Legal Services Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Legal Services Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

The Government’s priority for this term includes restoring law and order, enforcing real consequences for committing crime, and improving the quality of Government spending. Under the previous Government’s approach, where the only clearly articulated target in the justice sector was a 30 percent reduction in the prison population—irrespective of what is happening in our communities and on our streets—we saw an alarming increase in violent crime. Offenders were often prioritised ahead of victims. Between 2018 and 2023, ram raids went up by 290 percent; robberies, 62 percent; victims of reported retail crime, 110 percent; family harm investigations, 34 percent; and acts intended to cause harm, 40 percent. Kiwis feel less safe than they did six years ago, and the message from the community has been clear: public safety needs to be at the heart of the criminal justice system. That means ensuring real consequences for crime.

The incoming Government also has inherited budget deficits, a substantially higher debt burden, and a subsequent need to ensure our limited resources, including in the justice sector, are used well. In line with these priorities, we’ve committed to defunding section 27 reports within our first 100 days of office. Section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 allows any offender to request that the court hear from someone chosen by the offender to speak about their background and related matters. The matters set out under section 27 include the offender’s personal, family, whānau, community, and cultural background, how support from the family final or community may help prevent further offending, and how the offender’s background, family, whānau, or community support may be relevant for possible sentences.

When this provision was introduced more than 20 years ago, it was intended that a person who knows the offender and their background would speak directly to the court. However, in recent years—noticeably since 2018—a cottage industry of section 27 report writers has evolved, funded by the legal aid scheme. Contrary to what was envisaged when 27 was introduced, these reports generally are prepared by a person not known to the offender or their background prior to the court proceedings. Some of these services are promoted with reference to the size of the sentencing discount that prospective clients can expect. The cost of all this to the taxpayer has grown from $40,000 in 2017 to approximately $7.5 million in the past financial year.

At a time when victims of crime have grown increasingly disenchanted with the justice system and its ability to prioritise their needs, this ever-increasing expenditure cannot be justified. Legislative change is needed to deliver on our commitment, because decisions about legal aid funding for specialist reports are made by an independent Legal Services Commissioner. A proposed minor amendment to the Legal Services Act 2011 will exempt section 27 reports from the range of legal aid disbursements that can be made, without in any way limiting the independence of the commissioner with regard to the wider legal aid scheme.

Let me be clear: this bill does not prevent background information about an offender that is relevant to sentencing from being provided to the court. This information will continue to be available from a range of sources, such as the offender calling on a person to address the court orally on section 27 matters; the offender’s lawyer’s submissions; pre-sentence reports prepared by Corrections; letters of support from family and friends; persons supporting the offender through a mentoring, rehabilitation, or counselling programme; and other reports that may be appropriate, such as alcohol and drug assessments. Just as importantly, judges will still need to adhere to the purposes and principles of sentencing, which require them to take into account an offender’s background in imposing a sentence.

The proposed law change will commence two weeks after receiving Royal assent. This will allow a reasonable time frame for the legal profession to transition to the change. During this period, legal aid claims for section 27 reports will only be paid if the lawyer making the claim has already obtained the commissioner’s approval to incur the cost.

As the bill makes discrete amendments to one Act and is relatively short in size, it will be progressed under urgency through the House to allow parliamentary time to be freed up for more complex legislation to come. The progression under urgency—if the House agrees—will allow savings within the legal aid funding to be realised sooner. The Government wants to see the savings made from ceasing legal aid funding for section 27 reports used to improve services for victims of crime over the next 12 months. The financial impacts of this law change will be closely monitored so that informed decisions can be made about how and when this will happen. Announcements will be made in due course.

The bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to defund section 27 reports, and it is the first of many planned changes to sentencing policy with the ultimate goal of improving public confidence in the justice system. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Labour opposes this bill for three main reasons. The first reason is that it will increase reoffending. The second reason is more offending will create more victims of crime. And, third, it creates a two-tiered justice system. It is just another example of a Government that is hooked on slogans, not solutions, and they have no interest in fixing the challenges that New Zealand now confronts.

