Dalziel Lianne: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDalziel Lianne: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:13075. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I am rather sad that this legislation the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill was promoted in the way it just has been by Government members because this bill does not do what do the member Scott Simpson actually said. The purpose statement is absolutely supported on this side of the House. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to reduce the likelihood of a victim of a violent offence coming into contact with the offender subsequent to the offender’s release from prison in any case where that contact would be detrimental to the victim. (2) To achieve this purpose the Act empowers the court on the application of a victim”—and that is something we have an issue with: on the application of a victim—“to make a non-contact order prohibiting the offender from having any form of contact with the victim.” What we have just heard from the member is the suggestion that this is going to resolve something that should have been resolved a very long time ago.In fact let me quote from the regulatory impact statement which I have to say is dated 12 September 2012. So this particular regulatory impact statement is nearly a year old. So what has taken the Government so long to address this issue if it is so imperative in terms of resolving the problem? Let me just read to the House why the review of the law was ordered: “In response to an incident in late 2011 where an offender who had served a prison sentence for rape moved into a property next door to his victim the Minister of Justice requested a review of the existing orders and options available to protect victims in similar situations.” The bill we have before us will not protect that victim and would not have protected that victim if it had been in place at the time. Let me just read why. Clause 5 of the bill states: “In this Act violent offender or offender in relation to a victim means a person who at any time—(a) has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more in respect of that offence.” That rapist was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. So the very case that gave rise to this Government’s sudden concern about this particular matter is not addressed by the bill.Perhaps the next speaker from the National Party could explain why the very case that actually sparked off the review has lead to a bill that would not address that case. Perhaps that would be something that they could begin with. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we have a legal framework that is able to address these issues. That is why I have been such a major supporter of the regulatory impact analysis process. What we have to do is we have to learn in this House how to actually state what the problem is and what the objective is then we have to set out a range of options about how we might achieve that objective and work through each one of those. That is what the Ministry of Justice did for this. But does anyone know whom the Ministry of Justice consulted with in relation to this particular matter? The consultation it did in order to progress this important issue was with three community law centres two victims’ representatives and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Actually it received only four responses—two in support and two opposed. How on earth is that a quality regulatory impact analysis? That is nonsense. That is about coming to a conclusion and then finding a post-facto justification for the decision that the Government has already made.This was written on 12 September 2012. Do not tell me that there could not have been a much broader engagement with the victims’ rights organisations and with others about what would be the most sensible approach. Why are we requiring the victims of crime to actually themselves go through this process? One of the recommendations was to amend the Parole Act to allow for an indefinite non-contact residential parole condition. What was wrong with that option? That would have put the onus on the State to protect the interests of victims and not put it back to the victim to go to the District Court and be subject to a legal aid assessment. Why on earth was this option not put up as the top priority? Oh I know why: “This option is likely to result in significant cost increases to the Department of Corrections over time.” That is the only reason that this one is ruled out. So I think that people on that side of the House should think very carefully about the way that they are presenting these.I want to make a comment in response to the suggestion that the rights of the perpetrators of these offences are somehow more important than the victims. So let me just read from the regulatory impact statement. It said there was a problem with the proposal of the Harassment Act being extended because “… it relies on judicial discretion to determine what is necessary to reduce the likelihood of unwanted contact in each case. A risk is that this will vary depending on the circumstances in each case and some victims may not consider the order offers them adequate protection. This risk could be mitigated by conditions applicable to their situation being imposed. For example in a small town where the victim and offender have support networks and livenear each other a judge may consider that making the offender move out of town is an unjustified limitation on their rights. In this situation the conditions imposed would be designed to help the victim feel safer by preventing contact between the offender and victim wherever possible e.g. curfew specific prohibition from visiting certain place(s) unaccompanied. In addition to comply with the condition the offender would have to be aware of the victim’s location which could increase the fear and anxiety a victim has in regard to the offender.” So that issue was raised by the Ministry of Justice.I just want to tell a story about a conversation I had. When I first arrived here in Parliament I was an associate spokesperson on justice and we made a decision to travel around all the different prisons in order to get a real sense of the whole of the justice system. I recall a conversation that I had with a prison officer back then. He described what has actually become the process of restorative justice but it was initiated by the victim of a terrible rape. The two rapists who were completing their sentences were about to go home to small-town New Zealand. So stop thinking about victims as just being in large cities or towns where people can have freedom of movement. In a small town this is very real. So this is a real story. This woman approached the prison and said she wanted to meet the rapists before they returned to her small home town. The prison service was not used to this and it was very concerned about what that might mean. So after much discussion it arranged for the meeting to occur. The real reason that it agreed to it was her motive in meeting with the offenders.The trouble was that they had pleaded not guilty. Coming back to that home town meant that the town was divided. Half of the town believed her and half of it believed the offenders. Half of the people in her town believed that she had made up the story of being raped and she wanted to confront the offenders before they came home and re-entered that whole victimisation process where she was a victim of half of the town’s opinion. She sat there in that room with them—and this was reported to me by the guy who observed this happening—and she looked at them and said: “You’re coming home. You must tell the truth. You’ve served your time. Tell the truth now.” And they admitted for the first time that they had raped her. That to me is much more meaningful much more real and much more beneficial to the whole of society than anything that this bill will ever do. How dare the Government put it back on the victim to sort this out. Why does the State not play its role and protect the victim? It could do that with an amendment to the parole legislation. I believe that that is what the Law and Order Committee has got to seriously look at in considering the future passage of this bill.