Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. Sorry, James.

On the first day of February of this year something fortuitous but potentially quite impactful occurred. This bill, in discussion, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, was drawn from the ballot box. Now, I say impactful because this bill, although on the face of it it’s quite straightforward, if passed through it will no doubt improve the lives of many victims of crime.

I would like to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, the Hon Judith Collins, and the Hon Mark Mitchell—who are all connected to this bill in some way, and it is my quiet pleasure to now be the member in charge of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

Now, as I just touched upon, this bill is simple in form but substantial in effect. In essence, this bill seeks to protect victims of crime and protection order applicants from being contacted by the perpetrators of the crimes against them. Many people I have spoken to about this bill within my electorate of Takanini and across South and East Auckland, quite frankly have expressed surprise at the fact that this specification, this specific protection, is not already enshrined in law. Victims of crime and those who are under the supposed safety net of a protection order should be able to feel safe and protected from unwanted, undesired, and unsolicited contact from those who inflicted harm upon them and who are in the supervision of Corrections. This is the crux of this bill that we are conversing today in the first reading.

Now, before delving into the mechanics of the proposed changes, I would like to briefly discuss the current status quo, which can help our listeners further understand why these changes, in our opinion, are imperative. Currently, the Corrections Act 2004, which for the benefit of our listeners from home—in Australia as well—is the principal Act that we are seeking to amend with this bill. This Act provides a framework for the management and rehabilitation of offenders within the New Zealand corrections system and this Act, the principal Act, outlines the responsibilities of corrections staff, the treatment of prisoners, and various mechanisms to ensure safety and order within the corrections environment.

Essentially, the Corrections Act focuses in a broad manner on the management of offenders, with some specific provisions for victim notifications, for example parole hearings, but does not explicitly mention preventing contact between prisoners and victims across the board. And this is where I want to acknowledge that there is a section of the Corrections Act that refers to the victims of family violence, but we want to widen the scope to all victims of crime.

So although the Corrections Act covers a range of situations and scenarios, including the subject of telephone calls and mail being sent to people outside of prison—and telephone calls fall under sections 111 to 115, specifically, of the principal Act—we believe these sections do not include the objectives that we are aiming to achieve with this amendment bill, and that is to put an obligation on the chief executive of Corrections, and prison managers, to make sure prisoners do not contact their victims of crime. This is why the proposed changes in this bill are necessary: to fill this void; this void which is causing harm to people who should be at the forefront of our protection, the victims.

Now, there are three changes to the Corrections Act that this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, intends to make so that this void can be adequately addressed. First, by introducing a new power and function of the chief executive of Corrections into section 8 of the Act. Now, this section, section 8, stipulates the power and functions of the chief executive of Corrections. We want to bring in a new power to ensure that processes are established and maintained to protect victims of offences and persons for whom protection orders are in place from unwanted contact from people within corrections control or supervision.

Secondly, this bill seeks to amend section 12 of the Act, and this section outlines the powers and functions of prison managers, to also include the power and function that we’ve spoken about just now. And, thirdly, this bill also amends section 190 of the principal Act to ensure that these matters are included in the department’s annual report.

Now, one must question why should these changes be made to the Corrections Act when the purpose of the principal Act does not include the direct protection of victims. In response to this, I would like to draw the attention of the House to section 6 of the principal Act, which outlines the principles guiding correction systems. Subsection (1)(b) states that “victims’ interests must be considered in decisions related to the management of persons under control or supervision:”. And as to whether these proposed amendments are consistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I’m pleased to direct the House’s attention to the Attorney-General’s findings—thank you, Madam Attorney-General—that this bill appears to be on par with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Now, I’d like to also draw my colleagues’ attention to a various number of news articles that we’ve collated just to bring us into a deeper understanding of why we feel these changes should be made. As early as January of this year, the Family Court ruled that a serial rapist is not to contact his daughters after he sent mail after mail of inappropriate drawings to the daughters and to another person that he had sexually abused. That was just this year, January.

Hon Judith Collins: Disgusting.

RIMA NAKHLE: It is disgusting. In 2021, Stuff reported that a stalker was guilty of continuing to contact victims despite being in jail. And here, out of the 77 convictions for this person, 60 were for attempting to contact the couple—that was meant to be protected from this person—from prison. Another article: in 2019, a psychopathic sex attacker sent letters as well from prison to his victim, and the victim endured three days of repeated sexual assault and violence. She said in her victim impact statement: “How is this possible? How is it possible that this can happen?” This is what we’re dealing with.

The corrections commissioner at the time, Ben Clark, said that the ability for prisoners to send and receive mail was a statutory minimum entitlement. And so this is why the specificity we talk about in this amendment bill is very important.

In 2019, again, a convicted stalker sent multiple mail from jail. In 2018, the article that really stirred the Hon Louise Upston to act is where someone made over 100 phone calls to a victim of their crime—from jail. And so although the Act has some type of general references to protecting victims of crime, we need to make it specific.

Finally, I’d like to end with a quote from the victims advocate Ruth Money, who said, “I can’t understand why this basic protection for witnesses and victims isn’t already in place … It’s mind boggling” Let’s get this simple yet deeply effective bill through, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to just start my contribution by acknowledging the member who’s just taken her seat, Rima Nakhle, for the fortune of inheriting this bill and for doing such a good job of introducing it to the House today.

I think it’s fair to say that I don’t think anybody would disagree that victims of crime deserve—absolutely deserve—to feel safe and absolutely deserve to feel supported by the system. For that reason, Labour will be supporting this bill. Most often than not, though, victims of an offence have ongoing fears, not only for their physical safety but often for the safety of their family members as well, so there is some work to be done in this quarter.

However, I’m glad that the member touched on something, and that was that Corrections kind of already do have this ability. Corrections already provide a range of support, and the Act enables some of that to happen, but we are mindful of the fact that sometimes the specificity and making it very clear rather than the general application has a purpose, so, for that reason, we are prepared to support the bill, but I do want to make a couple of remarks around that.

When we think about what Corrections can do and the range of support that they can provide to ensure that victims are protected from further harm from those offenders, along with the standard kind of conditions as set out on the Parole Act—things like having to report to your probation officer and telling the probation officer if you’re going to be moving—the courts and the New Zealand Parole Board can also impose some special conditions for sentences and orders, such as those non-contact orders. So whilst we acknowledge that that already exists, we can see that there is at least some merit in specifying this. Those non-contact orders which consider—and have the ability to consider the ongoing safety and the choices and the preferences of the victim not to be contacted by the offender. So it’s already there, and I just want to acknowledge that.

With what this bill does, though, we don’t actually think it provides any additional support over and above what’s already there. Corrections already provides various kinds of mechanisms to ensure that those who have been subjected to crime and who feel the way they feel about those particular perpetrators—they have an obligation to try and limit the continued mental and physical harm that offenders of crime can cause.

But this bill creates an obligation, as has been said by the member, for the chief executive and for prison managers to protect those who are subject to a protection order and the victims of crime from contact from prisoners. I think there are some details that need to be worked out there, so perhaps during the select committee process, while it’s quite specific and it’s specified and it’s not necessarily over and above what already exists, I think there are some details that do need to be worked out, and the select committee is a good place for that.

What the bill also does, as the member has very eloquently said, is ensure that the victims and others who are subject to protection orders under the Family Violence Act 2018 are also protected from unwanted communications with those prisoners.

I think the issue I have, though, is that whilst acknowledging that this is a member’s bill, and whilst acknowledging, as my own have been pulled from the tin, it’s a bit of a lottery, this Government has talked a pretty big talk and a pretty big game on supporting victims and victims’ rights. We’ve heard today through the general debate about the first 100 days, and, therefore, that’s somehow supposed to specify priorities, and it’s taken this member’s bill to be drawn to actually have something come before this House that’s particularly dedicated to supporting the victims of crime and their rights.

So I think it’s a little bit rich that despite having talked a big game, on one hand, not that long ago, the section 27 reports were scrapped. We’ve heard it being referred to today, quite unceremoniously, as the stopping somehow of some sort of gravy train, which I think is a pretty vacuous comment that was made earlier on, and I think it simplifies, and it is, yeah, just quite an unfortunate characterisation of something that actually provided the victims of crime a chance to have a voice in this process as well. So to scrap that on one hand and yet to say that more needs to be done is a little bit of an incongruent sort of position.

I think the other thing that also concerns me when we think about how we could better support the victims of crime, and the various mechanisms that we can either utilise better or ensure has some sort of priority recognition in terms of daily business and business as usual, is the fact that it’s yet another example of something that’s being loaded on to a service where they’re actually being told not that long ago to go away and make 6.5 percent cuts to, and to make those cuts and to come up with those line-by-line savings that the chief executives of these departments and these organisations have been asked to do just to make tax cuts work, just to chuck that out there—6.5 percent to the Crown Law Office, 6.5 percent to the Department of Corrections, 6.5 percent to the Ministry of Justice, and 6.5 percent to the police.

At some point, you’ve got to add that all up, and it almost conjures up a visual picture of the sorts of things that fall through those gaps that aren’t seen as necessarily priorities and that are seen potentially as “nice-to-haves” and things that can get done once all the other really important stuff is done. But I think looking after the victims of crime is important, and I would have liked to have seen a commitment from this Government, alongside the introduction of new legislation, to ensure that there are actually resources in place to support these types of measures. Because no matter even if it’s just small, it still requires resource and it still requires that someone work collaboratively within an existing system to enable these new measures to actually make sense in a practical sense, in so far as that which would actually filter down and help real victims.

When I think about that, I think about the contrast that during our last term, Labour made, I think, some of the largest ever financial investments into victims. We reviewed legislative settings; we launched operational pilots in the court, many of which were incredibly successful; we tripled the level of funding for victims’ assistance schemes; and doubled the level of funding for Victim Support. Whilst that’s not an opportunity to make direct comparisons, it’s certainly worth noting, because you can’t achieve these types of measures that we’re talking about today unless those structures and that scaffolding is in place to support that.

So Labour has made progress, I think, in increasing also the access to justice, particularly for low-income New Zealanders. There’s a whole list of things that I could rattle off in so far as how that’s been done, but it’s just to illustrate—and I’m sure that colleagues might like to expand on that as we go through this process, but, as I said, happy to support this bill through to select committee. Very pleased for the member to be able to shepherd this further, and we will be supporting the bill. We wish it all the best and we want to ventilate this a little bit more in select committee with some practicalities. Thank you.

I’ll just belatedly say the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I also congratulate the MP Rima Nakhle for bringing this to the House. Having picked up the bill from others, it’s clear that she is no less passionate about this topic and will be a good steward for it as it makes its way through the House.

It does appear to be a very narrow bill, on the face of it, and it aligns, at first blush, with a survivor-centred approach to justice. The scope includes, but is not limited to, people who have a protection order against someone. And a protection order, of course, is used to seek protection from family violence. So, in this speech, I will be focusing on the victim/survivors of family violence.

A survivor-centred approach to justice avoids re-traumatisation, and it systematically focuses on their safety, their rights, wellbeing, their expressed needs, and their choices. Ensuring that victim/survivors of family violence are protected from unwanted contact can be seen, certainly, to align with that approach. So we do welcome the opportunity to hear directly from survivors, advocates, and from front-line experts as to how we can make sure that this bill truly provides protection from re-traumatisation, and a role in affirming survivor dignity.

We do want to test, at the select committee, the extent to which the protection against unwanted contact is actually already in legislation, and how this bill can add substantially to that. We also want to test whether or not we are including family violence victim/survivors who may not have a protection order. This is important because, of course, protection orders aren’t easily accessible to everyone, so we want to make sure that there isn’t a discrepancy there.

We do need to be very clear that a survivor-centred approach to justice is not the same thing as a tough on crime approach—which is the flavour of the month at the moment—because, 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. Sadly, we can highlight generations of family violence victims saying that they wished that they had never reported family violence, because they felt even more violated by the system’s response to it than by the family violence itself—which is an extraordinary indictment on the justice system.

So while we do welcome this change as having positive potential—as long as it’s done right—we know that so much more needs to be done in order to truly transform our system away from just an adversary approach and towards actual restorative justice and authentic accountability and enduring justice.

So, on that note, the Greens hope that the Government continues to prioritise Te Aorerekura and the essential system-change shifts that are highlighted in that strategy. This is a focus on primary prevention over the course of 25 years, and we really do want to invite this Government to truly engage with victim/survivors’ lived experience—backed up by years and years of research—and what the real solutions are to preventing crime and violence. It is all—hopefully; I have a copy with me here—there, for all the MPs in this House to take a look at and to learn from. [Holds up a copy of Te Aorerekura: National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence]

In summary, the Green Party does support this bill, and we do look forward to public submissions to make sure that it can truly protect survivors and victims of violence, of crime, from unwanted contact. And there are some things that we do want to test in select committee as well, to make sure that this is adding real value. But we also know, at the same time, that the real transformational work to prevent violence and crime requires a new, collective approach from all of us working together and taking on a new strength-based whānau-focused and whānau-led lens to our work. We recognise that the scope of a member’s bill is not to transform the entire justice system, so, you know, we do support it within that context, but it has to be within that context as well. So, as I said, we will be supporting this bill, and we look forward to working with the member to advance it through the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I’d like to congratulate my Government colleague Rima Nakhle on getting this bill drawn and bringing it to the House. I think, as we’ve heard, it is a very simple bill, but I think a very important bill. It does really go to the heart of actually strengthening protections for victims. ACT has been a supporter of increased victims’ rights and ensuring that we do get a balance in our justice system between, obviously, people having a fair and proper trial and making sure those rights are protected, but also ensuring that victims are actually heard and what they want is also acknowledged and understood.

We’ve campaigned on a number of things during the election. Obviously, some of them are around actually getting a bit tougher on some of the areas we think have been deficient—things like restoring three strikes, changes to the Sentencing Act, etc. In fact, in the first 100 days, we’ve seen a number of advances made, with the defunding of section 27 reports. Let me be very clear, section 27 reports are still allowed, they are still available, it’s just they’re no longer funded by the taxpayer.

So I think this bill really fits nicely into some of the Government’s other objectives in the justice area. We’ve talked a little bit about some of the other things we will be doing around youth offending. My colleague Minister McKee’s actually done something around virtual participation in court proceedings and making that more available. And I think we may see another bill, actually, around some victim-centred and witness-centred improvements this afternoon which we’ll be discussing. But we really do want to try and get some real balance in our justice system. We know that cuddling criminals hasn’t worked, and we actually need to put victims first and their rights.

Again, while some of these obligations might already be in the Corrections Act, I think making them explicit and actually placing an obligation on prison management through the amendments to section 8 and section 12 and having those obligations spelt out around unwanted contact or stopping unwanted contact with the victims, particularly, as James Shaw pointed out, when those victims are actually from family violence situations where it can be very, very unpleasant and people can be retraumatised by unwanted—whether it’s phone calls, emails, postal mail. Again, I know the member had some examples.

So we’re very happy to support this through to the Justice Committee. I know some of the people on that select committee. I think it can then be examined and some of this overall context—again, as the Labour member said, some of the overall context of what that committee’s looking at, how can this actually be used to really strengthen this focus on victims and make sure we are getting a balance in our justice system so that everyone’s rights are protected, and that’s really the key that ACT would like to focus on.

There may be some administrative burdens. There may be ways we can improve this bill in the select committee. And I look forward to actually hearing, hopefully, from some of the people who would benefit from this bill and having this obligation put on prison management. And I’m sure they will be able to give us firsthand accounts of what a difference this could potentially make. And I think, again, we could look at any other improvements or anything else that needs to be considered as part of that process.

So I look forward to, hopefully, if this bill is referred to select committee, working on it. But ACT certainly will be supporting it. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, and I would also like to acknowledge the member Rima Nakhle for bringing this bill to the House.

Sadly, many individuals are so obsessed that they will stop at nothing to contact their victim. I have worked with a number of victims who have lived in fear and have not known how to cope. Even though the perpetrator was behind bars, they still lived in fear and they still held even shame of the actual crime.

I feel that this bill is a wonderful way for us to now just add that extra level of protection for those who have suffered at the hands of crime, some heinous crimes, and often the perpetrator is very skilled and knows how to stay in the victim’s head. And this is one way that the victim can be sure assured that there will be an extra level of protection. So it’s something that’s very close to my heart, to be able to speak on this bill, especially when you hear that people continue to carry the trauma of crime, and it doesn’t have to be that way.

New Zealand First is very, very happy to support this bill. New Zealand First is a party that prioritises the safety of all New Zealanders, and we believe that we need robust measures in order to protect victims of crime and anyone who is vulnerable, no matter how many years after a crime has taken place.

So we will support the bill. It reinforces the principles of victim protection, especially within the corrections system, and it very much aligns with our goals, New Zealand First goals, of prioritising victims’ rights to ensure there is accountability within our justice system.

So how will this bill do this? Well, as I already mentioned, there is a new function for the chief executive to establish and maintain processes. They have to be established, and I’m hearing what the members opposite are saying to ensure that there are secure processes and that these people are protected. This function is extended to managers as well. This will ensure an extra layer of accountability within the process. In any process you need a segregation of duties. You need more than one person assigned for one task. So this will be one way to ensure that at least there is some manageability within the process.

And the third part of the amendment that I find to be very, very good is that there is going to be that extra level of accountability to ensure that the processes have been carried out and that they are recorded, and recording them in the department’s annual report every year is one way of doing that.

You cannot manage what you don’t measure, and if it is not recorded and accounted for, then there is no way. So this bill will enhance transparency through this public reporting. I think that’s probably about all I have to say. I’ve said a lot about the victims. I really wanted to focus on the victims, who, I am sure, will feel that extra level of certainty and safety and know that the system is protecting them. So I commend this bill to the House on behalf of New Zealand First.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou. E Rima, tēnā koe, tēnā koe i tō kawe mai i tēnei pire ki mua ki te aroaro o tēnei o ngā Whare.

Kei te hāngai tonu te titiro o Te Pāti Māori ki tēnei pire me te tautoko ake, te tautoko ake i tā te whakaaro e mea nei kia āwhinatia te hunga kua tūkinotia i roto i te wā iti. Ā, kia kaua anō hoki rā te hunga kua tūkino e tūkinotia anō e te kaitūkino.

Nō reira e tautoko mārika nei mātou i tēnei tū a koutou, me taku mahara ake ki a koe, e Rima, me tō tō ake i tēnei pire hei kawenga māu, hei hāpaitanga mō ngā tamariki, mō ngā mokopuna, tae atu ki ngā whānau.

Heoi anō kei te whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero kua puta i tēnei o ngā huihuinga, me te mea nei kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, engari ngā kōrero i puta ake nei i tēnei taha kei te manako nui, kei te hāpai tonu i tā te taha ki te tangata. Engari anō i tā mātou titiro ki ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga hou me te tango nei i te tahua pūtea mō te section 27 mai i te Tāhū o Justice, me te tango ake i te 7AA i a Oranga Tamariki, he tūkinotanga, he turakitanga o ngā mana o te iwi Māori i raro iho mai i te Tiriti o Waitangi, ka tahi.

Heoi anō i roto i tēnei o ngā kawenga, e Rima, kei te kite ahau i tētahi paku whitinga o te rā kei te whai whakaaro nui te Kāwanatanga hou ki te mana o te whānau, ki te mana o te wahine, o te tāne, o te tamaiti, heke mai ki te mokopuna. Nō reira tēnā rā koe i tērā ōhākī ōu.

Nō reira kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, engari ki te toko ake nei i tā Te Pāti Māori tautoko i tēnei o ngā pire. E Rima, tēnā koe, otirā kei te Pīka, tātou katoa, tēnā tātou.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us. Rima, well done, well done for bringing this bill before this of our Houses.

The gaze of the Māori Party continues to focus on this bill in support, in support of what the concept proposes—i.e., to assist the people who have been abused in a short time. Also, that those who have been abused are not further abused by the abuser.

And so we absolutely support your position, as I consider you, Rima, and how you have brought this bill as a responsibility for you, to uplift the children, the grandchildren, and also including families.

However, I consider the statements made during this assembly, and I will refrain from repeating those statements, but the comments that arose from this side are aspirational, and continue to support humanity. But also in our observation of the actions of the new Government that include the removal of the budget for section 27 from the Ministry of Justice, and the removal of 7AA from Oranga Tamariki, this is abuse, this is the subjugation of the authority of the Māori people that was granted under the Treaty of Waitangi, firstly.

However within this commitment, Rima, I see a small ray of sunlight in that the new Government is considering the authority of the family, the authority of women, of men, of children, and all the way down to the grandchildren. So thank you for that final commitment of yours.

So I will not repeat the statements made, but will endorse the Māori Party’s support of this one of the bills. Rima, thank you, indeed Madam Speaker, all of us, greetings to everyone.]

I start by acknowledging our colleague Rima Nakhle, who has put her name to this amendment bill and who will be the one to see it through the process. It is a very-much-needed bill. It seeks to amend section 8 of the Corrections Act 2004—the focus of section 8 is to empower the chief executive of Corrections to establish and maintain processes to ensure that there is no unwanted contact by perpetrators of crime against their victims. Then there is section 12, which also provides that authority to prison managers to, again, establish and maintain the processes that will prevent unwanted contact.

As I went through preparation and reading of this bill, I am surprised myself that there remain opportunities and that these opportunities have been used a number of times by people who are in prison already to contact their victims. Central to crime, particularly family violence, is this assertion of power and intimidation, and this intimidation cannot be allowed to carry on even as the perpetrator has already been put in prison. The process is long and so there are many perpetrators who are intent on disrupting that process and possibly continuing on with intimidatory contact with their victims to prevent them, possibly, from testifying in the cases, particularly if they are themselves the claimants. So it is unbelievable that contact is continuing to be made.

We have been given various and multiple examples of how this contact has been made. Multiple letters sent over time, multiple repeated phone calls—up to 100 times; up to 90 times. I understand that the opportunity to make a call is given to prisoners and a call is able to be made to people on a list, and these people would have given their consent to receiving a call. So there have been machinations about frustrating that list and having the very victims of the crime put on that list so that they are able to be called and contacted.

The examples also have shown that continued calling and intimidation over the phone has resulted in a prolonged process where victims have themselves been cowered to not participate in the process and not testify to their experience as a victim, and to add to the court process and facilitate the process. So it is clearly necessary that that unwanted contact and continued intimidation be stopped. The bill authorises the Corrections chief executive and prison managers to make sure they establish those processes to stop the unwanted contact. It is a necessary bill. We cannot not have this bill pass through. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We’re in support of this bill because victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported. More often than not, victims of an offence have ongoing fears about their personal safety or security, and that can even be on a physical level, and it’s really important to make sure that people who say they want no contact with their offender—we know that that can be implemented. So non-contact conditions support this right. This bill does not provide any additional support on top of what Corrections already provide to ensure that victims of crime aren’t further subjected to further mental or physical harm from offenders of crime.

One point I would like to make is that while we support the general intent of this bill, I would just like to raise the fact that when a Minister is in charge of a ministry, one of the first things that they typically do is write a letter of expectation to the chief executive, and that’s the case quite often. So a change like this one, I would’ve thought would’ve been a pretty typical thing for a Minister to stipulate in a letter of expectation to the chief executive in terms of the types of processes that they expect to be followed. So while I think it’s a great idea, I don’t know if legislation is necessarily the right pathway. It’s great that you’re going to take a belts and braces approach to this, but it would be something that would typically be covered off in a letter of expectation from a Minister to the ministry to outline what should be happening.

What this bill does is it creates a legal obligation, if it goes ahead and is amended, on the chief executive and on prison managers to protect those who are the subject of a protection order and victims of crime from contact from prisoners. So we really look forward—I assume it will come to the Justice Committee if it passes its first reading, and we look forward to receiving that at the Justice Committee to hear directly from Corrections what their current approach is, how they can strengthen that, and how we can make sure this bill works in the best way possible.

This bill ensures that victims and others who are subject to a protection order under the Family Violence Act are protected from unwanted communications from prisoners, and this is important work. It’s important to note that when you talk a big game on getting tough in these areas, it’s also really important that there is funding in place to make sure that this happens. There’s already been a statement made in terms of Corrections, that there will be increased availability of rehabilitation while at the same time Corrections are expected to find a 6.5 percent reduction in their overall spend. So I guess as a word of caution, if we’re expecting our Corrections department to be doing more work but reducing the amount of funding that they receive annually, then that’s not—I mean, I’m not flash at maths; I didn’t do great on School Cert.; I was more into other things, but you can add up that if you’re asking someone to do a bit more and you’re giving them less money, something’s got to give. I question where the funding’s going to come if you’re asking corrections staff to do more than what they’re currently doing but giving them less money to do it. This bill does what Corrections sets out to do but, as I said, provides no additional support.

I’d just like to wrap up by saying that, you know, we stand strong in our record of supporting victims of crime. We know that 93,000 more people accessed legal aid by increasing that threshold, with further increases to come over the next two years. I really hope that that funding stays in place and it’s not subject to cuts in the upcoming Budget. It’s really important if we care about victims of crime, that we give people access to legal aid and that there are no barriers to justice.

Finally, I’d just like to touch on the fact that we’ve increased the hourly rates of those legal aid providers and also removed the user-charge fee for people receiving civil and family legal aid. These are really important mechanisms. Also, stopping that sort of litigious harassment through the courts—that’s an important step as well to make sure victims of family violence are not further subjected. So we support this bill, but I’m looking forward to receiving it at select committee and asking some good questions.

I rise in support of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to first pay tribute to its sponsor, my good friend and colleague Rima Nakhle. Rima comes to this House with the perfect credentials to be the sponsor of this bill and the inheritor from the likes of Judith Collins and Louise Upston. Rima Nakhle and her husband, Roger, have been involved in transitional housing, emergency housing initiatives over a number of years and the Nakhle family is synonymous with the building and creation of Manukau City over many decades. And so Rima brings a social licence as well as empathy as well as experience and as well as the credentials, because she also, of course, studied law at Western Sydney University and so comes well equipped to see this bill through to select committee and, hopefully, on to greener pastures.

As previous speakers have alluded to—but I will again for those that might have just tuned in to parliamentary TV with a valedictory speech coming up—this member’s bill would create an obligation on the chief executive of Corrections and on prison managers to protect those who are subject to a protection order and victims of crime from contact from prisoners. And as Rima Nakhle, the MP for Takanini, told us, the current Corrections Act refers to the protection of victims of family violence, but this member’s bill widens the net to all victims. And as has been alluded to, there are processes in place, there are managers that are overseeing it and doing the right thing. But as the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, said, this creates a legal obligation and that is what the law is all about—those legal obligations to close the net and to make sure victims are protected. And on this side of the House, we certainly are a Government that’s going to go out continually and back the victims of crime.

This is common sense. It’s a pragmatic yet simple law change that would provide relief and protection to victims of crime. Many New Zealanders would be surprised that such a legal safety net and requirement and compliance of those leaders within our corrections facility is not actually mandatory in a wider sense. And as others have alluded to, there’s been plenty of cases, as Rima Nakhle said. She alluded to a more recent one, but the National MP, the Hon Louise Upston, when she had the bill, alluded to a number of terrifying cases as to why we should make this a stipulation on the statute book. We heard about a recent case a few years ago that was highlighted in the media that exposed the fact that a prisoner contacted his victim 93 times to get her to change her story. There’s also been newspaper reports in recent years where a victim of a savage beating, who should have felt safe in the knowledge that their assailant was behind bars, was indeed contacted more than 100 times from jail, calling upon the victim not to give evidence at the trial. And there was another case during seven weeks in custody: another 102 phone calls from prison to a victim in a desperate bid to prevent the victim from testifying against them.

So these people are our most vulnerable. They need the most protection. Victim advocate Ruth Money has been all over this and says we need to close this loophole, we need to get this on statute. Rima Nakhle has the social licence, has the empathy, has the experience, and has the credentials to see this through. I commend the bill.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Well, congratulations to the member for getting this bill drawn, and, as is apparent from the speeches that have gone before, it looks pretty certain to make its way through, I imagine, the Justice Committee, and we look forward to having a good, old look at it there.

I think it’s really important, though, to recognise that putting an obligation in the Corrections Act doesn’t magic up the resources to make sure that the obligation is complied with. We know that, at the current time, Corrections don’t have the resources to do the things that they’re legally obliged to do at the present time. The member whose name this bill is in was on the select committee when they were subject to annual review and fronted up and said that they can’t comply with their legal obligation under the Corrections Act now. So if this bill goes through—it’s got a pretty good chance of it—it’s going to require more of Corrections, it’s going to impose further obligations on Corrections, and we’ve got to make sure that Corrections has the resources to do that.

Having said that, the sentiment behind this bill is a very good sentiment, and, certainly, in terms of having a survivor focus on how we manage prisoners, that’s a really good thing, and I think that simply shifting the narrative to make sure that survivors are part of the conversation, in terms of how prisoners are managed, is a good thing; whether we need legislation to do that is quite another. The bill, as is apparent from its slim nature, does not make significant changes.

I would note that there’s already considerable powers. Section 33 of the Corrections Act, which is the Act being amended, gives a prison manager the ability to make rules for prisons, and these are pretty uniform across prisons, and they can deal with things like visiting rights, correspondence, telephone calls, right through to what they can spend their pocket money on, and all sorts of things. So the ability is already there to do that. In fact, a ministerial expectation that this is part of prison rules would probably achieve the same thing. I suspect that when we go through a select committee process, there will be some discussion around whether legislation is, essentially, a disproportionate reaction to that.

I note in section 108 of the Act that there is an explicit power to withhold mail between the prisoner and any other person. So, actually, the power is already there, in black and white, in section 108, to stop mail from going from the prisoner to any other person. I’m aware of a number of the instances that we’ve heard where this power has not been properly exercised. That’s not because the power didn’t exist. All of those anecdotes that the member who just spoke alluded to, that won’t change simply because we say that there is now a function of Corrections to protect victims. There’s already that power to do so and the expectation. So if we’re going to make sure that this harm doesn’t occur, we’ve got to give the power, the rules, but also the resources.

I also note, going through, again, section 77 of the existing Act: outgoing telephone calls can be monitored. There are very narrow exclusions: lawyers and medical professionals, for obvious reasons. But the very purpose of monitoring outgoing telephone calls is to stop calls which are not appropriate. I’ve had contact with people who, for that exact reason, have had phone calls stopped because they were, essentially, re-victimising people—and that’s exactly what should happen, and in section 112, it sets out the purposes for that.

So, look, it’s not a bad piece of legislation. You’ve got to fund Corrections to do these things; at the moment, they’re pretty much on their bones, so to speak, so we absolutely need to address that as much as this minor tidy-up of the legislation. Thank you very much.

I’d like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the speeches that were made and the support on this first reading for the bill. I didn’t expect it that much. I expected it a little bit because, in my heart of hearts, I know that most of us here in Parliament are good people even though we have different views on how taxpayer money should be spent. So thank you for the support across the House at this stage.

I note the various concerns, and for the most part they’re concerns I share as well. When I inherited this bill, I did a lot of research and continue to do so. I did find—just as Dr Duncan Webb mentioned and the Hon Ginny Andersen and also members before her mentioned—that in the Corrections Act, the principal Act as it is right now, there are these protections in a way.

But what I’d like to just, for the time being, highlight, which I touched upon earlier, is that section 33 and section 108 use the word “may”—that prison managers, etc., “may” withhold mail and things like that. When I was doing my research looking into it more, I thought, “Well, ‘may’ clearly hasn’t been enough.” So we need to really highlight the abuse that’s taking place notwithstanding these sections that already exist and, respectfully to my colleagues across the House, I think that, at this stage, has driven me to feel more strongly about this amendment bill. Yeah, look, I tautoko about the resources and also looking forward to Corrections coming in in the select committee stage and us querying them and hearing from them how it is on the ground and how we can, hopefully, make this work.

I’d like to also say thank you to my colleague across the House, Tākuta Ferris. Later I’ll tell you what “farris” means in Arabic, actually—means “stallion”—but I’d like to say thank you for the thoughts that you shared and thank you for acknowledging that from your point of view. It’s a glimmer of hope because, as I said, I’m of the view that most of us in this House are inherently good people. I’d like to also say to my colleague Cameron Brewer: you can write my new CV any time.

Again, I’d like to recap for our listeners that have just tuned in or for our guests in the gallery that have just come in to listen to the final speech of this first reading.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Just for you, Rima!

RIMA NAKHLE: Just for me! I’d like to recap what we’re doing here today. It’s the first reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. We’re in the first reading, ladies and gentlemen, and essentially this bill is hoping to make three changes in the Corrections Act 2004. Those three changes, in essence, seek to protect victims of crime and protection order applicants from being contacted by perpetrators of crimes from prisons or being under the supervision of Corrections.

I’d also like to re-highlight the recent stories that I spoke about during my first speech about people being contacted—victims of crime being contacted. But also, I would like to emphasise before we go on and continue on from the point that my colleague Cameron Brewer made, with respect to the current protections in this bill, the Hon James Shaw spoke about the need to focus on survivors but also to reference family violence survivors. The Corrections Act, the principal Act, at this stage does cover protection for victims of family violence but, as we said earlier, we want to expand the scope.

So thank you very much to my colleagues across the House. Thank you for everyone in the gallery listening to this final reading of this amendment bill. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.