Number one: increase offending. Section 27 reports look at reasons, not excuses. They look at what the offender’s behaviour is. They consider how someone’s background might have contributed to the offending; if any actions may have been taken to resolve the offending; and, most importantly, what support mechanisms might prevent further offending. The backgrounds of these offenders commonly include things like substance abuse, personality disorders, neurodivergence, learning difficulties, brain injuries, poverty, and trauma, including family violence—extraordinary rates of historic family, sexual, and violent victimisations. These are the drivers of crime. ACT and National are not interested in understanding the drivers of crime. Having this information allows judges to more deeply consider why someone has come before the court and how to prevent them from coming back again and reoffending. These drivers of crime, if they go unaddressed, the likelihood of further reoffending is high. If a judge doesn’t know what factors contributed to an offender’s behaviour, they cannot address those factors at sentencing.

We know through written parliamentary questions that the Minister of Justice has not asked for or received any analysis of the impact of section 27 reports on reoffending, and so he has no understanding of the impacts of taking these away on the victims of crime. So, for a Government that has set out to be intent on increasing victims’ rights and improving New Zealand for victims, this legislation does exactly the opposite of what they’ve set out to do.

This bill, sadly, will mean there are more victims of crime, because the drivers of crime are not addressed and offenders reoffend. I suspect that the Ministry of Justice may well have done some analysis on this, and maybe that is the reason why we are not proceeding through to the committee stage tonight. I can’t wait to take a good look at this regulatory impact statement and to understand exactly what’s gone on behind the scenes, but instead of facts tonight, we’ll be hearing the political reckons from those opposite. ACT claims that section 27 reports are being used to favour criminals and go soft on victims, and that scrapping them will make our country safer and ensure that sentencing is appropriate to the crime. These claims have no basis in evidence or reality; they just sound tough. The president of the New Zealand Bar Association has said, in relation to this bill, “There are significant risks that will make it harder for judges to impose appropriate sentences, [it will] undermine rehabilitation and adversely impact [the] reoffending [rate].” That means more victims.

Finally, what this bill does is create a two-tiered justice system, giving those people who can pay for a section 27 report an unfair advantage. Section 27 and its predecessor arose from a clear need, an urgent need, to address inequitable criminal justice outcomes for Māori, to recognise that prison sentences were failing to prevent recidivist offending, and also to prioritise options for rehabilitation and action on those fronts. With funding of written reports removed, section 27 provisions will only be available for those with private financial resources, wealthier groups that have a greater level of representation, and those in poverty go hard out. This will directly impact Māori and Pasifika communities in New Zealand. There are issues or problems with how these reports are doing, and let’s look into that. Let’s have a crack at fixing them. But this Government has no interest in solutions, only sound bites.

For a Government that funds tax cuts with more smoking and cutting benefits, there seems to be no limit on how low they will punch. This bill is just another ornament on the 100-day plan of nothing. If National and ACT genuinely cared about the victims of crime, they would turn around and stop this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. There are so many avenues of—well, no surprise that this is the approach that this Government is taking to some serious issues that need grown up, enduring solutions and responses, not the dog-whistling approach; the dog-whistling to ill-informed emotion. What needs to be understood here is that for so long now we have had the evidence—we have had the evidence—screeds and screeds of it, in fact, over decades. The Government also has at its fingertips, it’s called Integrated Data Infrastructure, but what that actually means is the very data that we have been gathering around the background of people, including young people who offend—the very diverse, complex, often generational, deeply challenging hardships and structural discrimination; many, if not most, offenders can find themselves on a path that is not healthy for them or the community.

So the Government seeks—it’s not even low-hanging fruit; it’s actually dropped and rotting on the ground—the solution that they are grabbing in wanting to remove the funding for the cultural reports, is what they are called; the reports that give judges far more information to be able to make good judgments in the court. I thought that’s what this place could at least uphold: good information to inform decisions is what this Minister and this Government are choosing to remove—do I only get five minutes on this?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Yeah.

Oh, OK—what this Government is choosing to remove. Now, what that also creates is an inequity because those who—and, as if our justice system didn’t already have bias; now, that’s not even up for debate. That has been well traversed by many reports and research. As if the justice system didn’t already have that bias, this legislation actually still allows those with the means and the networks and the resources to still be able to pull on more information for judges in the courts, thereby entrenching already unjust inequities, that you can have a better chance at justice if you have got the means.

The particular sore point—but, again, not surprising, for the Green Party to sharply oppose this legislation—is the tangata whenua and Tiriti considerations. So noting again that there has already been clear evidence that the system discriminates. Who? I saw a lot of the National Party MPs at the Salvation Army breakfast last week, didn’t we, Celia? We saw a lot of you there. We saw a lot of the National Party MPs there, supposedly listening. One of the key things that they said was “tough on crime”. The system has already been tough on Māori—far more tough on Māori than anyone else. That was what was spoken to at that breakfast last week. Were those members listening? Were they listening at all to that incredible research? That’s just the latest in a long line of research that has said the very same thing. Māori are more likely to be apprehended, convicted, sentenced more harshly for doing the same thing—the same thing. That is incomprehensible discrimination in our justice system, racism, and the removing of the funding for these cultural reports, which were one small but significant way of trying to mitigate the systemic bias that far too much of our research has already affirmed.

I am quite appalled—quite appalled—that this Government would just blatantly, basically, put up its hand and go, “Yep, we know there is already bias in the system. We’re going to make it worse.” Not surprised, but we will be exposing the hypocrisy of this Government at every opportunity. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill, which, obviously, is amending the Legal Services Act. I’m very proud to be a part of a Government, made up of National, ACT, and New Zealand First, that actually has a cohesive plan to tackle crime in our community. We heard time and time again during the campaign that Kiwis feel that crime has got out of control in our communities, and also that the system has become unbalanced—where victims’ rights are taking second seat to offenders’ rights.

Now, we’re not seeking to remove section 27 from the Act, and the Minister made that very clear. That option will still be available to all offenders, and they can call people to speak on their behalf in court and actually have personal testimonies of things that may affect their sentencing and actually explain, potentially, their offending. What we are stopping is the taxpayer funding an industry which has sprung up as an unintended consequence of paying for these reports by the taxpayer.

Again, as was outlined by the Minister, under the last Labour Government, $25 million has been spent on these reports. If you google search “cultural reports”—and these are actually section 27 reports; let’s get the terminology right. But if you go and google cultural reports or section 27 reports, half a dozen websites will appear where you can just log on and ask for a report to be written. You don’t have to have any attachment to the offender. You don’t actually even need to know the person. You can just commission someone who has actually no connection to the offender or the case.

So we are not removing section 27—that will still be available to people—but we are removing the taxpayer funding. It’s just a small way of actually rebalancing our justice system. So I look forward to the continued debate, but ACT will be supporting this.

I rise to speak in support of the Legal Services Amendment Bill, and I commend my colleague for his clarification that this is not a bill proposing to remove the section 27 reports.

I rise somewhat astounded at the lack of faith in our judiciary and the way in which they have been discredited in their ability to understand the differential between an impassioned personal plea under a section 27 report from someone who actually has an association to the offender—whether it is whānau, iwi, hapū, friend, employer—and a pre-commissioned, rote report by someone who has absolutely no connection to the offender.

I think I stand in support of the judiciary and their ability to differentiate what is a useful and valuable report. I also stand in support of the victims, who I’m somewhat confused as to how they are adversely affected by this in a process that is part of the judiciary system—it’s part of the justice system. It will ensure that the offender has the opportunity to be heard and their circumstances voiced by someone who actually cares about them.

The victims will be afforded the respect of not being funded out of their voice by a system that has become a commercial enterprise and very little about the rights of victims and improving the justice system. So, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise to object to the bill, for these reasons. The bill amends the Legal Services Act to cut legal aid funding for section 27 reports. Funding matters. The previous speaker referred to taxpayers’ money as if Māori aren’t taxpayers. So I just wanted to note that and reject that idea. These reports provide sentencing judges with background information and insight into a person’s background, into their whānau, and into any historical trauma, and provide context to their lives that often can lead, when there’s trauma, to offending. Māori are not born offenders; we’re not born into it—just to make that clear.

These reports give judges a full picture of the person, and that statement cannot be made lightly. Why do I know that? It’s because I was part of a team that used to put these together, and the usefulness that the judges found, and the purpose of them for whānau—that they provided not only a well-written narrative but the cultural context, though these section 27 reports are not just cultural reports. To that point, it’s used as part of a narrative, unfortunately, again, as another exercise to make cultural/Māori wrong. That’s what the narrative creates—cultural puts “Hmm, those Māori are getting off lighter sentences.” This is how it’s discussed. How do I know? I used to work in that setting and these are the kinds of conversations that used to run regularly in court rooms, unfortunately. So those points I make in my speech tonight.

