Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, may I first acknowledge my god-daughter, Ishara, whose 16th birthday is today, and her mother, my dear friend Manuja Samarasinha, who passed away a few months ago unexpectedly. Manuja was a staunch believer in women’s empowerment through education, and she was here in this House earlier this year, two days before this bill was drawn from the ballot for my maiden speech. I would like to honour my dear friend, with your indulgence and the indulgence of the House, and wish my god-daughter, Ishara, a beautiful, blessed birthday.

Good morning. Ata mārie, colleagues and those listening from beyond the walls of Parliament. It’s an honour to stand here this morning as we debate my member’s bill for the third and final time, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. As I have mentioned previously, this bill was drawn from the ballot on the first day of February of this year, and although I was not involved in its inception, having inherited it from Minister Louise Upston after she took up her ministerial roles, I hope that the House and, most importantly, victims feel that I have cradled this bill and its kaupapa safely and effectively to this last parliamentary stage.

What began as a desire to place an obligation on the Corrections chief executive and prison managers to make sure that victims of crime and parties to protection orders are not contacted by offenders under the supervision of Corrections, the bill went through a metamorphosis of some kind in form, but the intention remained the same: to further protect victims of crime from unwanted contact by offenders responsible for the crimes and offences against them.

The transformation of this bill, from what it began as to what it is now, has been traversed extensively, particularly in my second reading speech. But, in summary, the main shift was from placing an obligation on Corrections to make sure that everyone in their protection, both within prisons and in the community, falls under this scope. The big shift we did is we took away the requirement for this obligation to fall upon those offenders that are in the community and confined it to those within prison. In a nutshell, the reason why we made this change, as I’ve explained in my former speech, is because from an operational level, it would have been almost impossible for Corrections to monitor everyone that’s out in the community—that’s over 26,000 people.

Although it saddens me that we cannot offer more protection, or concrete protection—for victims whose offenders are serving community sentences, for example—it comforts me to acknowledge that our Government, with the support of the whole House so far, is progressing with our stalking bill, which, no doubt, will strengthen protection for victims as well.

In its final form, what this bill seeks to do is to add another layer of protection for victims of crime and those under whom protection orders are in place for—another layer, if you will, of fortification around victims. This extra layer is in the form of a few pages. It’s a short bill, but it’s made up of the following proposed changes to the principal Act—the principal Act being the Corrections Act 2004—which has enjoyed the support of this House so far.

Essentially, it’s going to be placing an obligation on the chief executive of Corrections to implement processes to protect victims from unwanted contact. These processes will include informing visitors of prisoners, and those who receive prisoner communication, that there are measures they can take if they don’t want to be contacted by a prisoner. Another change is that Corrections must—not may, but must—take into account the interests of victims, in particular being free from unwanted contact from prisoners when deciding what conditions to impose on prisoners regarding outgoing phone calls and outgoing mail.

A key change with this bill is that we’re introducing a new offence to the list of prisoner offences that fall under section 128 of the Corrections Act. This offence is, essentially, that where a prisoner contacts a person, or solicits another person to contact a person, who the prisoner knows or ought to have known reasonably doesn’t want to be contacted, they will be guilty of a prisoner offence.

I began this speech, as I have with my other speeches—or maybe I didn’t begin this speech—by saying that it’s an honour to rise and speak on this bill, but this honour is underpinned with a quiet sadness, because the reality is that bills like this are actually desperately needed to protect victims from the mental and psychological torture of revictimisation.

Revictimisation in the form of grossly inappropriate drawings of a perverse sexual nature being sent by mail to young girls by a serial rapist in jail as early as January of this year. This rapist is their father, and despite the Family Court ruling that this sick man was not to contact his daughters, he blatantly disregarded this and sent them drawing after drawing. They were revictimised with every drawing.

Revictimisation in the form of a psychopathic sex attacker successfully sending letters from prison to his victim in 2019. This victim had suffered three days of repeated sexual assault and violence. I’m getting goosebumps as I speak about this because this is real and this is happening in Aotearoa New Zealand. In her victim impact statement, the poor woman asked: “How is this possible? How is it possible that this can happen?”, referring to the repeated contact and saying that “Now, I never feel safe.” This horrible ordeal revictimised her with every point of contact.

Revictimisation in the form of a victim being subjected to over 100 phone calls made from within prison by the perpetrator of crimes against them in 2018. With every harrowing phone call, this victim was revictimised. Although the Corrections Act had some type of general references to protecting victims of crime, we needed to make it more specific, and that’s what this bill does.

One would think, and rightfully presume, that when an offender is in jail, the victim will be free from the criminal’s torment, at least while the perpetrator is behind bars, but these examples that I’ve briefly outlined are only three out of an alarming plethora of examples of such cases, and it shows that this reasonable expectation is not being met in many circumstances—again, hence why this amendment bill is needed.

If I may, I would like to extend my warm gratitude to every single individual connected in some way to the progress of this bill and the intention behind this bill. I’d like to show my gratitude to the Hon Louise Upston for giving this bill renewed life after she was so moved by the number of horrible forms of contact by offenders to their victims from prison. I’d like to thank the Hon Mark Mitchell, Minister of Corrections, for supporting the kaupapa behind these amendments; to the Corrections advisers who answered all my questions—and there were many—thoroughly and in earnest. My colleagues on the Justice Committee, and also my colleagues across the House, but especially our chair, James Meager, for all his patience with my queries.

Finally, I’d like to thank my mother, who, from a very young age, has encouraged me to see who the victims are and to stick up for them. With that, I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start my contribution by acknowledging the member who has brought this bill to the House and has very tenaciously asked all of those questions and worked through the process, because things are never as simple as they seem and there’s always something under the good that requires a little bit more thought or a little bit more pragmatism than what was anticipated. I do congratulate the member for working all her way through those things. I’d also like to acknowledge the people who are victims of retraumatisation and the fact that we should, as a society, have the expectation that when someone commits an offence against us and they are imprisoned, that should be the end of the process and not the beginning of a whole new process and a whole new experience.

The bill, as has been said, doesn’t address all of the offender communications because it just wasn’t practical when you start to think about how you could do that, but it does do the ones it can do and it does limit those interactions from prison. I think that that is an absolute step in the right direction. In that sense it does, as members’ bills should do, take a very specific and a very practical step and even modest progress is valuable when it affirms victims’ rights to safety and to peace of mind. It does so primarily, as the member responsible for the bill herself said, by introducing a new offence under the prison discipline regime for making unwanted contact, and it sends a signal therefore that harassment of victims won’t be tolerated.

To achieve that practically, it does somewhat rely on victim education. It does somewhat rely on the recipient of prisoner communications being informed about the practical steps that they can do and what the Corrections department can do to help them understand how they can stop that unwanted contact. Whilst not perfect and whilst the onus is somewhat being on the victim, it is a step in the right direction, and it will be interesting to follow the progress of how this bill makes an impact in the Corrections system.

It also places an expectation, as was said, on the Department of Corrections, to actively consider the victims when they make the types of decisions that they make around communications. As you can imagine, it’s not a simple linear and tidy package of decision making that has to be made when you’re balancing people’s rights to communicate with victims’ rights to not receive some communication. Again, it will be interesting to see how that progresses, and the Department of Corrections will need to report on that as well. That provides us with that tool.

It’s a practical step forward. It supports victims in managing their own safety. For that reason, we commend the member who has ushered this through, and support the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise in support of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues previously, I want to mihi across the House, and of course to MP Rima Nakhle, for the work that has been done to get this bill to this stage. On our last day in the House for 2024, it feels fitting that we are passing a bill that has unanimous support across the House and will make a tangible and real difference to protection for survivors. This work is important work. This work will help protect people from retraumatisation. This is what it’s all about.

At the core of this bill is a vision for a world free from violence, from family violence, and from sexual violence. We shouldn’t accept these issues as inevitable. To reach our goal of eliminating family and sexual violence, it is imperative that we have a survivor-centred approach to justice, one that protects survivors from further abuse, trauma, pain, and suffering. A survivor-focused approach means listening and learning, and that is actually what the Justice Committee did through the select committee process. We heard survivors, we heard those submitters, and we acted, and that is why, here at the Greens, we support this bill.

What is clear is that this Government is taking a fundamentally different approach to prevention. There have been some big changes in this bill since its first reading. After hearing from the Department of Corrections that the first iteration of this bill would be very difficult to implement operationally, the Justice Committee went back and did that mahi and really made those changes that mean that it will make a tangible difference and it will be implemented in a way that actually protects survivors.

We know a survivor-centred approach to justice is fundamentally different from the tough-on-crime stance which this Government is dedicated to, and we welcome this bill as a protection for survivors. To have a truly survivor-centred approach to justice is the key to eliminating family violence and sexual violence. We can’t keep using punitive measures that are doomed to fail over and over again. The reality is prevention and rehabilitation is not a priority for this Government, even though survivors are telling us this is what they want.

It’s time to learn from our mistakes and be really bold and learn from people with lived experience. When it comes to family violence, it ends up being the justice system itself that can cause as much harm as the actual family violence. Generations of family violence survivors have told us that they regretted reporting abuse, as the justice system’s response often left them feeling more harmed than the violence itself. This is a truly sobering reflection of the system’s failures.

We welcome this bill and the positive changes, and we know we need to transform the justice system to be survivor-centred, to focus on prevention and rehabilitation. We hear this from survivors, advocates, and experts, and it’s time for us to continue in the true spirit of survivor-centred justice.

On Sunday, the second action plan of Te Aorerekura was launched. This is a bold initiative shepherded in by the Hon Marama Davidson. This is an across-Government strategy which focuses on primary prevention. One of the key components to success is breaking down the barriers of Government agencies talking to each other and working together. And so that talking together and planning together and committing to prevention work is what is needed, and that is what we can do. This is an example of how we do that. The Greens strongly urge the Government to reprioritise Te Aorerekura and the vital system-wide changes needed, like resourcing front-line services who provide the support families need.

What is Te Aorerekura all about? It acknowledges the importance of prevention. It is an area that is chronically underfunded in New Zealand, and, sadly, this Government has decided to further—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t want to be mean-spirited at the moment, but we’re on the third reading of a bill—and I accept that the members mentioned this as an important component, but I would really like the member to come back to this piece of legislation. Thank you.

KAHURANGI CARTER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. Thank you. We want to see this commitment in the prevention space, and this bill is a step towards that because we are prioritising survivors and what survivors have asked for and something that actually will prevent them from retraumatisation. I do want to shout out to successful programmes like Te Whakaruruhau, Waitomo Papakainga, and Te Whare Ruruhau o Meri, where wāhine and tāne are supported to break free from these cycles of violence.

The Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill represents a big step towards a truly survivor-centred approach within our justice system. This bill protects survivors of family violence from unwanted contact, which is crucial to their healing journey. It is clear that a survivor-centred approach to justice is vital for the changes that we need to protect our future generations. If we genuinely want to transform our justice system and provide effective protection for survivors, we must ensure that prevention is prioritised. Let’s keep moving forward and working together on this prevention and rehabilitation work. We support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill in this third reading. Firstly, I want to pay tribute to Rima Nakhle, whose name this bill is in. Obviously, as she has outlined this morning, she did inherit this bill, but I don’t think there could have been a better person to actually have inherited this bill. Ms Nakhle is a very hard-working member of the Justice Committee—and, I am sure, of other parliamentary activities as well—but I’ve had a lot to do with her on the Justice Committee. She is a very victim and survivor-centric person, she’s very intelligent, and she did an amazing job shepherding this bill through the select committee process, asking the right questions, always pushing for more and more.

