Bridges Simon: Victims of Crime Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Victims of Crime Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I am exceptionally thankful that I have never been the victim of a very serious crime. I have met like others in this Parliament will have done a number of victims of serious crime and we can see how hard that is. There is not only perhaps hospitalisation and the physical pain of it all but also of course the emotional torture of looking behind one’s back nightmares and being fearful. Then sometimes in the worst of cases there is the re-brutalisation through the court process. I often think that the families of victims—because we know now that a victim is not just the person to whom the crime has happened; it is wider than that—certainly in the most serious of crimes can be even more badly affected. They can be the ones who have to live on while their loved one is gone or they are perhaps in a state where they can no longer communicate with their loved one or what have you. For those families it is even worse sometimes because they have no power to do anything. They may not be a witness or have any role in the court process. 
I have heard psychologists talk about this. They say that it is very difficult for victims to get their head around the fact that this may just be a random thing. They want to ascribe some sort of fatefulness to it—did they deserve it what had they done why them? It is all very well for others to say that they should move on; they cannot just move on. 
We come to this Victims of Crime Reform Bill and the history of victims’ rights in this country. We are implementing the Government’s reform package regarding victims of crime. The ultimate aim of any society should be not how we treat victims but to have fewer victims and I think that is probably why the crime statistics have received some attention in the last few days. Ultimately what they mean is fewer victims of crime and that should be the ultimate goal. But we live in a society where sadly I think there will always be victims and certainly in the court processes and at every step of the way we need to treat them with dignity and respect and where possible we need to give them a voice. 
I have talked before in this House about the history of victims’ rights in this country. I give credit to the Labour Government for passing the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. It is important legislation. It gave victims the right to make a statement in court and it broadened the definition of “victim” as I have said because victims are not just the people to whom crime happens in a certain time and place. There are also their families and sometimes other loved ones. This bill goes further and so it should. It strengthens existing provisions of the law and expands the rights of victims. It amends quite a number of pieces of legislation. There are many things that the bill does. 
I want to just pick up on one thing. It is not necessarily even the most important thing but one thing the bill does is to widen the scope of the victim impact statements that victims of crime can give. I have talked already today about the fact that in courts victims can give victim impact statements about the effect of the crime. But there have been a number of limitations on victims. They cannot say anything today about disposition—that is about the sentence that they think the offender should have. They cannot be unduly emotive or even really emotive at all. As a prosecutor I have had to go through and Vivid out things that victims have said in statements before they go to the judge as if somehow the judge will be offended by these statements or something like that. In the past I have done that. There have been times when I have not been able to and the police officers have had to go back to the victim. As one might think the victim would say: “I thought it was my victim impact statement.” That is quite right—that is how it should be. We are amending the law so that victims can be much freer in their victim impact statements. 
Judges should not be swayed by the overly lenient or overly vexatious victim. It is right that a particular crime—say a wounding with a knife—in similar circumstances should receive about the same penalty at law. But I know that judges are up to the task of taking all that a victim has to say with the emotions and with statements like “I wish he would rot in hell.” or “I wish he would rot in jail.” They are wise enough—and frankly they are paid enough—to be able to take that. So that one small aspect of this bill is welcome along with many other things. This is an advancement for victim rights in this country.