Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, it is actually an honour and a privilege to stand before my colleagues and yourself today for the second reading of a member’s bill in my name. This bill, as was just mentioned, is the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. It was drawn out of the ballot on 1 February 2024, this year, and the first reading was 20 March this year as well. It was open for submissions between 6 April and 6 May, and 12 submissions were made. I take that as a positive thing that there weren’t that many submissions. The way I’d like to take it in this instance is that it means that a lot of people were very much in support of the intention of this bill.

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. This member’s bill has also opened up my eyes to the oscillations of lawmaking. I go back to the first reading, and I was very excited about what we had ahead of us, because of how much it would be able to protect victims, especially reflecting on some awful, abhorrent examples of how victims were being contacted from prison by the perpetrators of the crime against them.

I’m still pleased that we are charging ahead with this bill, and I’m hoping that I still will have the support of the House, but significant changes have been made, and I guess that’s where I come back to the oscillations of lawmaking and the eye-opening experience thus far that this has been for me. I reflect back to when we started receiving advice from Corrections. The advice—and it’s noted in the departmental report—essentially, prima facie, seemed like it was changing massive parts of the bill. To be honest, my human nature was like, “What’s going on here? I thought we were going down a certain path. Why are these drastic recommendations being made?” We conversed about it. The Justice Committee were very—I’m very blessed to have my colleague James Meager as the chair of the Justice Committee. He’s compassionate, he’s able, and he’s extremely acute.

James Meager: Cute.

RIMA NAKHLE: Acute—cute like my little brother, but acute. What I appreciate was the patience of the Justice Committee and Corrections staff as I navigated through the recommendations that were being made. We asked our questions, we got some thorough answers, and we went back and we asked again. Recommendations were made, and we proceeded to accept those recommendations. First and foremost—and this holds quite a weight and magnitude with respect to the intention or where the bill is going—is that we’re going to ensure that the provisions only apply to people in prison.

Now, as much as I and many people would have loved for these restrictions to apply to people that are under the care of Corrections out in the community, the fact of the matter is there’s about 26,000 people in the community, and it would be almost impossible for Corrections to make sure that they can keep an eye on all of them and all the communications they’re making, so we brought it to just affect people that are in prison.

Secondly, we’ve deleted what was clause 5 and clause 6, but we’ve, essentially, expanded what was clause 4. The amended clause 4 of the bill now is going to be amending the powers and functions of the chief executive of Corrections in section 8 of the principal Act, the Corrections Act 2004. After section 8(1)(j), it’s going to insert new paragraph (ja) “ensuring that processes are established and maintained [by Corrections] 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”.

We also accepted the recommendation that we amend section 77 regarding outgoing telephone calls to add, after section 77(5) new subsection (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”. I’m pleased that we’ve managed to get across the line, so far, the word “must”, “must take into account”, as opposed to “may take into account the interests of the victim”.

We’ve also amended section 104, and that pertains to general considerations relating to mail. We’re adding into section 104(g), after “the interests of victims”, “(including, in particular, being free from unwanted contact with prisoners)”. And we’re amending section 128. This is pertaining to offences by a prisoner. We’re actually adding a new offence. That new offence in section 128(1)(r) will be, hopefully, that a prisoner cannot contact a person or solicit anyone else to contact a person who the prisoner knows or ought reasonably to have known that they don’t want to be contacted. This part in particular—we did spend quite some time considering this; what entails this “ought to have known”. But, in the end, I and so far the committee feel comfortable with that amendment.

I’d like to thank the people that made submissions. Sorry, before I do that I’d like to state that we have removed one of the clauses that was saying that Corrections had to include in their annual report a report about these measures. We’ve removed it because the strong advice from Corrections was that it was not very feasible—doable. But I’m comforted by the fact that we can ask questions during annual review to try and extract that information as well.

I’d like to thank the people that made submissions. In particular, I’d like to highlight Victim Support. What I appreciated about the written submission of Victim Support is that they spoke about how victims deserve to feel safe—absolutely; 100 percent. This, essentially, encapsulates a big part of what we’re trying to achieve with this bill. They highlighted that victims deserve to be free from revictimisation. When we look at what’s been happening in the last few years with respect to perpetrators being able to contact the victims of their crime, that’s what happens; it becomes a revictimisation. This law will help to ensure that victims are free from revictimisation.

