Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2, commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

James Meager: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): James Meager. I just wasn’t sure if the member in the chair was going to take a call, but I’ll take a call from James Meager.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it, because I do have to shoot and carry on another piece of business.

I just wanted to talk very, very briefly about the commencement clause and just note to colleagues in the committee that I understand—the member can speak to this, actually, but we had a brief discussion in the Justice Committee about the commencement of the bill. I understand from both reviewing the departmental report and my recollection of the discussion at the time was that officials were comfortable at that point with the proposed implementation being that the bill come into force on the day following Royal assent.

I now understand that, following conversations, there’s going to be an amendment proposed. I’m not sure if it’s been tabled, but I just wanted to highlight that to the committee, because we’re all new to this process and I just want to double-check that members were aware that there will be an amendment on this clause. And also—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The amendment has been tabled—for clarity.

JAMES MEAGER: The amendment has been tabled, that’s fantastic. We can speak to the amendment about the extension, probably about six months beyond. I may not be able to contribute much more in this sense, but I just wanted to indicate that there are some quite crunchy issues towards the end of the debate, and I do hope to make a contribution later on if I am able to do so. With that, I’ll sit and, hopefully, let the member take her call.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ll speak to the amendment, if that’s OK with the member, and then open up to her feedback on why she has tabled the specific amendment and why she’s making that change. I note, in the initial wording of the initial bill, it said the day after it received Royal assent, but the member has put forward an amendment in her name, and it says: clause 2, which is the commencement, replace “on the day after Royal assent”—page 1, lines 5 and 6—with “six months after Royal assent”. Now, I’m really keen to understand why the member is bringing this amendment to the committee, changing it from “the day after Royal assent” to “six months after Royal assent”.

Is it because the member in charge of the bill has received feedback from those in the corrections area and those in the Corrections departments and those who would be actually delivering the implementation of this bill, and that the direct feedback from them has been: “We need to change the day that the bill comes into force because it needs to give us an opportunity to sort of upskill and get into a position that we can actually deliver the implementation.”? Was the day after Royal assent not enough time for them to prepare those changes, even though there had been quite a significant lead-in time from when the bill was first drawn to where we are today with the committee of the whole House, and then where we’ll be with the third reading and then, hopefully, it coming into play?

I’m really keen to understand the thought process behind why the member’s tabled this amendment, and I’d welcome her the opportunity to provide some clarity for us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Please excuse my little mistakes, it’s my first time in this chair. Look, I want to thank the two members for their contribution on this clause that we are now referencing, which is considering the commencement of the bill—basically, for friends around the motu, essentially, when does this bill come into effect after, hopefully, we’ve all voted for it in the third reading?

This is a bit of an interesting situation. Again, it’s my first time doing this, so I’m learning a lot. What I’d like to say to my colleague Tom Rutherford is that the reason why I initiated this action of tabling this amendment is because, as I do, I was going over everything a final time—I just wanted to make sure that we’ve dotted our i’s, so to speak, and something our t’s—and what I realised was, “OK, in the bill as it is, it says that it will come into effect on the day after Royal assent.” Then I thought, “After all the conversations we’ve had about it in the Justice Committee and just some of the operational kind of movements that need to happen to implement these changes that we’re making with this bill, would that be sufficient time?”

For those of you at home, this isn’t law but, generally speaking, Royal assent is between about two to seven days after a bill has been passed. In thinking about and considering two to seven days afterwards, and considering the changes we want to make, and considering the conversations with Corrections throughout the select committee process as to some of the operational requirements, etc., that this bill would entail, I took the liberty of contacting Corrections and asking for further advice about this and, essentially, asking, “Look, is it enough time—the day after Royal assent?” The answer that I received in no uncertain terms was that, no, it’s not enough. Indeed, six months, perhaps even 12 months, would be a better time frame for Corrections to implement the changes of this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

I was glad that I asked the question, although it was at the eleventh hour. I’m a little bit disappointed with myself that I didn’t pick up on it earlier to ask the question directly within select committee.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Or listen to the people that raised it.

RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, Dr Tracey McLellan is saying that Dr Webb perhaps raised it.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Yeah.

RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, OK. My memory doesn’t serve me well in that situation, but I’ll take Dr Webb’s word for it. I’m disappointed at myself none the less, but we’ve brought it to the forefront and hence why I’m tabling this amendment, my colleagues. Just given what Corrections said to me recently, I thought to myself, “OK, I’m going to ask if I can table this amendment, and I really hope that we can get support for this.” Again, I apologise for missing it in the select committee process, but it is essentially saying that the bill will come to effect six months after Royal assent.

Now, as I mentioned in the in the casual conversation with Corrections, 12 months was also canvassed, but I would love if we can get this on the road ASAP. Since they gave me that time frame—or they gave the time frame of between six and 12 months—I made the decision to table this amendment with six months after Royal assent. Again, I’m hoping that I can get the support of our colleagues across the Chamber just so that on an operational level, things can run much more smoothly. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It had better be a very good question on commencement.

CAMERON BREWER: Talofa lava, Madam Chair, on this auspicious day. Can I just say this is the first time I’ve taken a call on this, and, yes, I will be coming to clause 2 and the amendment. I just want to pay tribute to the sponsor of the bill and the work that she’s done in the Justice Committee and the role that she plays as a champion of victims. In fact, that’s increasingly becoming her brand, so I’m very pleased that our fellow member of the Justice Committee and fellow class of 2023 is now in the hot seat.

I just wanted to flesh out the commencement amendment around the idea of—when the member in charge was in communication with Corrections, I wonder if some of their logic, and I put this to you, is the fact that six months gives you a new Budget year—it gives you a new Budget year.

Hon Scott Simpson: Ah!

CAMERON BREWER: You know, if we’re looking at where this third reading could be, a 30 June financial year, Mr Whip—whether that six months not only gives the organisation time to get organised but it also gives them, potentially, the time to put forward the additional costs or organisational time or commitment and possibly put a pitch into the Minister saying, “Look, we’ve got this new piece of legislation. We need, within our existing operational budget and commitments and programme for 2024-25, a bit more time.” I just wanted to flesh that out, because, as we know, our Minister of Corrections, the Hon Mark Mitchell, was very generous in his Vote Corrections.

I think, at some levels, there were record numbers going through as far as rehabilitation for remand prisoners, as far as a lot more beds being built at Waikeria and that, and as far as more corrections officers. So, when you have a look at the Bunsen burner that the Minister has put under Corrections and the expectations, they are rising accordingly, and we know that there are people queuing up, as they are in the Police, to join Corrections. I wonder, and I put it to the member, whether that six months just allows a little bit more time for the organisation of Corrections and the CEO to not only get their ducks in a row but to actually find any necessary budget.

I’d actually put it to the member too, in her exploration of this: did Corrections say, or have they said during the select committee process, which I might not have picked up on, that this would require more budget, or did they say that this would just require codifying what, in many cases, they may be doing in part already, but codifying that expectation for the sake of the comfort of the victims and the protection of the victims? Does that enable that piece of work to actually happen in this financial year, or do they need a new budget? Do they actually need more resources? What are the budget implications? I think that’s very pertinent to this committee. We haven’t covered that, and with the commencement of that, that could give Corrections and the Minister the time not only to set up their processes, a term we often hear in alignment with this bill, but also to put the resource behind it.

My question to the sponsoring member is: what have they said is (1) the organisational impact of this if they would roll out—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Related to the commencement still?

CAMERON BREWER: Yeah, relating to the operational impact of the commencement period being in seven days or a day after, compared to six months. And have we had any analysis from Corrections, from their chief financial officer, as to what the cost of this could be? I think, if there is a cost attached, that we need to see that, because that puts for a much stronger case for six months taking us to financial year 2025-26. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Rima Nakhle, I just first wanted to say congratulations on this bill and doing the committee of the whole House. It’s actually one of my highlights of my week when I get to sit beside you in the Justice Committee, and I know you are very victim-centric. I was listening in my office when this amendment was tabled, so I rushed immediately down because, obviously, this is not something we’ve had time to consider and it’s not, obviously, something that was at the select committee. I suppose I’m going to have to make a call on behalf of that. I’m pretty confident I will be able to do that after we traverse all the issues around the commencement.

It’s not the same as Mr Brewer’s questions, but not dissimilar. I just wanted to test how far did you actually—I know you’ve said that you spoke to Corrections and they’ve said you could have between six and 12 months, but, Rima Nakhle, I know you’re very victim-centric, so I know you’d like to get this in place as soon as possible. I really want to test: how hard did you push Corrections? Look, they are very hard-working people. They are very, very hard-working people at Corrections. They were obviously providing excellent advice on your bill, they’re providing excellent advice in relation to my own bill, but sometimes they do need a bit of a push.

I wanted to just test with you—because I know you’d like to get this protection for victims in as soon as possible, and I just want to understand how hard you pushed them—could they have done it in three months? Again, six months is a little while, you know; we’ll be through this Parliament, quite through this Parliament actually, by the time this bill comes into force. I really just want to ask, you know, how hard did you push them? Was it some of the considerations that Mr Brewer outlined, or is it truly operational?

I suppose my other question is: if you give them the six months from when the bill is passed before it commences, have they given you assurances everything can be in place and that it actually will at that day be operational and protect victims in the way you want? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you to my colleagues Cameron Brewer and Todd Stephenson, first, for your very kind words—thank you—and also for the well-thought-out questions with respect to the amendment that I’ve tabled. I’d like to answer maybe a bit of to and fro, if that’s OK.

I’d like to say that I’m not happy about this, Mr Stephenson. Again, I love myself, but there’s a part of me that’s quite frustrated that I didn’t pick up, particularly—but I don’t have the experience that Dr Webb does. It’s absolutely taught me a colossal lesson for the next one, not to just kind of overlook commencement dates, to really consider them the way that I considered the other clauses of this bill.

I’ll start off with your questions, actually, Mr Stephenson. In answer to how hard did I push, the honest answer is I didn’t; as it’s at the eleventh hour, I didn’t have the chance to push hard. I asked the question and I was given that answer and I just thought, “Look, well, between six and 12—six is already kind of a big stretch as it is but I’m going to table this amendment for six months.” I’m mindful that I did that with a kind of sadness in my heart, because I’m mindful that we just kind of want to get these protections for victims under way as soon as possible. That’s my answer, albeit brief, to your question, Mr Stephenson.

To your question, Mr Brewer—Cameron Brewer—well, there was a number of questions in your question—

Hon Scott Simpson: Contribution.

RIMA NAKHLE: Your contribution, that’s the word—“Contributing Cam”. There were a number of questions, and again, to be honest, with respect to the new Budget year, that’s a very good observation, one that I didn’t feel needed consideration in this situation. I congratulate the member for always combining the fiscal situation with what we’re looking at in terms of our Justice Committee.

I do believe, on the little bit of information that I received, that Corrections believes that six months will be very helpful. After talking with the Corrections staff—and I thank Dr Marian for all the feedback that she gave us and the patience she had with respect to my questions in select committee—what I understood is that it’s not a “We must wait six months”, but the feedback I got was that it would be very helpful. As I said, considering a few things and making sure we just want to get it right from the foundation, that’s why I decided to take that on board—that six months would be very helpful—and table this amendment where the bill will take effect six months after Royal assent. I hope that answers some of the questions for my colleagues.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that Rima Nakhle’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act