Crime in Aotearoa is the result of poverty and disconnection from your community and whakapapa. Whakapapa is genealogy; it is who you come from and who you are. Let’s say it’s this word: deculturation. I’m happy to discuss what that means with others if they don’t know what that word means. It is the result of colonisation—something that this Government seems to be good with, I think, given for Māori, on balance, I think that was one of the Minister’s statements recently.

You cannot call tough on crime when you are insistent on being soft to poverty and blind to poverty and ignorant on critical analysis—critical cultural analysis—and out of touch with reality and, worst of all, indifferent to Māori, indifferent to whānau, indifferent to hapū, indifferent to the reality. I know what whānau have to deal with, with the barriers they have to contend with on a day-to-day basis of which very few will really know in reality.

As part of their 100-day plan, this Government has pledged to end section 27 reports, which they’ve dubbed “cultural reports”—and I made comments to that earlier—but whatever language we’re using, words matter. Words like “cultural” often is slash for Māori, which is, I think I said before, made wrong. While these reports are available to people of all backgrounds, this Government’s fixation on the word “culture” has created a convenient narrative.

We know for a fact that when it comes to criminal justice systems, the case is that Māori are some of the worst over-incarcerated people on the planet. We are more likely to be pursued, arrested, and charged for crimes different to non-Māori. There’s a new charge in town, it’s called a DWB—driving while brown. The only time Māori receive any special treatment in the justice system is when we’re being profiled in stores, on the street, in car parks, in courts, and in corridors. Wāhine Māori make up 64 percent of the female prison population, and tāne make up 50 percent.

By removing funding for section 27 reports, these statistics will only be worse. Unilaterally, removing funding means a greater risk of unfair and ineffective sentences, a higher rate of sentence appeals, and will create a situation where those who can afford to privately pay for these reports will be more advantaged—and we Māori will be disadvantaged yet again.

Māori are over-represented as both victims and criminals in the system. To ignore the systemic deprivation results in colonisation in the sentencing process is just another breach of article 1 and 2.

Can I apologise to the member for Te Tai Tokerau for inadvertently interrupting before. I didn’t intend to do that; I just can’t read clearly it seems tonight—much like many of the members who also can’t read the text of this bill, because it’s quite clear what the bill does. It does not cancel section 27 reports; it removes the legal aid disbursement requirement. That’s it. That’s all it does.

Members also appear not to be able to read the bill correctly because nothing in the section 27 of the Sentencing Act actually requires paid reports. Now, we’ve got this intense cottage industry filled up with consultants and people feathering their nests, when actually all the intention of this section was was to allow accused the opportunity to bring their family, their background, their community, their whānau before the courts to give context and insight into their upbringing. I think that one thing members opposite should be most insulted about is that these are called cultural reports, and not for the reasons they say, but because it implies that an offenders offending is due to their culture, and that to me is one of the most insulting things that anyone in this House could ever imply.

Just one more thing on this. Members opposite speak a lot about Maōri overrepresentation in incarceration rates; not a single one has talked about Maōri overrepresentation as victims of crime. So let’s think about that a bit more clearly, a bit more carefully when we move forward on this bill. Thank you.

Given that we’ve only got five minutes for this first contribution, I want to start with the departmental disclosure statement, Part 3, “Testing of the Legislative Content: Consistency with New Zealand’s international obligations”. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by the bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations?

This says, from the Ministry of Justice, “it is unclear how the proposal fits with New Zealand’s international commitments, such as the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Māori are over-represented in the criminal justice system, and the funding change may exacerbate this disparity, as a high proportion of Māori and Pacific peoples offenders receive a legally-aided section 27 report, compared with New Zealand European and others. Due to the time constraints, though, no steps have been taken to conclusively determine the effect of this bill.” Second: “Consistency with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations”. The ministry consulted with another ministry—Te Puni Kōkiri—and, it says, “who did not support the policy. But, due to the time constraints under the 100-day plan, no other consultation with Māori has taken place”.

