Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Good evening, members. Members, the House is in committee on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. We start with clause 1. Clause 1 is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It really is a pleasure and actually a privilege to be in this seat as we are in the committee stage of the member’s bill in my name—Rima Nakhle, that is, for those of you listening at home—the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

For our friends and whānau at home, what’s going on here is now we are in what’s called the committee of the whole House stage. We’ve been through the first reading, we’ve been through select committee, and we’ve been through the second reading. What we’re doing now is kind of like another type of select committee, but in the debating chamber.

Madam Chair, if you’d indulge me while I just talk about this bill on a holistic basis, and then coming back to the different clauses. Yep, it’s a short bill; it’s a small bill, but we feel that the ripple effects will be many and will be very positive in terms of how we are going to protect victims even more.

It’s very interesting, the conversations that took place when we were discussing in the different stages so far of this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. A number of issues were raised. There weren’t that many submissions, but the submissions were really good. One of the questions that was raised by the Law Society was the fact that the Corrections Act, which is the principal Act which this amendment bill hopes to amend, doesn’t really define what a victim is. What they very clearly outlined to us on the select committee—the Justice Committee, chaired by my mate here, James Meager—is that also in the amendment bill, there wasn’t a definition for “victim”. We took that on board. That’s one of the many things we took on board, and we’ll peruse all these considerations as we go through this evening, hopefully, clause by clause.

Essentially, what this bill aims to do is to protect victims—victims of crime, those that have a protection order for their benefit from unwanted contact from people that are under the supervision of Corrections that are located within prisons. That in itself was quite a journey with respect to this bill.

What I would like to say is that it’s been quite a staged effect with respect to this bill: where we started, where we’re at now, and where we’re hoping to go. The general kaupapa, like I said, kind of fits in the objectives for our Government—that is, how do we put victims at the forefront of the actions that we’re doing, the changes we’re making in order to protect victims? To highlight the general work that our Government is doing, it is about saying that those that commit crimes need to be held accountable. The reason why we’re focused on that is because of our desire to protect the victims of crime even more.

I welcome the continued kōrero that we’re going to have this evening, and I thank my colleagues across the Chamber in the Justice Committee with their patience with me as I questioned and delved into what more we can do to strengthen these protections. I look forward to us continuing this conversation this evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to take questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start my contribution tonight as is traditional, which is to give somewhat of a brief overview and then get to the clause that we are discussing at the moment, but I wanted to start by acknowledging the work of my colleague Rima Nakhle on this bill. It would be hard to find a stronger and more voiceful advocate for victims in our caucus and in the Parliament. I think what we’ll see over the next hour, hour and a half, maybe longer, will be a demonstration of the work that Rima Nakhle has put into this bill throughout the process and the dedication she is putting to supporting victims right up until the last minute.

I note that Mrs Nakhle has an amendment that we’ll get to later on. I don’t want to discuss it now, because that would be somewhat disorderly because it’s the wrong clause. It is an amendment that the member has been working on because she is constantly trying to see: can she strengthen the bill, can she make sure the bill is as good as it can be? Because it is a member’s bill, it’s limited in what it can do. It doesn’t have the resource of hundreds of officials. In fact, we can see that the member, my colleague, will be flying solo tonight when it comes to answering questions and taking advice and trying to clarify questions from members.

Hon Scott Simpson: Flying high.

JAMES MEAGER: Flying high. Flying solo but flying high, as my colleagues say. I wanted to acknowledge her stewardship of the bill through the House. It’s an important moment for the class of ’23 in our caucus too, because this is the first member’s bill that has come from the National Party through the Justice Committee. We’ve had one from Mr O’Connor, one from Deborah Russell, and also Todd Stephenson has a bill too, but this is the first one that we’ve had the opportunity to acknowledge the work of our colleagues and to help support through the House. National will be supporting the bill through the committee stage, I think that’s quite clear.

We do have some testing questions for the member throughout. There were a lot of issues raised in select committee about the scope of the bill, and it has been narrowed somewhat. I understand that we’ll get to those clauses later on. The focus for us always in this bill and always as a party and as a Government is on protecting the rights of victims and ensuring that it is in a context of a justice system which does look at the offender and the does look at strong rehabilitation and does look at the role that a justice system plays in making sure people are held to account for their actions but are also rehabilitated. But we can never lose sight of the core of our purpose, and that is to make sure that we look after victims; that we make sure that there are fewer victims of crime; and that where there are victims of crime, they are protected by the State and they are protected by the mechanisms of the State. That’s where we get to in the start of this debate when we are talking about the title of the bill.

The title is, of course—I’ll read it out for the committee—the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. It’s important to acknowledge that, with all debates in the committee on title clauses, the title should represent or reflect what is in the bill or what the bill actually does. We’re not going to be, as a group on this side of the Chamber, offering up amendments that try to detract from the purpose of the bill, which is quite simply and plainly on its face to provide further mechanisms to protect victims of crime from actions of offenders under the custody of Corrections.

Now, we’ll get to some changes made later on about the extent to which we were trying to protect victims of crime in the community, and sometimes there are restrictions on what we can do there. Unfortunately, I think—and Mrs Nakhle can speak to this—the bill may not meet the expectations of all victims out there. It may at the moment only cover those victims of offenders who are in prisons and the victims are being protected by prison managers and the chief executive of Corrections because they are serving custodial sentences. But it is important to point out that it is not just victims; it is also those other individuals who are affected by the offenders who may be associated with victims or who may be family members of offenders who will benefit from this bill and who would be protected by the provisions in this bill.

I don’t have an amendment to offer to the committee on the title. I think the title does quite accurately reflect the content of the bill. I would invite and encourage members from across the Chamber to make a brief contribution about their views on the bill in the opportunity that we have at the start to talk somewhat more broadly before we get into the meat and bones of each clause. I commend the member for bringing it to the House and I look forward to making a number of contributions in the time that we have later on tonight.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and just picking up where my colleague James Meager, as the chair of the Justice Committee, left off—acknowledging this bill has been through the Justice Committee, shepherded by Rima Nakhle, who’s sitting in the chair next to you.

When I look at the title of this bill, I want it to be quite crystal clear around the implementation and what it’s actually meaning, because it is important that the title is reflective of the action that is being delivered through the bill itself. With the title being the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, when I read through the—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: This is disrespectful to the member.

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, Mr Webb?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: This is disrespectful to the member, to filibuster your own member’s bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD: It’s a little bit ironic Mr Webb across the Chamber talks about filibustering.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I don’t think we’ve heard Mr Rutherford’s question yet, so carry on.

TOM RUTHERFORD: No, we haven’t. We haven’t, and I would welcome Mr Webb taking a call on the bill if he would like to.

Anyway, if I may, I’d like to come back to the point that I was getting to. Through the select committee process and the submissions that were received by the Justice Committee, the Law Society said at the time in their submission that they noted there wasn’t actually a definition of the word “victim” in either the Corrections Act or this bill, which is the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. There was some suggestion that, potentially, the bill be amended to include a definition related to “victim”, but also acknowledging that in the Act, victims are referred to in a wider sense than what is specifically captured by this bill.

It’s interesting, when we have the title being “Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill” but then you dive into the Corrections Act or you dive into this bill and you don’t actually see the word “victim” being defined. I’m just really keen to garner the interests of the member in charge—whether she was open to a scope of potentially changing the title or whether she’s comfortable having the word “victim” included in the title without the definition necessarily being prescribed. I would welcome the opportunity from the member in the seat to respond to that question.

Then, as my colleague James Meager outlined earlier, as we move through clause by clause on this debate, we will be diving into the nitty gritty and the weeds of each particular part, because it’s really important, through the committee of the whole House. This is the opportunity to get into the weeds. This is the opportunity for us to dive down in there and to make sure—

Helen White: Well, you’re there.

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, Helen White?

Helen White: You’re in the weeds.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah—early days, early days. I’m just getting started. It is a really good opportunity for us to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose when it comes to the implementation phase. I understand the member, in different clauses, has some amendments that she’ll make, and we’ll talk to those at that time, but it’s really important that right now and throughout this committee of the whole House, we get the bill in the best possible shape so that, when it comes to the implementation stage, those that are actually implementing the intentions of this bill know what the intentions of Parliament were for them to do it and that it can be done successfully.

I would welcome the opportunity for the member, in the later stages, to talk about some of the changes that were made to this piece of legislation through the select committee stage and through the feedback that was received by the Justice Committee, because it’s really important to ensure that when it comes to the implementation of it, they understand why those changes were initially made and then why the intention of the bill was brought forward so that it could be implemented in New Zealand.

To come back to the point I made at the start, it says “Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill”. The New Zealand Law Society, in their submission to the Justice Committee—which, I believe, are on their 28th bill, if I’m correct, Mr Meager—noted that the word “victim” is not defined in either the Corrections Act or in this bill specifically. They did suggest that they amend the bill to include a definition for “victim”, so I’d welcome the opportunity from the member in charge to speak to those questions, if she may.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’d like to thank my colleagues for those contributions. First, I’d like to thank our unwavering chair, James Meager, for his kind comments. Thank you very much, my friend. I know that you work very hard in the pursuit of restoring law and order as well, as many of us in this committee do, and protecting the rights of victims. I’d like to acknowledge you, Tom Rutherford, for the contributions you’ve just made. And, if I may, I’d just like to say thank you, Dr Webb, for feeling you need to rise to my defence, but in this situation, this is a result of a conversation.

What I love about my colleagues—we call ourselves the newbies, the class of 2023—is that we actually sit down and really traverse a lot of the nuances, the ideas, and the yes and the no of different bills that come before our House. This conversation is a result of a kōrero that we’ve had where my mate Tom came up to me and said, “Hey, look, you know your bill—there’s a few thoughts that I have about it. Can you talk me through it?” I let him know about the departmental report and what’s said there and the advice we received. Thank you, but I don’t take this as filibustering.

Look, we won’t spend too much time on the title, because there’s other clauses to consider, but the reason why I feel it’s important is because I also considered this, especially when we realise that, actually, there’s no real definition for “victims” in the principal Act, the Corrections Act. As I mentioned earlier, the Law Society made a point of this void, and they suggested that we seriously consider adding it in this amendment bill that’s in my name.

The advice from the Corrections officials was that, if they included it, if we were to amend the bill and include a definition for “victims”, essentially, it would need significant resource to operationalise. I’d like to quote, if you don’t mind, from the departmental report, paragraph 25: “We consider that defining ‘victim’ in this bill would not allow Corrections to operationalise the bill as drafted. This is because it will take significant resource and fiscal investment to administer that database to hold this information in an appropriate way, and significant concerns around privacy would need to be managed.” Now, that’s a pretty strong statement, and that’s why we thought, “OK, you know, I thought I was doing a lot of the thinking over the nights. I’ll back away from insisting on this definition for victims.”

However, what I appreciate about these deep philosophical conversations and law conversations is that it highlights different voids across our legal system. This is important, and it’s, I guess, what you can call—maybe it’s surrendipitish—what’s the word?

Tom Rutherford: Serendipitous: finding something good without looking for it.

RIMA NAKHLE: Serendipitous—English is my second language—finding out something you didn’t expect to, but you find it. So, in terms of the definition of “victim”, what I appreciate is that that has been highlighted to me—“Oh my goodness! It’s not even defined in the Corrections Act.”—but what I will say is that, look, I didn’t want to push that we amend the title. It is something that I’m happy that we’ve brought to the attention of the committee, to the attention of you, Madam Chair, and to the attention of people listening from home and throughout the world. Yes, the bill is named the “Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill”, but I’m mindful that “victim” doesn’t necessarily have a very technical and legal definition in the bill and in the principal Act.

Again, I’m happy that we’ve traversed this, I’m happy that it’s something that I can feel comfortable conversing with my colleagues about, and I hope that in the future, we can maybe think about doing something to fill that void, so to speak. So thank you, James, for your earlier comments—James Meager; my apologies, Madam Chair. And thank you, Tom Rutherford, for your consideration of the title of this bill, especially in light of the fact that we don’t have a definition for “victim” as it stands.

I’m going to take a call from Tracey McLellan, but what I am going to say is that this is a small bill with a number of clauses. As I look through the bill, there are some clauses that have some more worthy debate than going round and round on the title, so please be very mindful of that—to everybody.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s in lieu of that warning or observation, I should say, that I stand to take a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s not a warning to you.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No, I understand. I did have a series of small questions for the member Rima Nakhle, but it was fairly evident that the other side of the Chamber were going to filibuster a bit, so I decided to get in quick and to make my opening comments in case it took several other five-minute speeches to get the opportunity to.

I did want to acknowledge the member for being able to shepherd the bill through to this stage. It’s not often that members get to sit in that chair and to do the task that you’re doing now and to present and to answer questions—having gone through and sat through this process, with all its complexities and all the nuances, to sit there and confidently be able to answer questions.

As I said, I did have a just a couple of quick questions. I’m not going to ask them now, because we’re only in the title phase, and I was only going to ask them so that you would have the opportunity to be able to respond and to answer some questions, but I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to congratulate the member and to wish her all the very best for the rest of this bill.

Madam Chair, thank you for indulging me in this part of the—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I haven’t decided whether to indulge you yet. I’m going to listen to what you say first.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will make a brief contribution because I do not want to be accused of filibustering. I just want to open my remarks by saying it’s great to have this bill coming from my colleague Rima Nakhle, who is a tiresome advocate for victim protection in—

Hon Members: Tireless—tireless.

DAN BIDOIS: Tireless—tireless. I’ve had too many—yeah, tireless. It’s just great to have her bring this bill to the House. I know how much she is passionate about the rights of victims and about restoring law and order in her community and throughout the wider country. We are in the title and commencement phase, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, just the title.

DAN BIDOIS: Just the title. I just read the introduction of the bill. I haven’t been on the Justice Committee, so this is the first time I’ve actually read this bill.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That’s shameful.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Dr Duncan Webb.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Does the member have a question?

DAN BIDOIS: Yes, I do have a question. I’m coming to it, and it is around the fact that it’s victim focused, which is great, but I understand here it’s also got “victims of crime and people under a protection order”, and I just wanted to indulge the member who thought of the title for this bill.

On reflection, it doesn’t just include victims, it also includes people under a protection order. My colleague here and I were just chatting about protection orders, and they may be victims, but they may not be victims. There are, you know, family members and other people that aren’t a direct victim, or they may be a victim in the future. I just wanted to clarify with the member if she considered, potentially, a broader title to encompass those that she believes were under the focus of the bill, which is about people under a protection order, and if there were other alternative titles that she considered to make this more encompassing for the focus of the bill. That’s my question.

Again, I look forward to making the odd contribution from time to time throughout this debate, and I thank the member for bringing this bill to the House.

I want to make a serious point in respect of members’ bills, including this one, and the time that we’re wasting on the title debate here. I’m not going to blame the Government members any more than I would blame the prior Labour administration, but there is a bad habit forming here that we are filibustering members’ bills.

Members’ bills are provided for as a very small part of the parliamentary agenda so that members, be they Government backbenchers or members of the Opposition, can bring forward policy ideas. Members who do not like those ideas can vote them down, but I would suggest to members of the committee that we reflect upon whether we’re getting into bad habits at delaying the purpose of members’ bills, which is to consider as many of these members’ ideas as we can.

The way to deal with issues that are not agreed to by other political parties through the members’ ballot is to vote them down. It’s actually not to delay their consideration so as to stop more bills being drawn from the ballot.

Thank you for making that point, the Hon David Parker. Yes, it is a relevant point for the purposes of the committee. Just to point out that I am unable, as the Chair, to take a vote until everyone stops speaking or someone moves the closure motion, so that is completely in the hands of the committee. Thank you.

I move that the debate on this part of the bill be now concluded. Sorry, what’s the new wording? “I move that the question be now put.” is a bit out of date.

I’m going to give the member another chance. The question is that debate on this question now close.

Thank you. I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement