goes that far, but a properly developed and evolved victims’ rights framework would go further. It is disappointing that this House has spent 3 years, frankly, faffing about with this legislation, when actually we could have got on to something more substantial. What about having a victims’ rights advocate or an “Office of the Victims Advocate”? The Minister has spoken publicly about having a victims commissioner. I am not quite sure what that is meant to add. The Minister has not specified that.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Ha, ha!

Once again, Mr Auchinvole chortles heartily at the idea that victims might have an office in the justice system that would advocate for their interests and their rights. How disappointing that is from that member of the National Party—from the retiring National Party list member who hails from the West Coast. He knows better—he knows better. I would like to hear from him about why he finds this so funny.

But what about an “Office of the Victims Advocate” so that there are victims advocates in each court whom victims can go to, the police can go to, and the prosecutor can go to that would make sure that the victims tied up in a case—always against their choice—can understand what is going on and get their rights attended to? What about ensuring that there is a statutory right for victims to ensure that the direct costs they incur as a result of participating in the criminal justice system are met by the Crown? And what about ensuring things like that they get a seat in the courtroom when the case they are at the heart of is heard? Why are those things not provided for? A Minister of Justice focused on their job, and not charging about having secret dinners in China, would have actually got on and got this legislation passed and be focused on the real issues, which is what we need to do.

As I said, Labour will support this legislation, but we are all behind the eight ball when it comes to developing victims’ rights. The next Labour-led Government will be at the forefront of ensuring there is a proper, comprehensive, and cohesive set of victims’ rights so that victims will know where they stand, where to go, and what they can expect in the criminal justice system. It will be better than is provided for in this legislation, which has taken 3 years to get to this point.

As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, it is a great pleasure for me to rise and speak in support of the third reading of the legislation arising out of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill in the name of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins. Following Andrew Little’s contribution, I am very pleased to hear that the Labour Party is going to support this legislation, because so often in the history of that party’s time in Government it has not supported victims or victims’ rights.

Mr Little is, of course, correct when he makes the point that our criminal justice system is an adversarial system. It is a system that is based on the contest of evidence and cases, and it is a system that has proved us well and our system well. But over the years it has not catered well for victims. Too often in our criminal justice system the victims are the forgotten players in the courtroom, and for too long victims have not had an opportunity to have their views properly expressed and properly recorded for the court, for the public, and, of course, for offenders. This piece of comprehensive and innovative legislation is a very significant step forward in terms of correcting the non-involvement of victims in our criminal justice system.

I am pleased also to note from the second reading that New Zealand First is, I think, supporting this legislation. I am pleased that those members are also supporting the rights of victims in our criminal justice system.

This is omnibus legislation that amends the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989, the Parole Act of 2002, and also, of course, the Sentencing Act of 2002. Our Government was elected back in 2008 with a mandate to improve our justice system, and particularly to improve the lot of those who find themselves the victims of crime and who are not in our criminal justice system by any act other than by mere accident, or who are just partly to blame for being there in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps—nothing more complicated than that.

One of the key aspects of this legislation is to make significant changes in the role of the victim impact statement. The role of the victim impact statement has been a good part of our criminal justice system in recent years, but there is an opportunity—and this legislation does it very nicely—to extend the role in a way that makes the statement far more meaningful for the victim. We are going to widen the scope and provide victims of serious offences with the right to read their statements out in court, and to present a statement in whatever form suits them. This could include pictures, graphics, poems, or a whole range of methods other than just the written word.

Although legislation can never legislate away the pain and suffering faced by victims, this legislation will go a long way to help ensure that victims are not revictimised by their participation in the process that we call our criminal justice system. This is just another piece of legislation, as part of a suite of new bills that have been introduced by Judith Collins and the justice team on this side of the House, that will focus clearly—and we will make no apology for doing so—on putting victims first in our criminal justice system.

It is very good to note that since our coming into Government in 2008, crime is at record lows, the numbers for serious criminal offending are at lows, and the job that this Government has been doing is a very fine one. It is a tribute to the Minister, it is a tribute to this Government, and it is a tribute to the foresight and innovative imagination of a Government that really does put victims first that we can bring this legislation to the House and that it can be widely supported across the House. It deserves to be passed. I fully and totally commend this legislation to the House.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and follow Scott Simpson, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, whom I consider to be a very capable chairperson.

I rise to speak to the Victims of Crime Reform Bill and the four pieces of legislation into which it has been divided. This must be wash-up week. We have had Budget week, and that is over, and this must be wash-up week, because we are arriving on the Order Paper at pieces of legislation that have been languishing for a very long time. So the Government has decided to see what it can do to win a few points—to be able to get out into the electorate before the general election and say: “Look what we did. Don’t look at how long we took to do it, just look at what we did, and we have got it done in time for Election 2014.”

The report from the Justice and Electoral Committee on this piece of legislation is testimony to the tardiness of the Government, actually, in this respect. The committee membership list in the report back shows that four out of the nine members of Parliament who were on that committee at the time are no longer members of Parliament. They are not even here. We have Dr Jackie Blue, Charles Chauvel, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, and Katrina Shanks, all of whom left this Parliament some time ago. That is how long this legislation has been sitting around.

In fact, if one goes back to the whole point when the consultation on this legislation began, it began in 2009. If you look at the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Justice, there was quite extensive consultation in 2009. That resulted in the Victims of Crime Reform Bill being referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 4 October 2011. The Government spent 2 years, or a bit more—from 2009 to late 2011—consulting with a range of people, which is right and proper. It is good that it did that, but it did take a long time doing it. Then the closing date for submissions to the select committee was 17 February 2012. We had the election in between the time that the bill came to the select committee and the time that submissions were to close. There were 34 submissions received and 12 submissions were heard. Then the legislation was not to see the light of day again for some time. So here we are at the end of May in 2014, 5 years on from the time that the original consultation process started. Let us hope that this is not the way that New Zealand expects legislation to proceed.

Since 1987 the New Zealand Parliament has dealt a number of times with the rights of victims of crime and with their interests. Labour initiatives such as the Victims of Offences Act 1987 and the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 were two such efforts to address the concerns and the sensitivities of victims of crime. Both of those initiatives adopted an incremental approach to changing the system, and there are some critical issues here that I will get to in just a moment, but the aim was to make the system more responsive and more sensitive to the victims of crime and to their families. We support this legislation because it moves along in that same tradition, with some incremental change that addresses the rights of victims of crime. But we do think from the evidence that was presented to the select committee all those years ago that it is time to do more.

The 49th Parliament repealed the partial defence of provocation, and that went some way to remedying the dreadful situation that families of murdered victims, in particular—or, rather, as a special example—found themselves in during trials. The reputation of a deceased loved one was distorted beyond recognition by the defence. Families simply felt revictimised in the course of the process in court, and that still happens. Further substantial reform to address and eliminate this practice is clearly needed.

We believe that a reference asking how best to achieve this should go to the Law Commission as a matter of priority. It is important that Parliament does not attempt to alter the balance that exists in our judicial system currently, but having the Law Commission apply itself to this may be one way of progressing victims’ rights through this Parliament in a bipartisan or a multipartisan way. It should be referred to the Law Commission as a matter of priority, in our view. But even with the changes such as the introduction of victim impact reports prior to sentencing, we still have an adversarial criminal system that recognises only the accused and the prosecution.

We are very mindful of the exhortations of the Chief Justice and others not to violate the due process guarantees that exist in our system. Providing for an advocate for the victim, however, need not violate that balance inherent in our adversarial system. So we think that it is entirely possible to establish a role for a victims advocate without upsetting the system of balance between accused and prosecution that has developed over centuries and that exists in our criminal justice system at the moment. But the role of a victims advocate should be considered. It should include the ability to explain processes to victims’ families and to speak up on behalf of victims when statements about their interests and reputation are made.

Victim Support, as an organisation, is already doing some of this work. We believe it should be given better statutory recognition and more secure funding, but we do support this legislation.

