O'Rourke Denis: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18830. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):This Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is one of a number of moves that have been long needed to improve the rights of victims and to support them when they have been subjected to violence. Fear and anxiety about unwanted contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself and can impair the recovery process of victims and their ability to enjoy normal life. As introduced the bill was something of a mess I think and it needed substantial amendments. Most of those defects have now been fixed but the bill is still not as good as it could have been. Although New Zealand First will still vote for the bill because improvement in victims’ rights is an important part of New Zealand First’s policy agenda this should be regarded as a work in progress and as legislation that will need further work by the next Government.Clause 5 defines a violent offender as a person who “(a) has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years …”. As introduced the bill required sentencing to a period of 5 years or more but the definition has been amended to sentencing for 2 years or more. That is now acceptable to New Zealand First. Otherwise the scope of the bill would have been far too narrow and too many offenders would have escaped the net.But I still have some serious concerns about clause 9(1). That clause says: “The court may make a non-contact order if it is satisfied that—(a) there are ongoing effects of the offending for the victim;”. Why does the court have to be satisfied that there will be ongoing effects of the offending? What has that really got to do with it? What would the victim actually have to prove to satisfy that test? I do not believe that that is an appropriate test at all and that clause should have been deleted.Similarly clause 9(1)(b) should have been deleted too. It says that the court must also be satisfied that “the possibility of contact between the victim and the violent offender will be detrimental to the victim’s ability to manage those effects;”. It should not be necessary for the victim to have to prove that either. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 9(1) are by themselves sufficient. They provide that the order must be “… reasonably necessary to avoid contact … taking into account all of the circumstances [of the case].”We should simply leave it to the court to judge whether an order is reasonably necessary taking all those circumstances into account. It is the possibility of unwanted contact that is the real issue and that is the issue that the victim will be particularly concerned about. There should be no inquiry as to ongoing effects or to the victim’s ability to manage them. That is completely unnecessary and is a hurdle that a victim should not have to jump. In fact it could be a disincentive to victims to have to produce that sort of evidence. It may be one of the things that stop them from using this legislation. So it is a shame that those additional tests are there. That is the only notable defect however in this bill and it is something that I hope the new Government will do something about. So New Zealand First will not oppose the bill for that reason; we are just rather disappointed in it and we look forward to an amendment in the future.Clause 11 sets out the effect of a non-contact order and that has now been amended to a temporary non-contact order with the effects of the final order being provided for in clause 11A. An order prohibits an offender against whom an order is made from having any form of contact with the victim. In addition the court may prohibit the offender from entering living in or working within a specified area.I have previously expressed a concern that it is necessary for us to make sure that that will not inhibit an offender from obtaining or maintaining their employment. But new clause 11A has solved the problem and the effects on a final order now have much more comprehensive and refined powers for the court to specify in relation to excluded areas for entry residence and employment. So now the effects of the order will be no more than needed to properly protect the victim. That is an inquiry that the court will have to make and it will need to make an appropriate order to balance the needs of the offender and the protection of the victim in that way. So because that is something that has now been achieved in the latest amendments New Zealand First can welcome clause 11A and also the new clause 11B. ther persons whom the offender may encourage to engage in a contact behaviour that the offender might engage in.Overall although the bill does not include all that New Zealand First wanted and there are some serious defects in it still it does most of what New Zealand First would have sought so it is a positive step forward for victims although it is a work in progress and the new Government this year will provide an opportunity to move ahead still further in the protection of victims’ rights by having another look at this legislation.I note that the Sensible Sentencing Trust is promoting the appointment of a Victims’ Commissioner as has been done I believe in the United Kingdom. That may or may not be needed. It would depend rather on whether the departments and agencies involved actually now develop a better culture towards victims’ rights because of course the legislation cannot achieve the objective by itself so we are going to rely on the people who work in the area in those departments and agencies to adopt a more supportive culture in terms of victims’ rights. We can wait and see whether they achieve that. If they do not we can look further at the need to appoint a commissioner as proposed by the Sensible Sentencing Trust but it may not be needed and I hope that it is not needed because I believe there is a good possibility that the culture that I spoke of will change as a result of this legislation. So for all of those reasons New Zealand First will be voting for the bill.