As she said, the bill started off in one place, it developed—you know, she would have had a regime that actually would have covered every person under Corrections supervision in all of New Zealand, but accepted that there was some impracticality to that, but did keep pushing. I want to talk about that a little bit later, about some of the things that I think we can do to follow up this bill, which looks set to pass. I want to say thank you to Rima for continuing to be the voice of victims and survivors, and I think we’re going to deliver you a slightly early Christmas present this morning—but, more importantly, we’re actually going to deliver a Christmas present for victims and survivors in New Zealand.

Really, as has been outlined, what this does is strengthen the protections in place for victims and survivors of crime who do not want to hear from the perpetrators of the crimes against them. Now, that’s a pretty simple concept. If you have been subject to a crime—often violent and often sexual offences—and you do not want to hear from that person ever again, I think that that is something that you should have as a right, as a victim or a survivor. While there were some general protections in place, they were not adequate. That is clear, because, actually, Corrections worked and actually asked for a six-month implementation period because they wanted to make sure they had the proper processes and practices in place. They are clearly going to be strengthening what they do already.

Another important point which we did uncover—and, I think, again, has been referred to this morning—is there is some education that needs to be done, actually, for victims and survivors around their rights. We heard from Corrections about what they’re going to put in place in relation to that. They will be trying to make sure, at contact points they have with victims and survivors, that they will be making their rights known to them, and the process when they do want to stop this unwanted contact.

It’s also been touched on this morning that we do have, obviously, a family and sexual violence culture problem in New Zealand. It has been referred to that we had the second launch of the action plan on Sunday, and I do want to pay tribute both to the current Minister, the Hon Karen Chhour, and previous Ministers who have put that plan in place. I hope that we can actually have a discussion across the House about how we can deliver the things in that plan, because it is very important as a lot of those—and, again, Ms Nakhle referred to some of the types of unwanted contact this morning—are family and sexual violence cases.

We want to, obviously, stop this for as many victims and survivors of crime as possible. We need to be doing things at the prevention and punishment end, but also, obviously, in relation to victims’ and survivors’ rights. Again, I think the stalking law which we introduced last week is a part of that. One of the other interesting things which I know Ms Nakhle was slightly disappointed about was that we couldn’t actually put a reporting aspect into this bill. I think that was discussed at length, because it would actually force Corrections to report on what they had done, and the outcomes.

One of the great things about select committees and the annual review process is we do actually have Corrections in every year to our select committee. We discussed the opportunity to ask questions of Corrections about the implementation of this bill and what they’re doing to protect victims’ rights and survivors’ rights. I look forward to that being a topic of discussion next year when the Corrections department comes in, and we can actually ask them some detailed questions about this regime, how it’s going, and actually what the results have been. That is something that, again, is a great part of our parliamentary process and actually will allow us to follow up on Ms Nahkle’s bill.

I also want to pay tribute to people who did submit to this bill. We did cover this in the second reading, but it’s just worth calling out that we did have some submissions in relation to this bill. Some submitters had gone to a lot of effort. I noted the New Zealand Law Students’ Association went to some effort and detail to actually go through the bill—the improvements that they saw could be made—and I want to thank groups like that that did actually look at the substance of the bill and make suggestions.

I also want to just reference Victim Support, because they also did do a submission, and a really excellent submission. Again, a lot of the things that they put in their submission have been touched on this morning in the House, but there are four points in their submission that I do want to draw people’s attention to, because they really outlined reasons why they were going to support this bill on behalf of victims and survivors.

The reasons they put forward were these: victims deserve to feel safe. This comes back to my earlier comments: if people have been the subject of a crime and they do not want to hear from the perpetrator of that crime, that should be their right, and they deserve to feel safe in getting on with their lives.

They deserve to be free from revictimization. We’ve heard some comments this morning from across the House about the importance of dealing with revictimisation, and unwanted contact is a form of revictimisation. Again, we heard some quite traumatic examples of what can be communicated to people.

Victims deserve to have autonomy. This comes, again, back to my point that if people make a decision about how they want to not hear from someone and get on with their lives, they should be able to do that, and actually regain control, particularly when it’s a family violence case or sexual violence case—actually having that autonomy and actually being able to take control over your life is very, very important.

Fourthly, they said this could help assist victims to move on. I think that is really, again, another key point. Someone who’s been subject to a crime needs to decide how they want to move on and live their lives, and if that includes cutting someone off and cutting off contact from someone, they should be allowed to do that.

Also, Victim Support put forward a couple of other really helpful suggestions in their submission, which we dealt with. It has been touched on this morning, this idea of having prisoners and inmates using other prisoners and inmates to reach out to the people. Again, we’ve heard how that will not be allowed either; so you can’t ask someone else in your prison facility to do the contacting on your behalf, and if you’re doing that, that will be an offence. They also talked about some process changes. I thought that their submission actually summed up really nicely what Rima Nakhle was trying to achieve in this bill.

I do think this is an excellent piece of legislation, which, obviously, is being supported across the House, and is a very victim- and survivor-centric piece of work. I want to commend this bill to the House on behalf of ACT.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. As others have done in the House, I would like to recognise the member Rima Nakhle for her compassionate, considered, and empathetic approach that she has taken to this bill. She has given credit, of course, to Minister Louise Upston, who first presented the bill, but I think it is her collaborative and empathetic approach to this bill that has enabled it to traverse the journey it has and bring it to this House. She is an individual who has tremendous warmth, and it is hard not to be caught up by her passion on this issue and her genuine concern for delivering positive outcomes. I thank her for the work that she’s done to bring this to the House.

I’d like to pause a little bit when we talk about the need for protection and recognise that a big component of this is about the power relationship. This is about offenders continuing to hold a power, control, through whatever means, over vulnerable people, and this communication is just one of the ways in which they influence. When they don’t have the ability to be physically in control or physically intimidating or constraining their victims, then they use this as a method of continuing to share their influence and control over vulnerable victims. It is important when we talk about this need to reduce the impact on victims and affording better protections that the reality is there has to be a punitive measure in this space. We would love to be able to police by consent, we would love to be able to not have to lock anybody up because nobody makes bad decisions, but the reality is we owe these vulnerable people some degree of greater protection, and punitive impacts are a reality in this space.

There are opportunities, of course, to break the cycle, and I think that we have to be a bit more considered about the environment of corrections. I think the work that the member did through this process in working with Corrections was quite an eye-opener as to how much Corrections actually do deliver in terms of trying to break the cycle: to rehabilitate, to educate, to strengthen, to make a different pathway so that different decisions can be made. But that doesn’t happen overnight, and the reality is these victims need protection all the time. As we work through that process of better education, of better housing, of better career opportunities, all of those things that will enable people to live better lives and reach their potential, that is not immediate. Therefore, these steps need to be taken to ensure that we have some assurance to victims.

I’d comment a little bit on observations that were made across the House about victims regretting reporting. From my experience, one of the biggest regrets that victims had was the fact that there was no punishment—that they go through this enormous process that is incredibly terrifying and toll taking, and at the end of the day, the offender who has inflicted so much harm bears no consequence for that. That is part of those realities that we have to recognise—that this system is flawed. It isn’t perfect, but the point of putting victims first is ensuring that we can provide an assurance that, if they go through this process, they will be protected; that the person who is responsible for this harm is dealt with in a way that makes the process of reporting worthwhile. The greatest fear you have is that, once you’ve gone through this and exposed it, this person either can show up on your doorstep the next day or can write letters or phone calls or send objectionable material.

The ways in which they can continue to create this influence is evident any time you meet with any organisation that’s trying to reduce family violence and harm; the insidious way in which they can continue to invoke controls, whether it is through transactions into bank accounts, whether it’s controlling money, whether it’s sending text messages, sending other people to send messages. It is this ongoing level of control that this bill is serving to reduce.

So, yes, we do have a flawed system. Yes, there is lots of work to be done if we are to strengthen our societies, but fundamentally we have to reduce the number of victims, and when we have victims, we provide them assurance that they will be protected. This bill goes a long way to sending a very clear message that this Government is listening, that we understand the realities. There is lots of work to be done, but for this bill, on this day, we can say that we have taken one more step to ensuring that your voice is heard and we will put some wrap-around protections on you. Therefore, New Zealand First commends this bill to the House.

This is a five-minute call—Francisco Hernandez.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the member Rima Nakhle for bringing this work forward, and I congratulate her.

I want to thank all members of the House as speeches in previous readings have shown unanimous support for this bill. It’s a good reflection that on issues like this, like the greyhound bill, we can come together and actually do good things together, despite the sort of incentives that encourage conflict and partisanship. We are physically set up in opposition to each other, and that’s a feature of the Westminster system, which actually comes into a bit of conflict, I guess, with one of the features of the mixed member proportional system, which is that different parties do have to work together on issues to try and achieve consensus. I think that’s been one of the tensions across this Government, and it was a tension in previous Governments as well.

I also want to thank Minister Chhour and previous Ministers who worked in this space, and I want to acknowledge the generous tribute that Todd Stephenson mentioned towards previous Ministers, like Marama Davidson, on the work on Te Aorerekura. It’s really important that this continues to be an issue that transcends partisan political boundaries.

I think my colleague Kahurangi Carter has already outlined the Green Party’s position on this bill and why we’re supporting it. This bill puts additional support towards victims so that there’s a decreased chance of their being revictimised by perpetrators, and it does this in a way that is consistent with a victim- or survivor-centred approach that is inherent in that strategy.

I won’t labour the point. Thank you to all members for their support. Thank you to Rima Nakhle for bringing this important work forward. I hope that we as a House can continue to work together on issues like this that transcend partisan party politics. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure and privilege to rise to speak in the third reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

I particularly acknowledge my very good and hard-working colleague Rima Nakhle, the MP for Takanini. It’s a real honour to get a member’s bill drawn and to get to this point, where you’re about to actually pass law. I think that’s quite something. It’s one of the privileges we get as MPs. I’d like to also acknowledge her very supportive husband, Roger, who is here today. It’s great to have that support. We know how much they support each other, so it’s great to have you; I acknowledge you up here as well.

Look, I can’t imagine actually being a victim and then being revictimised by someone who you thought you should be safe from, because they’re in prison. In this day and age, we really have to make sure that people are given every chance to move on from being a victim, as much as they can, and deal with it. It must be such a traumatic experience, so to actually then allow for more protection for victims is outstanding, and it’s a great reason for this bill.

It actually fits in really well with what our Government is doing in the whole law and order space. It’s putting a real focus on victims. We felt, in the past, that that balance had been lost, and we’re bringing it back to a situation where victims are at the centre of the justice system, not the criminals themselves. It’s going to make quite a difference for people, I think, to put an obligation on the CEO of Corrections to actually go the extra mile to make sure people aren’t being revictimised while their perpetrator is in jail. I mean, it’s obviously a challenge, because recently we’ve seen pictures from within jail taken of people on smuggled phones and so forth, so it might just add that extra focus in that space, which I think will be a really good thing.

In terms of the other aspects around helping the victims of crime, one of the things that we brought to the House recently is around the stalking situation. It all flows into that same area. For some who’ve never been there, they might not necessarily understand it, but, by damn, it can be very traumatic for the individuals that are caught up in  this situation, so I really think this will really make a difference for people.