I appreciate the fact that they said victims deserve to have autonomy. Sometimes, victims want to keep some level of contact between their family and the perpetrator. The way we’ve amended this bill touches on that. Indeed, assisting victims to move forward, or when they have autonomy and they make that clear choice that “I do not want to be contacted by this person in prison.”, that helps them to move forward as well. I thank everyone that’s been involved in this kaupapa so far and I hope that the whole House can continue to support this very important bill. I commend it.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for an opportunity to say a few words about this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to start my contribution by acknowledging the member Rima Nakhle for her very studious shepherding of this bill through the select committee process. As she has just noted, like with any bill, there’s an intentionality behind it, there’s an impetus behind it, but sometimes the details need to be worked out. I can attest to the fact that she took on that role with great aplomb and the Justice Committee was able to get the bill to this stage with that cooperation in mind.

Labour’s going to support this bill. We think that victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported and, in particular, rightly so, when they don’t want to have contact or any type of contact with the people that caused them harm, their offender. That’s why, to a large extent, Corrections already has non-contact conditions in place to support that right. This bill, as introduced, sought to strengthen those conditions but, as has been discussed, it was operationally quite difficult to implement, given that it also would have included all of the monitoring and communication of people on community-based sentences and on orders and on parole, which I think was roughly about 26,000 people.

As you can imagine, Corrections can’t practically monitor the communications of all of those people outside the prison system in the way that they can comprehensively do it inside the wire. The Justice Committee requested that the relevant agencies continue to monitor the safeguards that are practically available to them now, which is all that we could really do, and then it proposed these—there were a few amendments, but the two main ones were introducing a new offence of making unwanted contact; to make it an offence against prison discipline. As we know, the bill already provides a suite of punishments if found guilty for that transgression against prison discipline; also, to insert a new section to require Corrections, as Rima Nakhle said, to take into account the interests of victims. That might not seem like it’s terribly robust, but it does provide that legislative foundation to say, actually, this is a priority, and when we’re thinking about prisoners’ communications in regard to their telephone calls and mail and things like that, one of the things that you have to take into consideration at the top of the list is the interests of victims.

This approach, in an effort to make the bill workable, still supports victims and makes clear what those obligations are to the Department of Corrections. It’s those obligations that I think are really important, certainly to us on this side of the House. During our last term, when Labour was in Government, we made the largest ever financial investments into victims. We launched operational pilots, pilots in the courts, we tripled the level of funding for victims’ assistance schemes, and actually even doubled the level of funding for victim support.

Whilst this bill doesn’t do a huge amount, it doesn’t do anything that’s incongruent with our stance, our previous stance in our long history on supporting victims. For that reason, we will be supporting the bill at this second reading.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora, and I’m happy to speak to Rima Nakhle’s bill. I just want to acknowledge that Rima is from Lebanon, and right now it’s terrible what’s going on in Lebanon and we as a House—I would hope—would like to acknowledge the suffering that is going on there and how hard it must be for you to be witnessing that in your homeland.

The Green Party centres the rights and protections of survivors, including those of family violence. Family and sexual violence is a scourge on our nation. It’s one of our greatest shames, it would be fair to say, and the statistics alone create a frightening picture, made worse by the fact that we consider how little of it is unreported. It’s very important that we centre our approaches around the impact on survivors or—as we commonly would call them—victims. The bill aims to protect victims of crime, and individuals under a protection order, from unwarranted contact by prisoners.

This bill has undergone significant change through the Justice Committee. The Department of Corrections raised concerns about the operational and practical challenges. That’s, to be clear, that the Department of Corrections supervises 26,000 people in the community and about 9,500 prisoners, making it difficult to monitor their communication. The select committee recommended an alternative approach to prevent prisoners from making unwanted contact with victims of crime: to create a new offence under prison discipline where a prisoner contacts someone who the prisoner knows, or reasonably ought to know, does not want to be contacted—and that is appropriate. Somebody who is a survivor—who is a victim—should not be contacted by the person who has committed the harm to them. We absolutely support that principle.

It also suggested establishing an obligation on the chief executive to be required to establish and maintain processes to inform visitors of prisoners and recipients of prisoner communications about measures they can take if they do not want to be contacted by a prisoner. It is right that Corrections should be informed of that information by those who are survivors of harm. It also requires that Corrections take victims’ interests into account, in particular being free from unwanted contact when deciding what conditions to impose on prisoners regarding outgoing telephone calls.

Now, despite the creation of a new offence, the Green Party, on balance, continues to support this bill at the second reading. It supports victims to be able control what contact they receive from prisoners and makes clear the department’s obligations to victims. It supports our party’s policy to better enforce no-contact orders and generally to support the victims of crime. In part, this is because it includes people who have a protection order against somebody, including those who seek protection from family violence.

We do not support the too-easy knee-jerk concept of “tough on crime”, because, for decades, Governments have created a justice system that ignores the drivers and the causes of crime and instead puts people in prisons with inadequate rehabilitation support. Often, as we know—and there’s very strong literature on this—those people who end up being the perpetrators of harm were very often, themselves, the victims of harm.

In no way does having been a victim of harm justify you being a perpetrator of harm—in no way—but for us as a society to understand the systemic causes of harm, we need to have the ability to dispassionately recognise what is the origin of the characteristics that lead to harm being caused by people. Very often, they themselves were the victims of harm. That is why we reject the simple headline “tough on crime”. We need a more sophisticated and compassionate and, frankly, scientific, evidence-based understanding of the drivers of harm in our society. These approaches on “tough on crime” have failed to address the underlying drivers in crime, and, in many cases, have pushed people further into crisis.

This is a bill that we commend, for it establishes a very important principle: that those people who are the victims of crime should have the ability to take control of their own circumstances and to protect themselves from further harm from those people who have harmed them. We will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it is actually my genuine pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and talk on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to really commend my Government colleague Rima Nakhle for being able to get this bill drawn and then move it forward in the process. In fact, Rima Nakhle and I actually have quite a lot in common. We’re both lawyers—or retired lawyers now, probably, we would say. We’ve both lived in Sydney for a long period of time, and have both had a bill drawn out in this Parliament.

I actually have the pleasure of sitting alongside Miss Nakhle in the Justice Committee, and it is a real pleasure to work with her in that select committee, along with all the other members of that select committee, particularly when we have a bill like this where we can actually work constructively together. That’s not always the case in the Justice Committee, because this Government does have a different approach on law and order, which, I would like to say, is victim-centric and also wants to make sure people are punished for crimes.

Before I come back to how I think this fits nicely into the coalition Government’s crime agenda, I do just want to reflect on the bill and the process, because it was genuinely constructive. I do want to thank James Meager, the chair—I don’t know if I’d describe him as cute, but that has been said. He did a very good job. I’d also want to acknowledge all of the members of the select committee, including the Opposition members, because it was actually a very constructive discussion. As has been covered, the bill as introduced has been altered, but the intent behind it, I think, has been honoured. I actually do want to thank the Corrections officials and, of course, the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I see that Minister Mitchell is here in the House tonight, and so I would like to say that the Corrections officials were amazing during this process, and so, as the responsible Minister, you should pass that on—they really did go out of their way to make this workable.

As we have heard, there were some issues that we uncovered as a select committee around workability, but we were able to forge on and, again, Rima Nakhle was very gracious in working through those issues with us and also being open to changes while still being honest to the intent of this bill. We, obviously, did have some submissions—not too many, but the ones we did have were very impactful and did home in on the details.

I think what we’ve ended up with really is a very useful member’s bill that is actually going to offer an additional layer of protection to victims. Again, these are people where protection orders are in place. Obviously, the person who has caused them harm is in prison and they do not want to be contacted by that person, whether it’s phone calls, emails, post—whatever that kind of communication is, that wants to be stopped. What we now have is a requirement on the chief executive to put in place these processes and actually articulate what they are and make sure that they are understood. Again, that was a change that was put in place, and, obviously, this new punishment section, or—yeah, we’ll call it that. Really, the new offence of unwanted contact, adding that in—so, again, that gives Corrections the power to actually do something when a prisoner intervenes, in this regime.

Obviously, one of the things we did talk about was Corrections having—and, again, Mr Abel talked about the number of people actually under the control of Corrections, some 9,500 actually incarcerated but many, many more in the community. Of course, it was impractical to place this onus on Corrections to deal with, you know—just have this restriction on people in the community. I think that actually uncovered a very important issue around inter-departmental communications—communications between the courts, Corrections, and even the Police, when these kinds of protection orders are in place. I think, as a select committee, that’s something we want to follow up on, because it does seem that we don’t actually have a kind of connectivity about when protection orders, etc., are in place. Again, I think that’s something we want to follow up on.

I just want to return to saying how I think this fits into the Government’s agenda on law and order. That’s why I think it was really good that this bill was drawn out. We’ve gone through the select committee process, I think we’re going to get to the committee of the whole House process, and, hopefully, a successful third reading—but that’s all in the future. I think, again, as reflected across the three parties, that we do have an approach on law and order that is victim-centric and making sure that, actually, the rights of victims are upheld. A part of that is some of the other changes in law and order that we are introducing. Again, there’ll be a lot of discussion in the coming weeks around things like three strikes and the other changes around sentencing that we’re going to be doing. That really is us saying that, you know, things in New Zealand have got out of control and we want to put tougher measures in place.

Mr Abel, we want to have people properly protected and incarcerated where necessary, but I do think rehabilitation is a worthwhile thing. We’ve already introduced changes so we can actually have some rehabilitation programmes for people on remand. My own bill addresses some issues around rehabilitation programmes. It is very important. In fact, we were lucky enough, some members of the Justice Committee, to travel during the recess to Christchurch, and we actually visited the women’s prison in Christchurch and got to spend some time in the therapeutic community that had only been open a few months, which I think was a really, really interesting experience.

Minister Mitchell, if you get the chance to go down there and meet with that therapeutic community, I think it really is a very interesting model. We heard from the people in that community about how it was turning their lives around. Some of them had actually asked to be transferred into that prison just so they could participate in that programme. It was really a kind of multidisciplinary, really trust-building community. Obviously, we need to see the results—it had only been opened a short while—but it had very promising results. Actually, the women there were really invested in wanting to turn their lives around. That’s, obviously, another thing that we’re very keen to encourage, because we don’t want people returning to prison—that is very expensive, and when they could be contributing members of our society that is a much better outcome for everyone.

Again, I think it’s great timing that Miss Nakhle’s bill got drawn, because I do think it just adds to the wonderful compliment of policies and initiatives we’ve got across the spectrum. I really do think it will make a difference for victims’ interests and rights. As I said, it was a very rigorous process where we addressed the issues that were uncovered, and, again, I think it was a select committee process actually working at its best. While it is only a short bill, I think it will do great things by reinforcing that, where victims do not want this unwanted contact and that is known, that is stopped. It was very heartening to hear from Corrections about the processes that they already have in place, but this would expand and make sure that this really was well known to victims, about their rights.

I think this is an excellent member’s bill. It’s been a pleasure being part of the committee to work on it, and it’s great to see we’re getting widespread support across the House to do something for victims. I will definitely be commending this to the House, and ACT is very pleased to support it.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. It is my first opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation. I would like to recognise my South Auckland neighbour Rima Nakhle for bringing this to the House and traversing this complex process to get this bill to this stage. I think, fundamentally, we’re talking about enhancing safety within correctional facilities by introducing just another obligation on the chief executive and prison managers to prevent that unwanted communication.

We’ve talked a lot about victims today, but I think we also need to recognise that this is about those that are subject to protection orders, and that that’s an important component as to what we’re doing. It’s not lost on me that this is the second time I’ve had to speak this evening in this House about the ability of us as a Government to implement greater protections, to think more broadly about what we’re trying to deliver for our communities, and to ensure that we have some level of safety—and recognise that we are trying to deliver, across the House, really practical solutions. They may be incremental and you may think that it’s not quite everything you want it to be, but I think it’s a really important piece of legislation. We’re not just talking about this being an obligation on the corrections process to inform but in some degree it’s an empowerment of those that are subject of protection orders; it’s an empowerment of the victims to be able to take a little bit more control of their destiny.

I talked a lot today about how we know that the protection orders aren’t giving the security that we want. We know that they’re not giving that safety net to the extent that we want to have them, but I think as we educate and empower those that are vulnerable and those that have been victims of their rights—and this is just another opportunity. Beyond the intention of what you wanted to do about the communication, it’s actually another opportunity to talk to our vulnerable people, to our victims, to empower, strengthen, and give them some hope as to their ability to control their destiny. I think, in that regard, I would credit that the bill has actually achieved something a little bit more than I think we first thought it would.

The other component I would really like to touch on is about Corrections themselves. I think this is an organisation that is often demonised and is often held to account for not delivering everything we want—that they are the necessary evil that we really don’t want—but when we look at Corrections and we look at the proactive way in which they contributed to this legislation, they really did come to the party to try and find a practical way to navigate, recognising their limitations but also offering the opportunity to do something better. These are people that are truly committed to providing some protections for those that are vulnerable. Contrary to the discussion that we’ve heard across the House, they are committed to rehabilitation, they are committed to trying to break the cycle. There are some really dedicated and hard-working individuals in the Corrections sector.

I’d also like to use the opportunity, because it’s been raised in the House tonight, to talk about this idea of understanding the drivers of crime. I think we can stand on this side of the House, with this Government, recognising that we have done something so significant in terms of shifting the dial on criminal activity, because the one really solid determinant beyond all others is the education we give our young people. That will be the determinant as to whether we shift criminal activity. That is part of this discussion where I really think it’s important that we look at all aspects. We’re not just talking about victimhood; we’re actually talking about breaking the cycle of crime as well and empowering the victims. I think that educational start, that ability to have your destiny under your control, is one of the strongest things we can do to ensure that we break the cycle of criminality. That is the hope that we want to give young people. We do not want to rob them of their potential. We want to recognise that every child has that great opportunity to be more and better than they even dreamt they could be. I think this is one of the things that makes me so proud to be part of this Government.

I think we also want to touch on the fact that there is this tendency to talk about your life being in somebody else’s hands. We really need to drive that personal accountability and that responsibility and your ability to control your destiny. That’s why I like the fact that we are talking about a piece of legislation that will inform those that are victims, that will inform those that are vulnerable, and have protection orders, of their powers and their ability to control their destiny. I think it’s a really important piece of legislation around how we’re going to move forward and discuss better opportunities.

I talked a bit earlier tonight about the woman whose husband, as soon as he was released from prison, went straight to her house after being released from murdering his second wife, and the intervention. What I didn’t mention was that, at the same time, the woman had lived for nearly nine years in a state of constantly being harassed. That’s why she’d moved house so many times. That’s why she had. With all of his network, as soon as they were released from prison, they would track her down, and they would find her—under the protection orders. Granted that’s 30-odd years ago, when I was a lot younger and could still pass the physical competency test, but we’re now talking about a time where it worries me that not much has changed. Not much has shifted.

These are all of these little steps that we’re delivering: all of those little opportunities we have to ensure that we are respecting the rights of those that are vulnerable, that we are strengthening the level of importance that these protection orders have, that we are making sure that when you are in custody and when you are serving your penalties, you are deprived of some level of rights and that you are constrained to some extent, and that there is accountability for when you break those rules.

I really commend the effort that’s gone into this. Justice Committee, I can appreciate, going through the notes, how much you’ve had to navigate to get this one over the line. The beauty of this process, the legislative process, is that there is compromise, there is opportunity to think of a different way to come to the same end conclusion.

I would like to talk briefly about New Zealand First’s position on this space. We have talked repeatedly about our determination to put victims first and to create a wrap-around response to make sure that we don’t create more victims and that those that are victims are better supported and better protected. Really, as we go through this whole process of all of these incremental pieces of legislation, what we’re saying is that we hear you; what we’re saying is that we understand. When you have members of Parliament who are prepared to stand up and do the hard yards to find a way to navigate a piece of legislation that will give us some really smart solutions, even if they’re in little increments, even if they’re little steps in the right direction, it’s really encouraging about our democratic process, about the parliamentary process, and about how we make laws. We can take a problem, we can identify that there’s something that we might be able to do better, and we can take little steps forward to ensure that we achieve it.

That’s really encouraging, and it’s encouraging across all of the platforms we’re doing. It’s encouraging about the fact that we recognise how important education is. It’s encouraging that we recognise how important it is to have a good home and to get our young people out of motels so we can break that cycle. It’s encouraging to be able to sit in this House and come across pieces of legislation that we can all collectively come together and go, “Hey, this is a great idea. It’s not perfect, and maybe we can build on it. Maybe we can do more.” But, right now, we’ve got a piece of legislation that says, “Hey, how about this?” We will do something to make sure that our vulnerable people are heard, that we’re listening to them, and that we’re prepared to pass a piece of legislation and do the hard work.

I can appreciate, Rima, this has not been an easy process for you. I commend that you got this bill drawn. I commend that we’re actually sitting here today looking at one more way that we can make sure victims know they will be protected, they will be heard, and that, when you have a protection order, we will make sure it means something. We will make sure that more will be done to ensure you will be safe and you’ll be protected and you’ll be empowered and you’ll be able to move forward with your life. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Like the other speakers in this debate, I do want to congratulate MP Rima Nakhle for the work on the bill up to this point. I’m sure that she has been doing a whole lot of really important work to get the bill back to the second reading, as it is now.

As other speakers have alluded to, the bill did change during the select committee process. I’m not a member of the Justice Committee but, having heard from the Department of Corrections about difficulties operationalising the bill as it was, they were pretty substantial changes and the Justice Committee proposed an alternative approach that would be more feasible for implementation.

I just wanted to follow up on the comments from my colleague Steve Abel about how important it is to have a survivor-centred approach to justice and how important it is to avoid re-traumatisation. A survivor-focused approach systematically focuses on their safety, their rights, their wellbeing, and their expressed needs and choices. Ensuring that survivors of family violence are protected from unwanted contact can be seen to align with that approach, and that’s why the Green Party is supporting this bill.

However, I do want to take the opportunity in this debate to point out that a survivor-centred approach to justice is fundamentally different from some of the current tough on crime stance which this Government is pushing, which I, unfortunately, don’t think is evidence-based and won’t reduce harm over the generations—in fact, it could lead to more harm, unfortunately. 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, and it certainly leads to the perpetuation of violence in many aspects of our society.

As the previous speaker, Minister Casey Costello, said, I think we do need to listen to the people who are most affected. I think the Green Party absolutely supports that. If we did listen to survivors of family violence, I think we would be taking a better approach overall to how we address restorative justice and justice in this country. The imminent apology that is going to result from the inquiry into the abuse in State care, I think, is a good example where that was a really painful process, a difficult process, and while some steps are being taken, we’re still falling well short of what is needed to address the harm that was caused in those circumstances where it was the State that was responsible.

As we can see, there’s a lot of support for this bill across the House. Maybe this is an opportunity to shift away from adversarial processes towards genuine restorative justice and to build some cross-party support for a more effective approach to reducing crime and harm in our society. As such, the Greens strongly urge the Government to continue prioritising Te Aorerekura, the vital system-wide changes that that advocates, because that strategy—and I have to acknowledge the work of the Hon Marama Davidson as the former prevention of family and sexual violence Minister, and also the work of my former colleague MP Jan Logie, who was the under-secretary who started that work. That is about primary prevention over a 25-year period, and it is a blueprint for change. Again, the Hon Casey Costello mentioned that not much has changed in 30 years, so maybe it is time to take a different approach.

It’s hard to take seriously the Government’s commitment to that approach when funding has been cut to so many providers in the prevention of violence space—$18 million per year has been cut from prevention community contractors, and some of those people have been delivering key, evidence-based functional family therapy and other proven methods of preventing family violence.

Anyway, to summarise, the Green Party are supporting this bill. It is a step towards fostering a survivor-centred approach within our justice system, and that is a good thing.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare, otirā aroha mai mō te mikirapu i ngā wāhi kōrero.

E mihi ana ki te mema o tēnei pire nāna i kawe mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, ki a koe, Rima. Tēnā rā koe mō te kawe i tēnei pire whakahirahira mā mātou ki te kōrero. Waihoki e whakaaro nui ana ahau me tō tātou pāti ki tō iwi, ki ō whānau kei tō iwi taketake, ki Lebanon hoki.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to all of us of the House, and I apologise for mixing up the speaking order.

I acknowledge the member of this bill who has brought it into the House of Parliament, to you Rima. Thank you for bringing this significant bill forward for us to discuss. Furthermore, our party and I offer condolences to your people, your families in your native people, and to Lebanon.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori ki te whakaatu, ki te kōrero mō tēnei o ngā pire [to demonstrate, and to speak on this particular bill], the Victims Corrections Amendment Bill. Te Pāti Māori supports this bill and he reo whakamiha hoki ki te komiti whakahaere i roto i te Justice Committee hoki [and a voice of gratitude also to the managing committee too, i.e., the Justice Committee.]

For our whānau at home, this bill intends to protect victims of crime by preventing their perpetrators from contacting them, having the protection orders in place for victims. It amends the Corrections Act 2004 to create an obligation for prison managers and CEOs to ensure that victims and others who are subject to protection orders under the Family Violence Act 2018 are protected from unwanted communications from prisoners.

This is a serious and pervasive issue in Aotearoa, affecting people of all ages, genders, ethnicities, and socio-economic backgrounds. However, we all know that Māori are disproportionately represented. People living with this trauma should not be forced to relive it through ongoing communications from their perpetrator. This is a common-sense, pragmatic, yet simple law change that would provide relief and protection to victims of crime. I was truly surprised to know that this was not a law already here, in Aotearoa.

Ko tā Te Pāti Māori e manako nei i roto i tēnei pire ko te tiaki i ngā tāngata kua patua e te tūkino a ngā tāngata kei ngā whare herehere kia whakahaumaru i a rātou. Mō ngā tāngata kua kite i te pani, te pouwaru me te rawakore. Kia tiaki i ō rātou tinana, wairua, hinengaro, whānau hoki, kia korowaitia, kia haumarutia. Ko te maruāpō o tēnei o ngā pire he tāhuhu i te tangata.

I roto i tēnei o ngā pire, e whakaaturia te mana ōrite.

[What the Māori Party desires within this bill is the protection of the people who have been assaulted by the abuse of the people incarcerated in prison, so that they are safe. For the people who have been orphaned, bereaved, or impoverished. To protect their bodies, spirits, minds, and family too, so they are cloaked and made safe. The aspiration of this bill is to back people.

In this particular bill, equal rights are on display.]

Māori are overrepresented as victims in the criminal justice system. We are the most impacted group by any changes made in this space. This bill will bring a positive change for victims, it allows us to listen to the families of victims in crime, and it is what is needed to address the harm. I roto i te mana o te mana mokopuna [Within the power of the rights of the grandchild], this will go a long way in protecting mokopuna and whānau who have experienced this violence. This is a straightforward bill that we, from Te Pāti Māori, intend to still support. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The previous speaker, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, started her speech by apologising for getting the order wrong. I don’t think she needs to apologise, because I was watching the TV and the numbers at the top as well and I thought that they were one behind too. I think we can put that down to a technical blip rather than any fault of the member. I just wanted to note that for people watching at home—and just to congratulate you and welcome you back from overseas. What a great achievement for you as well.

It’s quite difficult as the chair of a committee to get up after eight people have spoken and then do your traditional job of recapping what happened in the select committee and who came and submitted and what the process was. I thought I would do that. However, I thought I’d go a little bit off-piste at the start and talk about the sponsor of the bill, Rima Nakhle, and her advocacy for the bill throughout this process. I think, first of all, I want to congratulate the member for having her bill drawn. It is the second one of my colleagues that I’ve jealously had to congratulate tonight for having a member’s bill pulled in their first term and one which will, hopefully, have support of the House—and I think it does—and it will be seen all the way through.

I wanted to make a comment on Mrs Nakhle’s advocacy and support for victims and victims’ rights, because, having sat on the select committee with my colleague for almost a year now, I have not seen a more fierce advocate for the rights of victims and for victims’ issues on that committee than anyone else who sits on the committee—to the point where I think sometimes other members of the committee may get a little bit tense or might have some concerns about the way that my colleague does advocate for victims, because she isn’t afraid to point out when offending has impacts on victims. She isn’t afraid to push back on submitters who take a slightly maybe one-sided approach to the justice system and forget about the rights of victims. She is always there to support them. She is always putting forward what she thinks is the right thing to do, which is to put victims at the heart of our justice system. That is what this bill is about. I really congratulate my colleague for bringing it forward. I’m sure it’s the first of many, many bills like this that she will be able to speak to and sponsor in her long time through the House.

Can I acknowledge the support that she has out there, not only in her electorate but at home as well. I know her number one fan is probably watching late at night—he always is—and he’ll be texting through his support and his commentary. Just to Roger out there: big shout-out to Roger, and I thank him for his support for Rima in this bill too.

Look, it’s important I put that on the record, because throughout the process of this bill and of many bills that we face and we scrutinise in the Justice Committee, victims are central to everything that we think about. It’s central to this Government’s approach to justice; it’s central to this Government’s approach to crime and to corrections and to rehabilitation. The number one focus is about reducing the impact of crime on victims in our community, and this is a small but meaningful step in doing so.

I wanted to take the House through some of what the select committee did discuss through that process that we undertook for several months. As we’ve heard, there were a handful of submissions made—12 in total. Now, that doesn’t seem like a lot—certainly not as many as we have received on other bills, and it’s certainly not as many as I anticipate receiving on some of the bills that we will be considering shortly—however, we should not substitute quantity of submissions for quality of submissions. If anyone has the opportunity to go into the select committee tool and to read the departmental report, you will see a very thorough analysis of the submissions made by those 12 individuals and organisations, and especially from the three oral submissions.

I wanted to put that on the record because, a lot of the time, people think that it’s the number of people submitting on a particular issue that counts, or it’s the number of forms or the number of emails that you can get through that really makes a difference. Yes, while quantity does show strength of opinion for or against an issue, more often than not, select committees are persuaded and convinced by the strength of arguments and the quality of arguments made in submissions. We’ve seen that here in this bill, where most of the submitters were strongly in favour of the bill and most of the submitters made their submissions around the rights of victims as well.

As we have heard, the select committee did make a number of changes to the bill on the basis of advice by Corrections officials. I wanted to echo the comments of Mr Stephenson, who spoke very highly of the Corrections officials. He has had a lot to do with them recently, for his own bill, and I’m sure—

Todd Stephenson: In a professional capacity!

JAMES MEAGER: In a professional capacity; not in any personal pastime capacity! I would echo his high praise for the officials from Corrections. We have seen them for a number of bills now, including the quite substantial Corrections Amendment Bill that we walked through. On every occasion, their advice has been clear, it has been concise, and it has been valuable in the select committee’s consideration of what changes to make to this bill.

In particular, in this case—and I know Ms Nakhle won’t mind me mentioning it—there were probably times when there was perhaps a little bit of disappointment that some of the advice coming back indicated that the bill might not have been able to achieve what it originally set out to achieve. That’s fairly common in members’ bills, because we often have an idea, it’s a good intention, it’s put into a bill, and it’s pulled out of the ballot, but then, when the officials toss it around and they go through the operational implications, sometimes bills with the best of intentions just aren’t able to be operationalised, and this is one of those bills in this case. That’s why some of the changes have been made, to reflect the fact, as many members have mentioned already, of the shocking statistic or number—that Corrections have responsibility, control, or supervision of around 26,000 members of the community and 9,500 prisoners.

If you look at the departmental report, it goes through the steps and the kind of engagement and the controls that Corrections have in place for those 9,500 prisoners, where they can screen mail, they can check mail, they can have access to emails, they can put in place controls on ingoing and outgoing phone calls. Those are the kinds of things which, whilst onerous, are able to be operationalised within the Corrections system. That is not the case for those 26,000 individuals in the community. It was very clear from the start that, while, I think, in an ideal world, we would like to be able to put some more controls and some more conditions in place to make sure that victims of crime and people who are subject to protection orders are not only safe from prisoners inside prison but also safe from those who have offended and who have been released into the community—and who may still wish to pursue victims or family members or those who just don’t want to have contact made with them.

I would draw the House’s attention to the section at the end of the departmental report which does take members through some of the things that Corrections can do to monitor communications of offenders in the community. There are some restrictions that can be put in place by the Parole Board, there are some controls that can be put in place, but when we are talking about 26,000 people, it’s just not feasible to do so and operationalise through this bill. That’s not to say we shouldn’t stop trying to reduce those numbers. We shouldn’t stop making those investments in crime prevention. We shouldn’t stop Nicola Willis’ social investment approach, where we will be looking at programmes and measures that work, including rehabilitation for prisoners on remand. I reflect on the trip that we took to Christchurch a couple of weeks ago—a very good trip—and we visited the justice precinct and saw the exceptional facilities, the court facilities, the police facilities, the linked-up approach that the justice pipeline is taking, but also, we saw what kinds of services and facilities are available out there in our Corrections institutions, at Christchurch men’s and Christchurch women’s prisons. I will reiterate how impressed I was with the women at Christchurch women’s prison, in the therapeutic unit that we went to.

When we talk about trying to do our best to make sure we rehabilitate prisoners—and there is the stick side of it; there are the punitive controls. Having a new offence in here about prisoners who do contact people who do not wish to be contacted is the right thing to do, but there is also the side of this Government and this Government’s approach which is that we do need to make sure that when people are in our care and in our custody in prisons, they are given the opportunity for rehabilitation. I was struck by the relationship that those women had with the Corrections staff. It wasn’t a master-slave relationship, nor was it a collegial buddy-buddy relationship, but it was one that was built on respect, and it was one where Minister Costello mentioned the idea of taking responsibility for your actions. The women in that unit reflected back to me, and I’m sure to the group, that their experience in the short time that they’d been in there certainly made them realise that they were the ones who were accountable for their actions, they were the ones who could make decisions and make changes in their lives, and with the support of the Corrections team and with the support of the community and the Government, that is what can happen when we put the right resources in the right place.

This is a small change in the right direction. It will do a significant amount to provide reassurance to victims of crime that they will be free from unwanted contact. I look forward to hearing more about it in the committee stage, and I look forward to its passage through the House in the coming weeks and months. With that, I would just like to congratulate Mrs Nakhle and commend the bill to the House.

This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Goodnight, everyone.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.