In the course of consultation there were numerous groups that were consulted. I dare say that some of them have forgotten that this legislation was sitting in the bowels of Parliament for as long as it has been, and they may not be aware that it has finally seen the light of day. But I hope that those people who were consulted, including the Chief Justice, the Chief Judges of Family Court, the Youth Court, the District Court, the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, the NGO alliance associated with the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families, and TOAH-NNEST, or Te Ohaaki a Hine—National Network for Ending Sexual Violence Together, will have some notification that this legislation is finally passing its third reading.

The legislation does enjoy support across the House. There are more things that we could do, and Labour looks forward to doing them in Government. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a call on behalf of the Greens on, technically, these four bills—the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4), the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2)—but for the sake of convenience we will continue to treat them as the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. The Greens will continue to support this legislation, as we have done up to this point, but as with our Labour colleagues, we do so without any particular enthusiasm. This legislation is much less than it could be.

The legislation does do some useful things. It has elements of a restorative justice approach within it, and that is something at the heart of our justice policy—a commitment to restorative justice, a genuinely restorative form of justice. This legislation gives victims a greater freedom to express their feelings in their own words. It gives them an opportunity to speak directly to an offender in a court of law. It does broaden and strengthen the processes around victim notification of the ultimate fate of offenders and, indeed, inmates. It does some useful things, things that have been called for. It could have done a great deal more, though.

In fact, my colleague noted almost 3 years ago, in the first reading of this legislation, that to some extent the legislation draws on the Justice and Electoral Committee’s 2007 Inquiry into Victims’ Rights, which was actually a Green Party initiative and which developed some very useful recommendations. But, sadly, only about a third of those recommendations have seen the light of day and have been incorporated into this legislation. We look forward to a time when more of those very good recommendations, in fact, will be put into practice. We share with our Labour colleagues the view that we need a much more comprehensive approach.

The Minister of Justice in introducing this reading I think referred to it as ambitious legislation. Her colleague Scott Simpson, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, used words like “innovative” and “imaginative”. I have to say that if this legislation represents innovation, imagination, and ambition, one must set a very low bar for those qualities or characteristics, because, frankly, I fail to see much of them in this legislation. It is quite a tentative approach. It is a very incremental approach to improving the lot of victims. We do need and look forward to a time when we will do something much more comprehensive, something rather more courageous, and something that draws on recommendations that have been made here in New Zealand, and we can look for ideas internationally. There are many constituencies, countries, where this is managed much better than we do it, and I look forward to being part of that in the future.

This legislation goes part-way towards a restorative approach, but it runs the risk of trying to mix elements of a restorative process into what is essentially a combative, adversarial system. Any budding young scientist knows that mixing together elements that are not compatible can lead to some unfortunate, and even explosive, outcomes. The idea of bringing victim impact statements into the court—a restorative element in, as I say, what is basically an adversarial context—can lead to some unfortunate consequences, and some submitters made that point. A victim pouring out their heart, explaining or expressing the hurt that has been done to their family and to their friends, or whatever it might be, and looking at an offender who might be laughing, joking, and really not taking it on board is not helping the victim in any way, and even the good and well-intentioned parts of the legislation do run the risk of not achieving particularly positive outcomes for victims.

The point has been made in an earlier reading, I think, that there seems to be an unfortunate assumption on the part of some at least, if not all, Government members that victims’ rights can be advanced only at the cost of offenders’ rights. A restorative justice approach is to understand that one seeks to guarantee rights to all parties in the justice system, and to the credit of this Government and a previous one, we have seen some useful and positive advances. We do see restorative justice meetings, conferences, and the like. We have community justice panels doing some useful work, particularly in Christchurch. We see the emergence of specialist courts, such as the homeless court in Auckland and the trials around drug and alcohol courts. These are very positive moves forward and I think we need to resource them better and advance them more quickly. But, sadly, despite the assurances and, in fact, the commentary from some of the Government speakers who have suggested that they are actually doing a lot of work about advancing victims’ rights, the approach is very tentative. It is very incremental.

Sadly, we still see too many instances where this Government is even complicit in creating victims. By that I mean the very many instances we have seen recently where the rights of offenders and, indeed, inmates in our prisons have not been respected—where inmates, for example, have been illegally deprived of basic rights, basic conditions—and, sadly, no consequences have befallen those people in Government and management positions who have been responsible for allowing that illegal treatment to occur.

As we know, inmates and offenders have themselves often been victims. The relationship is very close, and we know that that is well proven not only in New Zealand but elsewhere.

Inmates and offenders have often been victims themselves, many of them, sadly, through their long experience of the justice system. They know their rights very well, and they know when their legal rights are being compromised or are not being met. What sort of message does it send to offenders when they see the Government agencies responsible for enforcing the law actually breaking the law? What price rehabilitation when offenders see a model of “Do as I say, not as I do.”? That is where the Government needs to look very hard at itself and at its actions and needs to understand that it must be consistent in its approach. It is not difficult. Any good parent understands this. To the extent that this Government has established a “Do as I say, not as I do.” model, that will not advance the well-being of victims, and certainly it will not advance New Zealand’s reputation as a country that respects human rights.

On the face of it, as I say, the Greens will support, and will continue to support, this legislation because, essentially, it does no harm.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Are you going to vote for it?

Thank you, we are going to vote, sir. Listen carefully, Mr Auchinvole. I have made that point. Listen carefully, sir. We are going to support it because it does no particular harm. But what is actually needed was a comprehensive review. As I said, I am pleased to hear Labour colleagues who agree that that is what is called for.

The world has moved on. We need to get beyond the simplistic, punitive approach that has, sadly, typified and characterised the evolution of justice legislation in New Zealand for at least the last two decades, or, indeed, for probably longer than that. We look forward to a time when we are in a position to initiate and undertake something that is genuinely ambitious, genuinely innovative, and genuinely imaginative, and we hope that that time comes very soon. Thank you.

Talofa lava to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I begin by congratulating our assiduous, hard-working, and dedicated Minister of Justice on introducing the Victims of Crime Reform Bill and the four subsidiary bills—the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4), the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2)—that implement its provisions.

I welcome this legislation, particularly here in Wellington, because on Saturday night I spent an evening out with the New Zealand Police, on a ride-along, and had an opportunity—

💬 Scott Simpson: Volunteering.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL:—well, volunteering, yes. Actually, it was very interesting. The sergeant, Caroline, and the two constables, Jeremy and Colin, noted that, unfortunately, the local member here does not seem to take much interest in their activities.

Anyway, I was out with the police on a ride-along and we got called up to a domestic incident in Karori. It was a very unfortunate incident in that the two adults involved—partners—had two young children who were witnesses to the incident. Without going into details, given that it is a case that will probably eventually come up before the courts, I think it is very safe to say that the children are victims in every sense of the word and that, under this legislation, they will be given the support and the assistance that victims need and deserve.

I think that we on this side of the House should be very proud and completely unapologetic about the fact that we put the rights of victims above those of offenders and those who do evil in the community and who cause harm, particularly to the most vulnerable—the youngest members of our community. So I welcome particularly the provision that deems those people who are witnesses to domestic violence in their households to be victims, so that they can receive those sorts of support.

I also welcome the provisions that allow them to make a statement in their own way or in their own words. In the case of these particular children, who are very small children, it might be a visual representation of the harm that they have experienced—utterly appropriate.

I unhesitatingly commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

This legislation arising from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill is a very welcome step forward in the emerging movement to do more to support and consider the rights and needs of the victims of crime. I have heard some speakers say that more still needs to be done, but nevertheless this is a good step forward and for that reason New Zealand First does support the legislation.

The four bills amend and improve the current legislation. They provide better for victims of crime generally to broaden the rights of victims of serious offences, to provide more opportunities for victims to be involved in the criminal justice processes, to ensure victims are better informed of their rights, to increase responsible Government agencies’ accountability for and responsiveness to victims, and to achieve consistent victims’ rights in all adult and youth criminal jurisdictions.

These objectives have been substantially achieved in these four bills as amended following the select committee process. The Justice and Electoral Committee did, I think, a very good job in making several amendments to improve the legislation—minor in themselves but adding to the quality of each of the four bills.

I want to comment on only some of the new provisions. Clause 10 of the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill will ensure that a reference to all of a victim’s contact details in court would be restricted, to ensure privacy. This adds to a victim’s sense of security and privacy. Currently, a victim can be revictimised by their contact details becoming public, with all the potential dangers that that could mean. One of the most useful changes, though, in this bill, I think, is the changes to new section 17, set out in clause 12, regarding information about the victims. This legislation would not be effective unless attention is paid to obtaining comprehensive information about the effects of a crime on the victim, so that the offender can be made accountable in terms of reparations.

The new Act will now require a prosecutor to find out from any victim all relevant information about the victim’s injuries, losses, and other effects of the offence. The words used in section 17(1) are: “The prosecutor must make all reasonable efforts to ensure that information about the matters specified in subsection (1A) is ascertained from the victim.” And subsection (1A) lists: “(a) any physical injury or emotional harm suffered by the victim … (b) any loss of, or damage to, property suffered by the victim … (c) any other effects of the offence on the victim; and (d) any other matter consistent with the purpose of victim impact statements …”.

I think that is a very important provision because unless there are mechanisms provided to ensure that information is obtained, we cannot expect any adequate reparation to be awarded. There are also several other worthwhile amendments and improvements to 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, indeed, die.

With regard to the amendments to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, clause 38 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) amends it to allow victims and their representatives to bring one or more support persons to the Youth Court as of right, without having to seek permission from the judge, although the judge, of course, can limit the number of supporters. The need to get that permission had operated as a disincentive to victims seeking the support that they often needed, and there was no purpose in the consent of the court being required. It is now clear that the attendance of support people is a right for victims, as it should be, and I am very supportive of that new provision.

New clauses 38A and 38B are also important. New clause 38A requires victims of offences committed by a child or young person to be notified should the child or young person abscond from a youth justice residence. New clause 38B requires that victims of offences committed by a child or young person would be notified should that person die in a youth justice residence. Again, it would be most unsatisfactory for a victim to find out about these potential events from the news media or other informal sources. Victims need to know about these events so that they can take whatever actions, if any, they wish in response, or at least be aware and perhaps be wary.

With regard to the Parole Act 2002, the amendment to this Act set out in the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) will restore a victim’s rights and entitlements that were incorrectly removed by the Parole Amendment Act 2007. Victims will therefore again be properly informed about the process and how they may participate in it. If a hearing is an attended one, the victim must get notice of the details so that they can attend, and the victim must be informed of their right to be interviewed if a hearing is to be unattended. If a hearing is to be unattended, the victim would have the right to request that the decision to proceed in that way be reviewed. I think these are minor but actually very important provisions for a victim.

Lastly, amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 set out in the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) are aimed at improving the restorative justice process. I do not think I would agree with the comments of Mr Clendon on this. I do not think there is any danger in restorative justice processes and victims of rights of this kind being attended to in a proceeding. After all, it is when the offender has already been convicted that we are dealing with.

Clause 44 of the bill inserts a new section 24A requiring the court to adjourn proceedings to allow an inquiry to determine whether restorative justice is “appropriate in the circumstances of the case”. I do think we can trust the courts to determine what is appropriate and what is not. The amendment now explicitly includes the wishes of the victims among the matters the inquiry must consider.

Overall, this is good legislation. It has benefited from the 34 submissions sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and especially from the 12 submissions heard orally. I must say that these were some of the best submissions I have heard in a select committee process. Some of them were really quite compelling and dealt with personal experiences, which I am sure many members of the committee felt were useful but also, as I said, very compelling.

It has been a good process, and these will be four good pieces of legislation as a result. New Zealand First will support all four bills, as we have all the way so far. New Zealand First will always support legislation to assist victims so they are assisted by the processes of the criminal law and do not themselves become revictimised by it, which has, I am sad to say, been the case too often in the past.

This legislation will go some way to improve the old law and to help generate change in official attitudes towards victims. The new law will now be in place, but the relevant parts of the Public Service will now need to play their part too in seeing that the culture change actually happens. Only then will we be able to say that all of the objectives I spoke of at the beginning of this speech have truly been achieved.

Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora. I stand to take a short call on the legislation arising from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. This is very good legislation. We are putting victims at the heart of the justice system, with levies on offenders, new laws, and new services for victims.

This legislation has been led by the forward-thinking Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins. I am privileged to commend the legislation to the House. Kia ora.

That was a short address to the House from Joanne Hayes. I think, though, that this legislation arising from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill is worthy of greater analysis than that. I know that my Labour colleagues have been contributing to the debate and the discussion because if we look at the wider context around victims’ rights and the criminal justice system, there is still so much more that could be achieved. They are contentious areas, though, and I think this is the place and an opportunity for us to explore, for instance, some of those issues that arise out of the fact that we have an adversarial justice system, and all of the issues that that brings up for a victim. There is the fact that the repeal of our provocation laws has not truly allowed us to protect families from revictimisation, and so on. Those are some of the issues that I hope to touch on briefly in my short address.

First, though, I want to discuss the context in which we are debating this legislation, which is obviously focused on victims. Let us look at the context in which victims in New Zealand today find themselves. We are often reliant on our crime statistics to make a judgment on whether or not there are more victims out there this year than there were last year, for instance. If you ask the Minister of Justice, or, indeed, the Minister of Police, she will tell you that crime is down. Therefore, the great assumption that is left hanging is that the number of victims has reduced.

The issue with our crime statistics—and this has always been an issue; it is not a new one—is that they are totally reliant on an individual reporting a crime to the police, the police then recording that crime, and it therefore being released in our statistics. The first flaw in that system is that it relies on an individual feeling like they will get something out of calling the police in order to motivate them to do that. You might argue that in property offences they will do it because they might have an insurance claim hanging off whether or not they have filed a police report. If you are poor, you are less likely to have insurance. Crass as that sounds, it is the truth.

Who are our constantly revictimised victims? They are often our poorer communities. Who, therefore, are the people who are sometimes less well served by our criminal justice system? They are those same communities, which therefore sometimes have a suspicion of the police if they feel less well served, and so it continues. Therefore, we have to remain with a healthy scepticism about our crime statistics. That is just a fact of life.

It is borne out by additional surveys around crime experienced by New Zealanders. These are slightly older statistics, but even several years ago, 33 percent of all offences were reported to police—33 percent. That is why we have to make sure that we do keep these kinds of debates in context.

I am particularly concerned about constant revictimisation, as well. We know that 6 percent of victims experience 54 percent of victimisation, particularly our victims of domestic violence. For some reason—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Are you voting for the bill?

The member Chris Auchinvole over there keeps asking whether we are voting for the legislation. I am sorry if he thinks that the only role we have in this House is to stand up and say we are in favour and sit down again. I think that there is a place for healthy debate and discussion. I am sorry if the National Government has given up on that tonight. When it comes to domestic—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: I just wanted to give significance to your statements.

This is the fourth speech from a Labour speaker, and of course all of us have said we are voting for it.

When it comes to domestic violence, in particular, I am particularly concerned, because for some reason in New Zealand we tend to track higher when it comes to repeat victimisation than almost any other country. Someone who is a victim of domestic violence is likely to be revictimised over and over again. That should direct us to some of the kinds of interventions that we should be looking at in that space. That is the context. So when we come to look at mechanisms to support victims, I think we should think about some of those issues, particularly revictimisation.

One of the issues that I am sure Andrew Little will have raised, in particular—because he raised it at the Justice and Electoral Committee and in the Labour Party minority report—was whether or not it is time we looked at the notion of having an advocate for the victim as a formal statutory position in our court process. That is a way of trying to address the imbalance that is created by our adversarial court system, but, actually, it is a really pragmatic idea, as well.

I remember that when I was quite young, for one reason or another, I was brought in to support a victim through the court system for a day. I remember how complex the process was, and how nervous she was about what might happen in proceedings—whether or not she would see the offender; how she was meant to react at certain points in the process. There were lots of questions that I, of course, did not have the answers to. It never seemed like anyone who was involved in the court process at that time had the time or the space or the capacity to answer those questions. So at a practical level, I can really see a role in our justice system for that kind of position.

I think it would also help explain the process and the legal rights around victim impact statements. This has been a particularly controversial part of this debate. Most victims would think that if they were writing a victim impact statement, that it is just that—they write down the impact a crime has had on them—and they might ask why that should be edited or vetted. It is their view and it is their emotional experience that they are wanting to convey, and yet there are limitations. Being really clear about that up front is perhaps a way of easing that process—by having someone who is obviously on your side helping you navigate through that part of the process.

I also mentioned the importance of the repeal of the partial defence of provocation. I am really pleased that that happened in the last Parliament, I think it was. We had some really clear cases where we saw that victims were being revictimised through the court process by having offenders trying to claim that they were somehow provoked into their heinous crime. But it still appears to be happening in our court system, and I think the case has been made clearly by Labour that there is still some reform required in this area. Sending a reference to the Law Commission on this point might be one way to continue with that work.

So those are some of the additional issues we wanted to raise, and I think it is right that Labour raised them. We have got a proud history when it comes to enhancing victims’ rights. As much as the Government and the National Party would like to recharacterise the law and order space, it was things like the Victims of Offences Act and the Victims’ Rights Act 2002—I vividly remember that Act. I was working for a time in Phil Goff’s office when he was the Minister of Justice. Not only was he working through critical reform around sentencing and parole but also high on his priority list was enhancing victims’ rights. That was when we started to see embedded into legislation the ideas around, of course, things like the Victims Charter, which came out of that, and it was also really putting Victim Support on a firm footing to be the recognised agency in working with our victims. I know that those working in our justice system—our police force, for instance—absolutely value the role that Victim Support can play locally.

One final point I could not speak on this bill without making a note of is that, surely, our ultimate goal has always got to be preventing victims from becoming victims in the first place—decent prevention. For some time the New Zealand Police has been running an agenda around Prevention First. That is what its focus has been on. Unfortunately, the last Budget produced by this Government has severely undermined its ability to do decent preventative work. We have seen over $40 million cut out of the police budget, and it is their operational budget, so it is literally money that is coming out of both policing and prevention services. It is even coming out of some of the youth services that are focused on capturing young people in their community before they start entering into the harder end of offending, by using programmes that I have seen make a real difference in communities. All of those areas are going to take a hit under the last Budget.

So if we really want to have a focus on victims, we must maintain a focus on preventing the people who are being victimised from being in that situation in the first place. To remove the tools of the front-line workers in our justice system to do that job properly and adequately, and basing it on crime statistics alone when there are obvious flaws in doing that, is, I think, very flawed thinking.

I commend this legislation arising from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the legislation arising from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. As others have eloquently outlined already, we over on this side of the House are supporting this legislation. We have no doubt that the situation of victims in law and otherwise has greatly improved since Parliament first dealt with the issue in 1987. As I said, we do not oppose this legislation, but although most of the evidence that we have seen indicates that the reforms it will enact will be helpful to a greater or lesser extent, we do think there is the need to do more than just put in place further incremental change. Probably in no area is that more obvious than around victims of crimes like sexual crimes and domestic violence, where there is a need to do a lot more than just put in place incremental change. Certainly, those types of crimes—crimes against the person—are very often crimes committed by somebody known to and, in fact, close to that person. They are crimes that have significant costs to the individual, to their family, to our community, and to our country. We need to be looking at whether there are fundamental changes that need to be made—changes in terms of trying to prevent those crimes, changes in terms of how our police deal with those crimes, and changes in how our court systems deal with them.

Actually, we need to, effectively, be acting in concert to make changes that are of a cultural nature—changes that mean that we have fewer victims of those crimes because we challenge and we get acceptance that those kinds of crimes are not acceptable in our community. That starts by recognising that we have a problem, that the level of offending in terms of sexual and domestic violence in this county is extraordinarily high, and that there is a culture of violence that we need to challenge.

Just going back to the basis of this particular legislation, the Justice and Electoral Committee conducted an inquiry into victims’ rights in 2007, which highlighted some of the issues that have finally been addressed by this legislation. In fact, I think it might have been Lynne Pillay, actually, chairing that inquiry, as I recall.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Lynne Pillay?

Yes. So that is how long this has been around. It has obviously taken quite some time to actually address the matters that are in this legislation. The Law Society has expressed some reservations about some of the initiatives presented by the Government, particularly the expanding role of victims in the courtroom, which might move the courts away from the dispassionate dispensing of justice. However, it does support moves in the legislation to give adult victims the right to read their statements in court. I do think that it is an important thing that victims of crime should have the right to have it made absolutely clear to all concerned what the consequences and the impact of the crimes that have been perpetrated on them have actually been for them, because, often, the consequences are very significant.

I have been involved in the Inquiry into the Funding of Specialist Sexual Violence Social Services. The Social Services Committee heard submitter after submitter outline the consequences of crimes on those victims. The submissions traverse a whole range of different possibilities, certainly, around mental health issues, substance abuse, and self-harm. We had a very sad and moving submission from a police officer who came with a picture of his family—his wife and his children. His wife had killed herself as a consequence of the crimes that were perpetrated against her and the fact that she was unable to get the support that she needed. The consequences of crimes against the person can be very, very significant, and that sort of sexual and domestic offending often causes additional harm because of the nature of the relationship between the person who has had the crime committed on them and the person committing the crime.

It is disappointing to us that, if victims’ rights are supposedly a priority of the Government, it took more than a year and a half since this legislation came back from the select committee for it to have a second reading. That does seem an awfully long time if the concerns around victims are matters that are of serious consequence to the Government. I do not know what the reason given for that was.

Certainly, in our report back from the Law and Order Committee we noted that since 1987 Parliament has dealt a number of times with the rights and interests of those who suffer as a result of criminal offending. There has been an attempt, certainly under Labour Governments, to put in place initiatives to deal with crimes. The Victims of Offences Act 1987 and the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 were both Labour initiatives and both adopted a broadly similar approach to this legislation: incremental amendment to the existing system to try to make it more responsive and more sensitive to the victims of crime and, of course, to their families, because often with the kind of offending that I have talked about, the families are the people who suffer as well. In the example I gave of the police officer who came to our select committee, very clearly it was the family who ended up suffering. They were the ones who lost their mother and, in his case, his wife, and had to see her suffer for some considerable period of time before she did kill herself. That is the extreme, obviously, but families are also victims of crime.

We certainly think that we need to look at things like our current adversarial criminal justice system, particularly in terms of whether there needs to be, in cases like sexual offending, a different sort of approach. Labour, I think, will be much more interested in looking at the work that has been undertaken by the Law Commission in this regard. Although there are some fairly fundamental changes made, we do believe that this warrants investigation into how we do deal with getting to the bottom of the crime, finding out the truth, and obtaining justice for people.

Let us not forget that, in the end, with sexual offending there is one conviction in every 100 cases. So there are a lot of people not being brought to justice for their offending. That says a lot. It says a lot about the culture and it says a lot about how difficult it can be for people to lay complaints, but it also says that when they do, there are often then impediments for them to continue with that—impediments in terms of finding the necessary evidence and impediments about not wanting to go through our current adversarial system. The fact of the matter is that people know and people hear about the way that people are treated in the court system. It was not that long ago—within the last few months—that a Wellington defence lawyer said about a woman in a rape case: “Well, she should have kept her legs closed.” If people are going to be put through that sort of treatment in our court system, clearly it will put people off taking a complaint and pursuing their right to justice and their right to have the person who has perpetrated a crime against them held to account.

There are fundamental changes that we need to make to ensure that we change that kind of system. We even have to look at the recent Roast Busters case and the first report on it coming out of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. This report is supposedly around the communication, but what was the message sent to young women, when you get a senior police officer standing up there saying “We can’t do anything until somebody lays a complaint.”, when, in fact, some young women had made a complaint? They were being dismissed. They had been brave enough to make that complaint and then what they were hearing and what was going out into the public domain was that that complaint was dismissed. So there is a real need and although we support this legislation, we do believe that it is incremental and does not go far enough to protect victims of crime.

I commend the legislation arising from the Victims of Crime Reform Bill to the House.

Bills read a third time.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.