Now, today we have heard them saying that we are saying on this side that we are getting rid of section 27 reports. I’ve listened to the debate. Not a single person said that. You’re all saying that on the other side of the House, as if we—no, the other side of the House, the Government is saying that the Opposition has been saying this. None of us have said that. We are very clear that your intentions through the amendment and in this section is to take the funding away. What is the effect of that? What are the implications of taking that away? It means that there is going to be access to justice issues. Now, Mr Meager, who is a lawyer—

💬 Hon Members: Was, was, was. He’s gone up in the world.

—should I tell you that the New Zealand Law Society says they oppose it. They oppose it, right? Oh well, they had a law degree, right? So you know this, the New Zealand Law Society, not just the Opposition, they oppose it, because it significantly limits access to justice. Then Te Hunga Rōia Māori O Aotearoa also put out a press statement saying they “strongly oppose the Government’s plans to withdraw funding for section 27 reports”.

Then we’ve got comments from the president of the New Zealand Bar Association. These people, who work in the sector, are saying that this strikes at the rights of all to equal access to justice—that was the Law Society. Further, the Bar Association co-chair Rachael Reed says that the point of them is to consider the evidence about the impact of the reports since their use. This is what they are urging the Government to do. They are asking the Government, taihoa—don’t rush. You know, rush according to this, rush according to this; can’t do all of the things that you would usually do when you’re introducing new legislation in policy because rush, rush, rush. What they’re asking for is that the Government consider the evidence about the impact of the reports since their use to determine whether the cost benefit justifies their continuation, and when assessed against reoffending rates and rehabilitation gains made.

But, no. This Government doesn’t want to take any advice on this. They don’t want to do any analysis on this. They just want to punch down on those who use the section 27 reports. By dressing it up and saying, “We’re not taking them away, but, effectively, we’re removing the funding.”, which means that those who need to access them—who can get them? Those that can afford to. Who can’t access them? Those that can’t afford to. Who are those people disproportionately in the justice system? Māori. That’s who it is, Mr Meager: Māori. And so, without doing any analysis, without doing any consultation with anybody who knows anything about this, this Government has just decided to introduce this bill tonight. Cost savings. What for? Tax cuts. Again, are we going to have people serving longer and unfair sentences in prison because they didn’t have access to this, because they don’t have the funding for it, right? For a tax cut. That’s what you stand for. Kia ora. We do not support this bill.

I rise in support of the Legal Services Amendment Bill, first reading. We just heard from the previous speaker, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, that this Government has just decided to introduce this bill tonight: “This Government has just decided to introduce this bill tonight” was the direct quote, if my shorthand is right. Well, no, can I get on the record that this was something that was heavily consulted with and heavily debated during a long, long election campaign. Guess what! One and a half million New Zealanders said, “Go to work on our law and order policies.” As a result, we have 68 MPs on this side of the House, and they have 55. So this is not something that some are trying to give the TV audience that this was landed on the Order Paper tonight. This was well consulted on and well supported.

Just as scrapping Labour’s prison reduction policies—that’s also been ticked off, I think, in the 100-day plan. Is that gone? That’s already been. Capping sentencing discounts to 40 percent—I think that’s coming as well. Getting tough on gangs—that’s also coming as part of this 100-day plan. This was a well-coordinated, well-campaigned on, well-signalled part of the law and order policies and part of our coalition agreement with the ACT Party. Again, as other members have said, we are not getting rid of section 27—we’re not, despite their repeated claims. All we are doing is defunding it. When that was mentioned and that was suggested in town halls up and down New Zealand—small towns, big districts, big cities, wherever, all around New Zealand—it was met with applause.

