Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 3. Clause 3 is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I just, really, wanted to make a point that the member in the chair, Rima Nakhle, is a new member, on her first bill, and is clearly new at this process and the ability for her to engage is a new one. I seek your indulgence in just giving her a little bit of slack, in terms of rising to take a call, which she clearly intended to do before that last vote was taken. It’s the intention of this side of the Chamber to continue allowing the member in charge of the bill to speak should she wish to.

Actually, in regard to that point of order, Mr Simpson, it wasn’t actually clear that the member Rima Nakhle was getting to her feet in a hurry to take a call. There was some hesitation there, and in terms of the committee—and this is not a criticism of the member, because the member is new in the chair—if people want to vigorously take calls, that’s what I should be seeing. I’m not just saying that on behalf of the member, because there have been some other half-hearted people standing up for calls as well. Please, be decisive as a committee about what you want to do.

Tom Rutherford: Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tom Rutherford—that was decisive.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That was decisive.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, Madam Chair, I’ve never been doubted about my decisiveness, I’ll tell you that. We’ve gone through the first two clauses—

Hon David Parker: Is that a beard or is it not?

TOM RUTHERFORD: It is a beard, Mr Parker. Yes, it is a beard. Ha, ha! Touché, though.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is that relevant?

TOM RUTHERFORD: I’m trying to remember when Mr Parker was relevant. But I’ll come back to the bill.

In clause 1, we talked about the title; in clause 2, we talked about the commencement—now, on to clause 3, talking about the principal Act, where this member’s bill, which Rima Nakhle is shepherding through the House, is going to change the Corrections Act 2004. I’m really keen to understand from the member: was there consideration given around whether there would be other changes made to other Acts that this would have direct impacts on, or was it only the Corrections Act 2004 where changes needed to be made to ensure victims in New Zealand were protected from those that committed the heinous crimes against them? I’m really keen to understand from the member in the chair around whether it was only the Corrections Act 2004 that was the piece of legislation that needed to be amended, or was there any consideration given that other pieces of legislation, at the same time as this legislation was being brought in, needed to be amended as well?

If we think back—and we’ll talk about it in the subsequent clauses that are coming as well—to those incredibly harrowing stories that we heard of victims who, in some cases, received over 100 phone calls from those that had perpetuated the heinous crimes on them from places like prison, was there any need to change other pieces of legislation to protect those victims? Or was it simply that amending just the Corrections Act 2004 would be enough to protect those victims, to ensure that they were given the right protection that they deserve and kept out of the line of sight and out of the point of contact of those who had perpetuated the crime? I’m really keen to understand from the member: was it just the Corrections Act 2004 that needed to be changed to enable this bill to come into force or had other pieces of legislation been considered as well at the same time? I’d welcome a response from the member.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question follows on from Mr Rutherford’s, just getting some clarification and maybe understanding as to what the sponsor’s intent is here—whether she gave thought to, or whether she’s canvassed with Corrections or with the Minister of Corrections or with the chief executive of Corrections, that perhaps it’s time, 20 years on from that Helen Clark Corrections Act 2004, which member Parker will remember well, that a stand-alone piece of legislation that, potentially, is headlined something like the “Victims Protection and Priority Bill”, as an omnibus bill, puts everything in and around victims, not only to improve their protection but also to prioritise their needs.

As we know, this is pertinent, because we are a very victim-centric Government. That’s what the National Party campaigned on, and that’s what the public really responded to.

Hon Member: And ACT and New Zealand First.

CAMERON BREWER: They wanted us—yeah, and ACT and New Zealand First. Admittedly, I wasn’t running their campaign lines, but, yeah, that is a very good line.

Hon Member: You sure?

CAMERON BREWER: Increasingly, I might be. But, no—ACT and New Zealand First, they also ran that: victim-centric, let’s get the victims at the centre of the justice system rather than making apologies and excuses for the offenders. So, Madam Chair, I’ll just put it, through you, that perhaps there has been that discussion—or perhaps there could be or should be—that maybe instead of ongoing repeals and ongoing amendments, at least to the main principal Act, the Corrections Act 2004, perhaps it’s time for a “Victims Protection and Priority Bill”. I just wonder whether that would headline what this brand of this Government is doing and where our priorities lie.

I also wonder: look how much the landscape, the law and order landscape, the corrections landscape, the offender landscape, the seriousness of offence landscape—just how much it’s changed in 20 years. I’d invite the member: in her mind, is this going to be an exercise where we just have ongoing repeals, like to the 1961 Crimes Act, for the next 40 years? Or does she see, potentially—I don’t know, maybe it’s another member’s bill, but it would have to have the muscle of the Government and Cabinet behind it. Does she see a future where we don’t just keep tacking and deleting and crossing out and amending the principal Act of 2004, but we actually look, as a coalition Government that’s focused on the victim first and foremost in the justice system—and that means whether you’re talking to justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, corrections and police Minister Mark Mitchell, associate police Minister Casey Costello, whether it’s Nicole McKee as another associate justice Minister.

These are people with real, lived experiences, and this is what, at a political level—we have an operational level, we have the justice cluster, but we’ve actually got a real good cluster of people in and around those. And that’s not all of them—you know, you could put Louise Upston in there, too—people with real lived experiences who might be getting to a place and might have talked to our member in charge here about perhaps the Corrections Act and perhaps a signature piece of work that might not be this term, but possibly next, that could be a wholesale, standalone piece of legislation, an omnibus bill that pulls all the victim stuff together. It could be named—and you know, I’m happy to take credit for the name—the “Victims Protection and Priority Bill”. I just wonder if that’s where this is heading, or if she’s comfortable with just amending the principal Act at this point.

Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to thank my colleagues as well. Just being on this side of the kaupapa, it’s really interesting what I can see. I guess what I’m seeing is that, with most of us being newbies, we are quite overzealous about really debating every single clause of this bill. I appreciate the passion, but I think I need to say that, just from the get-go. In response to my colleagues Tom Rutherford and Cam Brewer—and I hope that we can get a chance to listen to Mr Stephenson—with respect to clause 3, about the principal Act, the Corrections Act 2004, I don’t have any commentary to make in terms of any changes there.

I do want to tautoko Cam Brewer—again, the philosophical conversations that you just had there. I don’t want to take too much of our committee’s time, because it’s important that we consider the other clauses of this bill, if we may, but I think that’s such a noble vision, a noble idea, Mr Brewer—you know, time for a “Victims Protection and Priority Bill”. That’s so interesting, because what you’ve done is you’ve considered the fact that, through this member’s bill, which I’m humbled is in my name and we’re shepherding through the House as we speak, it’s just brought about all these considerations of how we can make our legal system work better for our victims. How do we prioritise victims in the whakaaro that we display with respect to bills like this and, indeed, all the actions that we’re doing in terms of protecting victims of crime and potential victims of crime, victims of intimidation? That comes, again, to that lack of a definition of “victim”.

Thank you, Mr Brewer, for your contribution with respect to victims’ protection and whether we would consider something in the future. Hopefully—I mean, it would be great to raise that with our Ministers. But that’s a noble idea, and I’d like to—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Hypothetical.

RIMA NAKHLE: It is hypothetical—that’s correct, Mr Webb—but I’d like to show appreciation for that hypothetical, noble thought.

To your question, Mr Rutherford, Tom Rutherford, my good friend—was there any other legislation considered? Well, the fact is that being a member’s bill, we really try to keep it tight, yeah? Potentially, there are other laws that could be affected if we allowed ourselves to expand the scope more than what it is. I mean, when you’re talking about protection orders, I’m sure that many of us in the House automatically think of the Family Violence Act 2018, where there’s a big focus on protection orders there. When this bill was pulled from the ballot, I was conducting my own research, and I delved into the Crimes Act and a few other Acts—just myself, making sure that I was covering all bases. For now, I don’t have any other commentary or changes to suggest or thoughts about the principal Act. I’m happy, with the indulgence of the committee, for us to move to clause 4.

Thank you. I just will make a note, too. Under the Standing Orders, I was getting pretty close to the point of saying to the members, the principal Act clause means a clause confined to stating that a bill amends an existing Act. I think it was getting pretty out there in terms of what’s proposed on the Table in front of us.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4Section 8 amended (Powers and functions of chief executive)