I mean, it also fits in with all the other things. We’re sending that message out there to say to the people who want to commit crime that we don’t accept it; society does not accept it. We put a real focus in that space around the gangs and the work we’ve done there and said to them, “Look, don’t wear gang patches.”, because, actually, in many ways, when people go outside and they see gangs, they can feel traumatised by that if they were a victim of a gang crime. I think that sort of thing can really, really help in that space as well.

I think it’s important to acknowledge, in this whole process with this bill, which was drawn, as Rima told us earlier on, on 1 February this year, just after the maiden speech—gee, some people are lucky—and then went through the process. The first reading was on 20 March and then submissions were open for a month from 6 April to 6 May, and they received 12 submissions. Clearly, I think we had better pay tribute to the very hard-working members of the Justice Committee. They seem to be always complaining about the amount of work they do. I really don’t know what their problem is, actually.

James Meager: Love the work.

GRANT McCALLUM: It’s what we get paid to do, Mr Meager. I pay compliments to the chair—he’s done a good job of chairing it—and the deputy chair, Jamie Arbuckle. We’ve got the infamous Cameron Brewer over here, who’s also on that select committee. He seems to spend all his life in this House, because the Justice Committee does seem to have a few bills in here. We’ve also got Rima on that same select committee; Paulo Garcia, who can’t be here at the moment. I acknowledge Todd Stephenson, who spoke earlier, and Ginny Andersen, who’s on that select committee. And, of course, Duncan—of course I’ve got to acknowledge Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is this your Christmas card list?

GRANT McCALLUM: Ha, ha! Well, I’m getting through it, yeah—and Tracey McLellan and Tamatha and Tākuta Ferris. I think it’s really important that we acknowledge the hard work that’s been done by people on that committee.

With that, I really do commend this bill to the House. It’s a great bill. It will make a real difference for victims in in our society, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Grant McCallum, for running through the members of the Justice Committee for the record there.

Look, across the House we will not agree on all criminal justice policy and we fiercely disagree about large parts of it, but in terms of at least the theory of better support and appropriate support for victims and the reduction in the number of victims, we do agree—absolutely agree—and that’s good. Congratulations to the member. She’s going to see her bill passed today, and the bill has a good foundation in what is seeks to achieve.

What it really does is it puts into law the processes that Corrections certainly endeavour to implement anyway, and that’s a good thing, because Corrections should be required to protect victims from unwanted contact from offenders, indeed any offender. So, good on you. We do know that Corrections doesn’t have a great record of doing what they’re legally obliged to do. I hope the member will keep tabs on what’s happening. I know we talked about having some record-keeping, but certainly I know, on this side of the House, we intend to ask some questions to make sure that they’re keeping up.

This is part of a wider project, and the member just spoke about the stalking bill. Ginny Andersen put a stalking bill into the ballot and prompted the Government to accelerate work on stalking. That’s also a really important aspect, and not unrelated to the current bill, which is about unwanted contact and, essentially, taking vulnerable people and revictimising them. In our last term, we tripled the amount of support for the victims’ assistance scheme and doubled the level of funding for Victim Support.

I’ve spoken to Victim Support and they do struggle. They do a fantastic job with very limited resources, given the number of victims they do assist. I hope that not only will we put in law these existing practices for Corrections, but we’ll also make sure that funding keeps up with demand in terms of victims.

That’s probably all I really need to say. I congratulate the member. She is an advocate for victims. I’m always happy to talk about how we can do better there in a cross-party way. Let’s keep tabs on Corrections and make sure they live up to their promises. I know the officials worked hard and were very cooperative in making a workable piece of legislation, but what really matters is how it works on the ground, and we’ll need to keep tabs on that. Let’s continue to work together, both to reduce the number of victims—how we do that, I think, we’ll have some discussions about—and in terms of supporting people who are victims, and making sure that we can give them the best path out of a pretty horrible situation is something we all agree on. Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It’s great that members across the House are supporting this third reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. Like others, I just want to acknowledge its sponsor, Rima Nakhle, and all the work that she continues to do around advocating for victims.

I just want to reflect on what she said in her second reading speech, as the sponsor: “This bill at its core is about victims. I don’t shy away from the fact that victims and protecting victims plays a huge role in the course and the direction of my actions and my thoughts, especially having the privilege of being a member of Parliament.” And, as Grant McCallum so eloquently said, that is one of the privileges of being a member of Parliament: the ability to actually submit legislation under one’s name into the biscuit tin, into the members’ ballot, and then for it to be drawn out—a fantastic way for Rima Nakhle to finish up this year, particularly when you consider, I think, the first day of this year, she gave a fabulous maiden speech.

On 1 February, her member’s bill, this member’s bill, was drawn from the ballot—and so a great year for the member, and good news for the victims has just been added again today. The first reading was on 20 March. Just to go back on some of the process here: drawn on 1 February; first reading, 20 March; submissions between 6 April and 6 May. Twelve submissions were made.

Rima Nakhle has also noted that she would have liked the restrictions around contact and protecting victims to have applied to people who are under the care of Corrections out in the community. I note that the Department of Corrections controls or supervises, looking at our committee report-back, 26,000 people in the community—26,000 people in the community that Corrections controls or supervises—as well as approximately 9,500 prisoners serving sentences inside prisons.

Now, while this legislation doesn’t extend directly to those who are serving their community sentences or under the supervision of Corrections, Ms Nakhle none the less made sure that the expectation was in the commentary of the select committee. I put it out—page 2 of the select committee’s report back—the commentary: “We request that the relevant agencies continue to monitor the safeguards available to serve the protection of victims where offenders are serving community-based sentences, orders, and parole.”

That message has been sent to Corrections. They have willingly listened and heard, and they will subsequently continue to monitor and to report back on the safeguards available to protect those victims where their offenders are serving community-based sentences. That is now in the select committee report. It hasn’t quite been put into the statute, but what that means is that there is an expectation that, when Corrections comes through—whether it’s for Estimates or annual reviews, or for any presentations to the likes of the Justice Committee—we can raise legitimately, and future Parliaments can raise, “What are you doing to ensure that the safeguards available are protecting the victims of those offenders who remain in the community?” That was a win—that was definitely a win.

I think Ms Nakhle—why don’t we call her “Mrs Nakhle”, because we’ve got Mr Nakhle here, as has been noted: Roger Nakhle. I actually want just to digress a little bit, Mr Speaker, with your indulgence on the eve of the break-up for Christmas, that the Nakhle family understands the needs of the community, particularly pertaining to South Auckland, more than most. I want to acknowledge Rima and Roger’s work in emergency and transitional housing. I also want to acknowledge Roger’s family, Roger’s parents, for the contribution that they have made—and I’m almost getting old enough to look back on last century—

James Meager: No!

CAMERON BREWER: —despite appearances, Mr Meager; I know that’s what you’re saying—the contribution that they have made to the creation of Manukau City, now part of the Auckland Council area, that proud part of South Auckland, in building and creating that city and working alongside some greats, including Sir Barry Curtis. I want to acknowledge the Nakhle family, and to have that Nakhle name on this piece of legislation is very meaningful and very fitting. Congratulations.

Another win that we mustn’t overlook—we’ve got Corrections pinned down as far as ensuring the safeguards are available and monitored for those who are serving sentences outside of prison—inside, as the statute now prescribes, Mrs Nakhle has ensured that “must” has replaced “may”. As we know in legislation, words count. “Must” now replaces “may”, which is a major, major victory for victims across New Zealand going forward.

In saying that, if we look at new section 77(5A)—“In deciding what conditions (if any) to impose, the chief executive or the Commissioner of Police must take into account the interests of victims”—Rima Nakhle has managed to get that word in. That’s no easy task, to change statute from “may” to “must”—the word “must”, “must take into account”, as opposed to “may take into account the interests of victims”. Subsequently, victims, their lawyers, their families, their friends, their loved ones, their supporters, and their whānau can say, “They have to do this. They must do this. It’s in the law of the land.” Congratulations to Rima Nakhle on that.

Again, for those that might have tuned in latterly and wondered what we’re talking about, this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, aims to protect victims of crime and people under a protection order from unwanted contact from prisons. It amends the 2004 Corrections Act by creating an obligation. It’s a “must” obligation; it’s not a “may” obligation. We know that, in the Public Service, words count as to how they interpret legislation, too. “May” is a lot different than “must”, and so “must” is now in the statute. That is a huge advancement for victims nationwide.

I just wind up on a sobering note: there are a lot of incidents that we can point to where victims have been terrorised by their offenders. I go back to one victim, that the New Zealand Herald repeated a few years ago, of an unprovoked, gratuitous, and prolonged severe beating, and their offender made 102 phone calls from prison to that victim—to that victim—in a desperate bid to prevent that victim from testifying against him. The victim’s number was on an approved call list of recipients. In July of that year, the offender urged the victim repeatedly to evade police and to not testify. The victim subsequently started not turning up for trials and not turning up to court. It just prolonged it. He also got another inmate to call and terrorise the victim.

There are some shocking, shocking cases of victims that have been traumatised by unwanted contact and calls from offenders from prison. This puts an obligation on the chief executives to do a lot better. They must now ensure protections are in place for victims. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. While not being on the Justice Committee and not having been directly involved, I have, as the previous Minister of Corrections, some awareness of the situation. We are all in this House, of course, mindful of the need to protect victims across this country, and they come in many shapes and sizes and forms. In this bill, of course, they are obvious: they are people who do not want to be contacted.

I’d like to congratulate the member Rima Nakhle. Luck is useful in the biscuit tin, but it’s good to have a bill pulled out that will make a difference. The effect of the bill and the changes made in the select committee have been well canvassed here.

I’d just like to add in another obligation that, as Minister, I had to remind the chief executive of at the time, and that is that of course the Department of Corrections have an obligation to protect society from people who might want to do us harm or who have caused harm to others, but there is also an obligation to have rehabilitation—that is, to reduce reoffending. What we do know is that, without proper opportunities for rehabilitation while under the control of Corrections, the chances of reoffending and victimisation will continue, and while this order here in this piece of legislation clearly ups the obligation, I’m not sure that we could say that it will prevent it without those offenders actually understanding why they shouldn’t do this.

I know that that might sound a little idealistic, but Corrections will have control over the prisoners, over people who are serving sentences, for only so long. Beyond that, ultimately, it’s our ability to turn around the minds of those offenders, to have them understand how the offences occurred, and why they must change their ways. That is possible through proper sentencing and through proper custodial protection and oversight that prevents them, through this bill, contacting victims—and we know that that’s the right thing to do—but, ultimately, long-term protection for those victims will only occur when rehabilitation has taken place or those offenders have understood the error of their ways.

I’ll just say congratulations to the member for her bill. As was said before by a previous speaker, changing “may” to “must” might seem like a somewhat insignificant change, but we know, as lawmakers in this House, that it does change the way that the law is implemented.

Look, it’s a good step forward. It will better protect those victims who don’t want contact from the offender and they feel threatened by that for whatever reason, but also it is a reminder to the police and others who are implementing protection orders that they have to follow through on those things, as well. Victims won’t be secure by this piece of legislation alone; it will require a cross-agency focus to protect the victims. I’ll repeat once more that, actually, rehabilitation is ultimately the only long-term way of securing victims’ rights, their security, and their peace of mind. I support—as the Labour Party does, of course—the passage of this bill through the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this great bill—of course, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill—in the third reading. Like many other speakers, I would like to acknowledge my great colleague Rima Nakhle for all her work in shepherding this bill through the House. It has already been talked about how wonderful a local MP she is with really great connections with the community and really understanding the needs of her community. I do want not just to acknowledge her work in the House but also acknowledge her work in her local electorate as well.

Rima talked to me and some of my colleagues last night about the purpose of this bill, and I think it really is very clear that this bill aims to protect the victims of crime and people under a protection order from unwanted contact from prisoners. It will amend the Corrections Act 2004 by creating an obligation on the chief executive to implement processes to protect victims from unwanted contact. Really, what I’d add to that is I think this bill is really just a common-sense process for victims, because no one chooses to be a victim. A victim has no choice in that at all, and this bill, of course, seeks to prevent that repeated victimisation from perpetrators. I think we can all imagine the mental health effects that unwanted contact would have in retraumatising some of these victims.

We make no apologies about focusing on victims and their safety. Victims should be able to feel safe when the offenders are in prison. I do just want to kind of touch on some of the stories that we’ve heard and that have been in the media. The New Zealand Herald, in the start of 2018, reported on a prisoner who contacted his victims 93 times to get her to change her stories. He was a paedophile who wrote to a victim, who was then in her 20s, from prison. The victim had just made the comment that that made her feel unsafe and dirty. I just want to acknowledge the effect that these sorts of events have. Of course, the National Party MP Louise Upston, at the time, said that it was sickening that the prisoner would be able to contact the victim, who would have been retraumatised. I think we can all imagine what impact that would have.

A victim advocate Ruth Money said that, when victims are first contacted by prisoners, they were often shocked, then scared. I think the general public would probably be quite surprised that this bill isn’t already part of our rules and regulations. I think probably most of the general public would think that, once someone’s in prison, they wouldn’t be able to contact their victims, but, unfortunately, that’s not the case. We’re lucky to have Rima to actually kind of fix that problem.

Of course, one of the previous speakers spoke about a man that was contacted from jail more than 100 times to try and get the victim to not give evidence at his trial. That victim had been severely beaten. The beating had gone on for about 15 minutes in a whole series of punches and kicks that led to quite considerable damage and physical injury. Of course, that perpetrator was busy trying to really harass this victim to get them to not go to court. That ended up dragging that process out. Of course, we know that court proceedings, hopefully, can bring closure to some of these victims so they can move on with their lives, and if we don’t have this measure in place, that will just drag that out. It’s really just a basic intimidation tactic which we need to stamp out.

I would also like to actually, just in the closing time that I have, reference our further proposed legislation changes to the crime legislation around stalking and harassment. That’s gone through its first reading, and it’s with the hard-working Justice Committee. I do believe this is one of 28 bills that they have considered this term—the chairperson is indicating even higher—and I just want to acknowledge all the hard work they do. Time’s up, but I do just want to commend this bill to the House.

As has been said by earlier speakers on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party, we are supporting this bill. I congratulate Rima Nakhle for her work on it, and I have nothing further to add.

Thank you to Mr Parker for paving the way for a slightly long contribution towards the end of this debate. Look, Mr Speaker, with your indulgences, I’d just like to start with a short public service announcement. I’d just like to wish a big congratulations to a Miss Sophie Wedd for winning the Hawke’s Bay tennis open under-16s competition. I’m aware a relative of Miss Wedd is in the House today, but I don’t want to have her have to ad hoc amend her potential speech in the next bill and put her under a bit of pressure, so I just wanted to wish Sophie a big congratulations from everyone in the House, I’m sure.

Well, back to the bill at hand. It’s been said many times today, and I’ll say it again: a huge congratulations to, and I’m very proud to support the bill in the name of, Mrs Rima Nakhle. Rima—Mrs Nakhle; I can’t refer to you by your first name. Mrs Nakhle is, I think, undoubtedly one of the strongest—if not the strongest—supporters and advocates of victims in this House. There was a comment mentioned before by Mrs Nakhle that the chair of the Justice Committee may have had a significant amount of patience with her queries throughout this process. I can reassure the member that her queries, compared to some other queries we receive on the Justice Committee, were incredibly polite and very straightforward to handle. I welcome those queries because they ended up producing a bill that’s come to us now actually much stronger than what it was when it went into the select committee process.

I’ll traverse some of the reasons why some people may think that the bill didn’t achieve what it originally intended to set out to achieve in terms of protecting all victims of offences from all potential offenders in prison and in our community, but, actually, what’s happened through Mrs Nakhle’s dogged determination and advocacy is that we have a bill which has been significantly strengthened through three key provisions, which I’ll touch on later on.

I want to move to the change from the bill as introduced to where we are now in terms of what we’re going to be passing in the House over the next few minutes. The main change has been, of course, and members have touched on it, that the bill as introduced purported to try and prevent or place an obligation on Corrections to protect all victims of offences from any unwanted contacts from all individuals under the control or supervision of Corrections. We heard from Corrections throughout the process that, as much as they would be keen to do this and as much as they try to protect victims to the extent that they can, given that they monitor and supervise over 26,000 individuals in our community and over 9,000 inside the prison system, it is just the sad, sad reality of the state of our nation that we are not able to do that; we are not able to offer that protection.

What we can do through this bill, and one of the changes that has been made to this bill and advocated for by Mrs Nakhle, is to provide an obligation on Corrections to inform recipients of contact, or recipients of communication, from prisoners inside the prison system of their rights, of their ability to prevent unwanted contact. Actually, that change is going to make a significant difference. It provides the impetus for Corrections to do more of what they already do. Corrections already have the ability to limit contact—unwanted contact—by prisoners to victims, or to anyone, actually, whether that’s mandated through the court or whether that is contacted to Corrections through non-contact orders. They have the ability, at the moment, to mark on outgoing mail some of the options for victims, in terms of, “If you do not wish to receive mail from this prisoner, please contact Corrections. We can place you on a non-contact list.”

What they don’t do at the moment is do this through the telephone service. One of the changes that this bill will hopefully introduce, and one of the reasons why there needs to be some time for it to come into force, is that Corrections can look at what automated messages they can put in the telephone system so that, before calls are made, victims are made aware, or recipients of contact—because it’s not necessarily just the victims of offences; it may well be their relatives, it may well be people associated with those victims that prisoners are trying to reach. They will be made aware of the options that are available to them to prevent any future contact. That is a significant step and a significant improvement and enhancement to the legislation as introduced.

The second thing that the legislation has done to strengthen it is to actually create a new offence of undertaking unwanted contact. Essentially, where a prisoner attempts to make contact or solicits contact with an individual who they know, or ought reasonably to know, does not wish to be contacted or has a non-contact order in place, that will be an offence under this Act. That is a significant step as well, because that creates, or that provides, some of the teeth, some of the muscle behind the bill so that Corrections actually has some way of enforcing some of these actions. We heard before of examples from many members in the House of hundreds and hundreds of communications by prisoners towards people who did not want them. Corrections, try as they may to put the systems and filters in place, had no ability to deter individuals inside the prison system from doing so.

In fact, the departmental report is a very helpful read and is full of a very significant amount of information provided by Corrections as to the limits that they have on their ability to stop this kind of stuff from happening. I draw the House’s attention to paragraphs 40 and 41 and 42 of the report, where Corrections themselves admit there are still instances where contact is occurring where it should not be, and where prisoners are able to bypass non-contact orders and use others outside of the system to have contact with their victims or with associates of victims. This new offence provision will not only put an obligation on Corrections to prevent that or create an offence for the individuals themselves, but to create that, too, for others who are being solicited to contact.

The third thing the bill does to significantly strengthen it is it creates an obligation on Corrections to take into account the interests of victims when placing conditions on outgoing calls and outgoing communication. I think that’s an important step to take.

As we know, Mrs Nakhle is a strong advocate for victims. In fact, throughout the select committee process, it may—if any member or any member of the public ever tuned into the public hearings part of our deliberations in our consideration of bills and you see Mrs Nakhle take a question, often those questions will be to challenge some of the assertions made by academics or made by experts or even made by community organisations about the impact of legislation on the justice system. Without a doubt, the vast majority, if not all, of those interjections are often focused, or indeed always focused, on considering whether or not that individual submitter had considered the rights of the victims and the interests of the victims when making those submissions. That may be uncomfortable for some people to see when submitters are challenged on some of their assertions, but I think Mrs Nakhle takes no trouble at all, and it does not bother her at all, to put her views forward and to make sure that the rights of victims are placed on the record as well.

Placing this obligation to take victims interests into account will mean that when Corrections are placing conditions on outgoing communications and outgoing calls, they will be able to put the victims’ interests into that. It may mean that they are a bit tougher and they are a bit stricter on what does leave the prison system.

I want to acknowledge the work of Corrections. When they worked through this bill with us, they were very upfront and very open about what they could or could not do. Again, I refer back to the departmental report. If members go towards the sort of question and answer section of the departmental report, you can see, in paragraph 106, that Corrections estimate they receive or process around about 400,000 pieces of mail every year. That’s just physical mail. That indicates the type of challenges that they are undertaking.

Now, they open and screen every single piece of mail, and they do their best to make sure that that mail is appropriate and there is nothing in there which should be prevented from going through, in or out, but they do acknowledge that not all pieces of mail are actually counted in that figure, so the figure could indeed be higher. In terms of what Corrections can do at the moment, there are systems in place, but this bill will certainly go some way to providing extra impetus and extra encouragement and actual obligations on the corrections system to do so.

Finally, I will draw the House’s attention, and the attention of all members of the public, to looking forward to what we can do to continue to improve how we approach the justice sector. We’ve got a hearing, I think later on in March, with heads of departments of the justice sector in terms of the pipeline approach to the criminal justice system. Some of the problematic examples or issues we heard from Corrections as to why they may not be able to implement the full force of the bill have to do with simple things such as victims of protection orders. It turns out that there is no good system in place for Corrections to know who is or is not subject to a protection order. There were questions raised about whether or not the Government’s digitisation process Te Au Reka would improve that. At the moment, there is a limited ability for that process to improve these issues.

Throughout that, I think there is something for all members of the House to turn their minds to as to how do we continue to improve the criminal justice system to make sure that there are fewer victims of crime. Of course, it’s one thing for Corrections to be dealing with prisoners and offenders and the rights of victims in the prison system, but we’ve got to look at what happens when those offenders are released in to the public, and of course the pipeline coming in.

With that, I’m very proud of my big sister Mrs Nakhle. She should be very proud of her support in the room. I know we won’t be getting any texts from Mr Nakhle today because he’s in the gallery—he won’t be able to. I commend Rima, I congratulate her, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just rise to take the last and final call on this auspicious day in the third reading of the bill for my colleague, the wonderful MP for Takanini, Rima Nakhle. It’s a great day for victims of crime in New Zealand, thanks to the admirable and hard work that the member has done to bring this bill through the very long and enduring committee of the whole House stage and through the three readings and the Justice Committee.

If there’s anything we can do in New Zealand to protect and support our victims, we should do that. The work that Rima has done, or that the member for Takanini has done, with the support, of course, of her greatest supporter, Roger, in the gallery, is to be a loud voice and advocate for victims in New Zealand. We are absolutely proud of our colleague. We 100 percent support her and the work that she has done in this space, and I congratulate the member for her hard work and her admirable dedication to the cause.

It is my absolute pleasure to be the last and final in this debate to commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.