So this is something that despite what the previous member said that it’s just landed here tonight, this has come as a suite of law and order policies. You’ll see a lot more coming at you, the Opposition. So I commend this and I look forward to further debate as to what New Zealanders actually want, and that is that they want to see these cultural reports defunded by the taxpayer. As the Minister of Justice, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, has said, this is an industry that went in 2017—that magical year; that was the last great year, wasn’t it, 2017—$40,000 spent. The previous Government then spent $25 million. So it’s out of control. And the New Zealand public will be sending in the cards of gratitude as we speak. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise, of course, in support of my colleagues on this side of the House, to not commend this particular bill to the House. I’ve heard a number of catchcries or phrases from the other side of the House that they like to use when they’re out on the street, like “cottage industries”, making it sound like there was a rort being had. Well, let me remind that side of the House, when National were in power and they imposed meth testing on houses that set a standard that made sure that people had to test their houses for meth, it turned out to be bollocks—turned out to be an absolute farce. What happened was a cottage industry was created, worth far more than this, that imposed these kinds of regulations on house owners, and those who were looking to rent or those who were renting, and were prejudiced through that particular process. If that side of the House wants to talk about cottage industries, they need only look in the mirror at what they’ve done to support cottage industries around this country.

My colleagues on this side of the House have articulated our point really well on this particular bill. One point I want to raise to the House is, as I look through the regulatory impact statement (RIS), having been a Minister for six years, having seen my fair share of RIS papers delivered for bills, I find it quite interesting that there are redacted pieces in the RIS. That’s, from my experience, not a common practice, not something that I’ve ever seen in my decade in the House—especially on the RIS, where the analysis is required in order to inform the House, inform the debate. So the question must be asked: what is that side of the House hiding? What is the Government hiding on such an important bill, to make sure that this side of the House, those who are opposing their actions here—what are they hiding? That’s the question that we will continue to prosecute as this bill continues further through the House.

The other point I want to raise is, as we look towards this bill—and I’ve already talked about the cottage industry claims from the other side—that this sends a very clear intention. I’ve seen a few of the members on the other side of the House go to Youth Court or Rangatahi Courts around the country—a fantastic kaupapa, actually, that looks towards supporting our young people so that they don’t end up in the justice system. This sends a signal that the support that those young people have from their whānau, from their community, to make sure that the sentence they receive isn’t something that’ll continue to bind them into the justice and, indeed, into the corrections system—this sends a signal to our whānau who use the Rangatahi Court that this heavy-handed Government is there to create a further pipeline of our people. I say “our people” broadly, but, of course, we’ve already heard the statistics about Māori, about Pacific, and about low socio-economic communities creating a pipeline from the cradle to the prison system. That’s what this does.

The other side might say, “Well, we’re not taking away.” Well, what they’re doing is making it unattainable. It’s nothing new from this Government, because they do it on so many other things—they pull the ladder up when they’ve climbed it. Once many of the Ministers have climbed up a ladder, then they look back at everyone else and pull the ladder up. They’ve done it on benefits, they continue to do in the legal system, and they continue to do it in the justice system and in the corrections system.

Therefore, the Legal Services Amendment Bill that the Minister of Justice is pushing through will be heavily contested by this side of the House, and my colleagues, far more learned than me on these matters, will continue to prosecute our case to say that, actually, there was a better way to do this. If the Government was that well-intentioned with respect to this amendment bill, we could have sat down and worked with them, worked with the communities to say, “Actually, let’s come up with a way that we can do this and do this collaboratively and do this in a way that won’t create further harm in our communities.” Sadly, they didn’t take that opportunity. Sadly, they didn’t take the opportunity to consult widely on such an important matter.

I’m sure that as members of the House leave the Chamber and we go, and, every now and then, we fraternise and we talk and chat amongst ourselves—each and every one of us will know a whānau member who’s had to go through the justice system, and we’ve all got a case where we can say, “Geez, if only they knew more about that person, more about that person’s background.” I guarantee that every member in the House has a whānau member like that. That’s why, on this side of the House, we are opposing the actions of this Government, and we will continue to oppose this as this bill proceeds through the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to issue an apology to all the victims of rape, an apology to all the victims of violence, an apology to all the victims of aggravated robbery, for the $7.7 million of taxpayers’ money that was spent on those reports, trying to lessen the sentences of the perpetrators of those crimes against them. This is what we’re forgetting: we’re forgetting about the victims. What the other side doesn’t understand is that the victims are actually very important and should be the most important in this discussion. I have no shame about standing up for the rights of victims, and I’m sick and tired of people on the other side of the House making it out as if we don’t care. No, we care enough to care about the victims of rape, the victims of aggravated robbery, the victims of crime. I commend this bill to the House.

Members, this bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading