Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 4. This is the debate on “Section 8 amended (Powers and functions of chief executive)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Firstly, we want to recognise the member Rima Nakhle, also the rest of the Justice Committee on all sides of the Chamber. This bill has undergone an evolution from when it was first presented as written, and then to evolve into the form that it is in at the moment. Clause 4 is where everything happens and—

Tom Rutherford: It’s the substantial part.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, it is the substantial part, yes.

Tom Rutherford: I’ve got plenty of material.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Congratulations, the member recognised the substantive part.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, and I will just take a piece of that substance, and I would like to focus my contribution on where the contact or the communication comes from. We are discussing protecting victims of persons in the corrections system. The bill began by including persons who were under management of the corrections system, but who were otherwise in the community. There are approximately 25,000 people who are under management of Corrections, and they are in the community, and over 9,000 people who are in the corrections facilities.

There was much discussion at the select committee level about who actually were the source of the unwanted communication or communication that was aimed at victims and people who originally were under protection orders. The question I have for our good friend Rima Nakhle is that she unpack for us, and for the people who may not have been in the select committee process, what discussion and conversation we had in respect of the source of this unwanted communication. Why is it that, over time, the bill has evolved from including people under the management of the corrections system who are outside in the community to not including persons who are outside in the community—persons who are under the management of the corrections system who are in the community?

Currently, the bill—having undergone some amendment in that space—is now focused on actual prisoners, people who are incarcerated and managed in the corrections facilities. That’s about 9,000-plus people in corrections. Just help us understand why is it that the bill was amended from when it was written to include people under the management of the corrections facilities, to exclude them eventually from the bill as it is now standing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and just before I dive into a couple of the questions I’ve got, I just want to seek clarity from you as the Chair. I do note that the original bill had clauses 5 and 6, which have now subsequently been removed through the select committee stage. When is the appropriate time for me to talk about clauses 5 and 6, because there won’t be a debate on clauses 5 and 6 with it being removed? Do you mind if I just give you an opportunity to seek advice on that and then—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You ask your questions on this part and I’ll come back to you.

TOM RUTHERFORD: OK, happily, Madam Chair—you take as long as you would like.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It won’t take long.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, you indulge yourself on that front, Madam Chair. I want to speak to the member Rima Nakhle because clause 4 is the substantial part of the bill. We’ve talked about the title, we’ve talked about the commencement, we’ve talked about the principal Act, and now we’re actually talking about the part that we’re actually going to be implementing to deliver the change that the member’s looking to through the piece of legislation.

The first part is that, from when the bill was originally drafted until now, it has been substantially amended. At first, the bill captured all people under the supervision of Corrections. These are the people who are both within our prison facilities and corrections facilities in New Zealand and also those that are outside of our prison system as well—that’s a lot of people.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Clause 4.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, I’m speaking to clause 4, Mr Webb.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Good—you could have fooled me.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, you’re welcome to come over and have a look and I’ll show you.

Now, through the select committee process, I believe the Justice Committee received feedback that said, actually, Corrections have advised that it would actually be impossible for Corrections to implement this requirement when it comes to those that are under their supervision in the community. If I’m led to believe this is correct, that’s nearly over 20,000 people. Why was the amendment made? The original intention of the bill was to have it apply to everybody, both within the prison and corrections facilities and also those who are out serving their sentences out in the community. Why has the legislation now been subsequently amended only to focus on those who are held within the corrections facilities? Was this any advice that the member in the select committee received as they considered the bill through the Justice Committee, or was this a decision that the member made after further thought, thinking about the legislation and the actual implementation of it and what that meant for the community?

I’ll invite the member to answer that question, and then, Madam Chair, if you wouldn’t mind just clarifying.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will actually clarify before the member answers the questions. In the second reading, there was an opportunity to talk about what the select committee did. The advice I received is that you can touch on the old clause 5—that fits into these clauses—but, basically, because the committee didn’t go near clause 6, there’s no real opportunity to talk about clause 6.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Sorry, do you mind just repeating that? Because the committee didn’t go back?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah—yeah.

TOM RUTHERFORD: OK, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So you can speak briefly about clause 5 as part of the clause that we’re currently on.

TOM RUTHERFORD: OK, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms Nakhle, if you can just indulge me for a bit, as we do just work through clause 4. I’m just interested in this amendment that was made around the chief executive and what they must take into consideration. It seems to me that, again, it’s a fairly—well, not substantial, but it’s definitely a change from what was originally drafted. We’ve got this term around “the interests of victims”—“(including, in particular, being free from unwanted contact with prisoners)”.

I really want to understand why that is important, why that was added, and, really, does that provide additional powers to the chief executive—that’s, obviously, of Corrections. Again, you’ve actually got two people there: you’ve got the Commissioner of Police empowered and also the chief executive of Corrections. Obviously, I’m sure the chief executive of Corrections can delegate that power down, I suppose, to prison managers and people like that, so it can actually get further down in the system, close really to where those prisoners are being dealt with.

I’m very keen to understand from you why, really, that was put in—amending that particular section—and what is your understanding of taking into account the interests of victims? I think that’s a very important clause, particularly given the entire motivation behind this bill. I’m very interested to hear your comments on that.

Tom Rutherford: Madam Chair?

I call Rima Nakhle.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to sit down if this is a supplementary.

Tim Costley: Madam Chair?

Tom Rutherford was on his feet first—sorry, Mr Costley.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to flesh out a little bit more the earlier point I was making around the adjustments that were made, through the select committee process, around who the bill was actually applied to—whether it was those both in corrections facilities or out in the community—because there is a risk at play here that the intention of the legislation will apply to those in the corrections facilities, but that those out in the community can still have the opportunity to harass or contact or intimidate their victims, because they aren’t serving their sentence within the corrections facilities.

I want to understand the rationale from the member as to why Corrections made the suggestion to the select committee to adjust the legislation from everybody under the remit of Corrections to just those held in corrections facilities, which are substantial changes, because the number of people under supervision in the community is over 20,000. The targeting areas of the bill are actually being reduced down to just those held in our corrections facility. I’m keen to flesh that out a little bit more, from the member in charge of the bill, Rima Nakhle, as to why that adjustment was made for just those in the corrections facilities versus those all encapsulated by corrections both in the community and also in our prison facilities.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The area I’d really like to delve into is the nexus between this bill and family law. We heard some insightful questions, I thought, earlier in this debate, that I’ve been following very closely, looking at why it’s only amending—you know, the limitation of which Act get amended is very tight. I just wonder what consideration was given to where it might impact family law.

These can be very difficult, very serious, very challenging situations. Two parents involved and there’s obviously a breakdown in the relationship that leads to one becoming the victim of the other, but still, we obviously want to consider the rights of the child and their wellbeing. There’s been a lot of discussion traversed in this House about keeping them connected to their family, about how we honour what is best for the child. This is going to be a very complex issue to navigate, and obviously this gives—the Commissioner of Police determines what conditions might be imposed. Now there is a preference towards unwanted contact, but, in the Venn diagram of these two things, there must be an overlap between what is the preference of the victim and what is the preference of any children, when they are present.

If we look through the lens of what Mr Rutherford’s been talking about—if that is expanded to those in the community as well as those that are incarcerated—this actually becomes quite complex, because obviously, in this case, parents will still be involved with their children. It’s not just a connection, but it’s a physical connection. It’s really important that we can navigate that in the interests of what is best for the child. I’m just very mindful of family harm situations and the number of agencies involved—the best way to navigate that. Obviously, we want to see the best outcome for the child.

I just want to know, in terms of clause 4, when we look at that language about—and I’m specifically referring to clause 4A where it says, “In deciding which conditions … to impose, the chief executive or Commissioner of Police must take into account the interests of the victims (… in particular, being free from unwanted contact”. Well, it might be unwanted by one parent, but how is that balanced with the desires of the child and what, perhaps, other agencies that could be involved in that situation are saying in the best interest of the child?

I’d be very keen to hear from the member how these things will be balanced, because there are a number of other Acts that would suddenly become intertwined, there are a number of considerations that would be involved, and I don’t think, maybe, it’s been considered. Maybe it is as simple as saying, “Will we just leave that in the bailiwick of the Commissioner of Police and they will determine it”, but I just don’t see that specifically written and I just want to ensure that we are considering these things—that it’s been well traversed so that when this, hopefully, passes into law, we will be protecting the victims. That’s obviously incredibly important, but I just want to make sure the rights of the children in a family harm situation are well protected. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think just be careful with future contributions—which should really be questions, not speeches—that we’re not going into traversing other bills other than the one that’s in front of us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s a pleasure to speak on this member’s bill. I haven’t been privy to much of the conversation and certainly not the work of the Justice Committee, but I just want to acknowledge the member Rima Nakhle for her work in getting to this point in the bill.

Madam Chair, to your point, I do have some questions, and I guess just more for elucidation or clarification, if I may, for the member. At first, the bill, I appreciate, was capturing all prisoners outside of the scope and then obviously through the select committee process, which is good, but—

Tom Rutherford: Point of order. Sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt my colleague, but I would just like the timer restarted to five minutes for his contribution, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, it restarted or didn’t restart?

Tom Rutherford: It didn’t start at all, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): OK. Just a bit of a half-time changeover.

RYAN HAMILTON: Well, thank you, Mr Chair, and I just acknowledge my colleague Mr Rutherford for his astute observations. I don’t know where we’d be without you. I’ll just find my rhythm.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): With Mr Rutherford being a very keen closer of motions on that side of the Chamber, I’m pleased to see that he’s wearing another hat tonight.

RYAN HAMILTON: Yes. No, he’s a man of many talents. For the member, I obviously appreciate that this bill was a little bit broader in the initial intention, but obviously quite a robust select committee process and through feedback and obviously through Corrections officials, you’ve been able to narrow the scope of it, which is prudent. I just acknowledge the work of the team on that from both sides of the House—obviously very good, very robust.

Just in section 8 of the principal Act, after new section 8(1)(ja), inserted by clause 4, it talks about amending the powers and functions of the chief executive and it says, “ensuring that processes are established and maintained to inform visitors of prisoners and recipients of prisoner communications of measures that they can take if they do not want to be contacted by a prisoner”. I just wonder if the member could perhaps clarify or expand on what some of those processes might be and also the measures. Obviously, probably the Justice Committee was privy to some of those things, but I certainly wasn’t and certainly that would be helpful if she could elucidate on that.

Then further down, I note in the commentary—in the select committee report, obviously—that, because we couldn’t go broad with the bill, they were sending a report or a note that there’d be safeguards available or that they hoped there’d be safeguards available to protect the victims that fall beyond the scope of this bill in the broader community, so I look forward to seeing that.

Further, in replacement section 77(5A), inserted by clause 4A, there was a note here, “In deciding what conditions (if any) to impose, the chief executive or the Commissioner of Police must take into account the interests of victims (including—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’re just on clause 4, not clause 4A. Clause 4A has its own clause.

RYAN HAMILTON: Oh, OK. Yep, thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll go to the next one there, then.

There was a mention of why it was important to just focus on telephone calls. I just wondered, were there any other forms of harassment that were explored or why there was a sort of a narrowing of the text around that element of it? Then, also, “contacts a person, or solicits anyone else to contact a person, who the prisoner knows or ought reasonably to know”—I know that’s probably quite a pragmatic thing in a bill, and I suppose some of that drops down as the operationalisation through the corrections facility, but I wondered also if the member could expand on what some of those things might look like in terms of “ought reasonably to know”. Were there any comments through the select committee process of, you know, relationships or unintended, I suppose, methods of reaching the prisoner that might have then affected them and added to that sort of ongoing victimisation? I’d be really interested in that.

I guess the other element, just in closing, was including, in particular, being free from unwanted contact with the prisoners to take into account the interests of victims, including, in particular, being free from unwanted contact with prisoners. I wondered, again, just elucidation, expansion of what that might be in terms of the interests. If the member is able to do that, that would be terrific, but just once again, I congratulate the member and thank her for bringing this to the House.

My apologies, my colleague Cameron Brewer, but if you don’t mind, I would like an opportunity to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You can pull rank in this position.

RIMA NAKHLE: Ah! Thanks for that—welcome, Mr Chair. Now, if you don’t mind, with the indulgence of my colleagues, I would like to just answer a few of the really astute questions that were raised. I thank the members for their interest. I also want to highlight what I highlighted just moments ago, that I’m really appreciating the overzealousness of us newbies, new class of 2023, but at this stage, maybe I’ll just bring it back to the conversation about clause 4, if I may. I want to thank you, my friend Paulo Garcia, member for New Lynn. Thank you for your kind words and thank you for the contributions that you made during the select committee process on this member’s bill, as you make other very sensible and thoughtful contributions for many of the other bills, the now 27 that we consider on the very hard-working Justice Committee.

What I’d like to highlight for the benefit of my colleagues across the Chamber but also for people listening from home—and my husband, Roger—is the reason why clause 4 was substantially amended. There’s many, many reasons that we unpacked here, and there’s conversations that went back and forth with Corrections, with the advice that they gave and the questions that they answered, but, essentially, it comes down to this, if I may: essentially, it comes down to what was raised earlier—that the number of people that are under the supervision of Corrections, if we consider the whole country, is over 20,000 people. That’s people within prison, and that’s—do I have to lean over, by the way?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, I think that’s been picked up.

RIMA NAKHLE: I’m supposed to be graceful! That means people within prison, and that means people that are out in the community, whether it’s on in home detention, wearing an ankle bracelet, and things like that. That number is over 20,000.

When we look at the number that’s within prison, if we just start at the numbers of it all, those that are under the supervision of Corrections, confined to prisons per se, are just over 9,000. The conversation with Corrections was that it’s, essentially, almost impossible to oversee those that are out in the community: every single letter they send, every phone call they make, every SMS that they write—you know, all those type of contacts—every picture that they might send, every Facebook message, every Instagram and what have you. When we reflected as a committee on the complexities involved with overseeing the communications that take place, if Corrections was to oversee those that are out in the community, I had to acknowledge and accept that it is almost impossible at this stage in our lives. Hopefully in the future, it would be much easier to oversee, but at this stage, the simple answer is it’s just too difficult.

If we allow ourselves to step away from this fervent desire to protect victims and just think about it on an operational and practical level, I think many of us can conclude, with some sadness, that it is actually not practical to put that obligation on the chief executive of Corrections to make sure that everyone across the motu that is under the supervision of Corrections is being monitored with respect to the communications they make with victims of their crime. It’s unfortunate, but that, essentially, is the answer, my friends.

I’m appreciative, Mr Rutherford, of your concern about what that means with respect to those that are out in the community, not within the confinement of prisons. Does it mean that they can just continue to—in some situations, if they are so inclined—harass and to contact unlawfully the victims of their crime, and do they, essentially, get away with it? May I say, if you allow me to be so straightforward in what I’m about to say—but first I’m going to ask if I can have a bit of an extension of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Rima Nakhle.

RIMA NAKHLE: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. That question to my friend Mr Rutherford really, really troubled me. I had conversations with my husband, Roger. I had conversations with some friends in the Takanini community, especially people that have been subject to unsavoury behaviour, and their questions to me were: so what happens to those that are in the community? Can they just harass people? Can they just constantly make hundreds of calls to people and not actually be held accountable? Are they just going to get away with it? Now, they don’t get away with it entirely, because they are under parole conditions for the most part, but we had to go back, and it caused me some angst. I’m glad that my colleague Tom can feel that as well and can understand that concern about what this means with respect to those that are out in the community that are not in prisons?

What I can say is that I’m glad that, at least to a very bare minimum, we added something in the select committee final report saying that we hoped that that they were constantly being thought of. That’s, essentially, the answer, if I was to put it down in a nutshell, my friends, and I’m happy to expand further if need be.

Kahurangi Carter: Mr Chair?

Remind me—

Kahurangi Carter: Kahurangi.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Kahurangi Carter.

It’s getting late, eh? I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 4A agreed to.

Clause 4B agreed to.

Clause 4C agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.