Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I have a very short point and I'm hoping the Minister will respond to it directly because he has said there are other avenues in which this kind of information can come before the courts. We know that when a prisoner is put into the corrections system that reports are prepared by the Department of Corrections. I understand that the Department of Corrections has resolved that it will not provide its reports for sentencing in substitution of these section 27 reports. Is it the case that corrections reports prepared when people are convicted but before sentenced—is it the case that corrections is no longer going to provide those reports to the court as essentially section 27 reports? Is the Minister prepared to respond to that now otherwise I'll proceed. Nope? Well perhaps you could take some advice on that because it's an important point. Because one of the very arguments you've made is that there is other information through other avenues such as corrections reports which will fill the void for poor people who can't have these reports.The other point is I just do want to say there's a number of Amendment Papers and I will get to those but still I'm kind of standing in the shoes of submitters who would submit to the select committee. The New Zealand Bar Association—so that is the association of litigation lawyers and barristers—has been very clear here that they are of the view that because this will lead to less informed sentencing decisions the quality of sentences will be lower. And the knock-on effect of that is higher rates of reoffending. So that's the first thing: how does the Minister address the fact that our preeminent association of litigation lawyers is saying that this will lead to higher rates of reoffending.The other point—and this is not about the quantity of the sentence but the quality of the sentence. Because with these reports the judge can look at for example family circumstances—whether the home or mum's home or uncle's home is a suitable house for home detention. Whether it's a kind of safe place or whether it's not safe and is likely to have unsavoury influence. Of course we know that if someone doesn't go into prison and they go into a good residence for home detention they're much more likely not to reoffend and more able to effectively engage in rehabilitation as part of that sentence because they don't have to use the prison system; they can use essentially the civilian system of psychologists alcohol and drug treatment all of those kinds of things. So rehabilitation without these reports becomes more challenging. So I'm essentially the mouthpiece for the Bar Association—that's the view of the Bar Association.If this was a select committee and you're standing in the shoes of your officials Minister what do you say to that? How do we fix this piece of legislation? Ultimately the sum total of the Bar Association's statement on this is that we're making the life of judges harder. That it's more difficult for them to do the job they want to do which is to impose an appropriate sentence—what that Minister clearly wants—which is to mark out the offence appropriately as beyond the realms of what is socially and legally acceptable in society and striking the right balance with rehabilitation and reintegration. Now that's the job of a judge. It's a hard job. It's a job that they need every tool at their disposal. And the Bar Association is saying to you Minister You're taking away—in some of these cases for poor people—one of the most important tools." So what do you say to that?And seeing as you didn't stand up before I will preface that what I want to talk about next is the role of the information about victims in here. And if the Minister wants to stand up and respond to what I've said already—I'll pause there but the Minister doesn't seem to want to do that.So I do want to then move on and with some further time talk about my Amendment Paper H which is on the Table if anyone wants to read it. I'm sure the Minister's looked at it but it does talk about the function of victims or information about victims in this context because this is at the heart of what the Government is talking about: making the criminal justice approach victim-centric. So what my Amendment Paper does is it suggests that reports about the victim in the context of the offending should be put before the court and should be funded by legal aid—so a report about the victim context.Can I just say we often think in terms of crime as stranger crime. The idea that we're burgled by someone we don't know or a sexual offender is a stranger who prowls in the park. Well we know—and I was in fact at Rolleston Prison at their sexual offending programme visiting recently and it was really interesting to hear that that—Tim van de Molen: Getting off track here. Get to the bill.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I'm sorry Mr van de Molen?Tim van de Molen: Get to the bill.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It was very interesting to hear that in fact stranger crime is extremely rare. The relationship between the victim and the offender is an important part of the sentencing process and knowing what's happened subsequent to the offending knowing whether the offender has recognised the magnitude of their wrongdoing whether if appropriate they have made some amends or sought to have some kind of reconciliation.Of course one of our most serious plagues is domestic violence. And we know there that someone who recognises the harm they're causing and wants to work on stopping that kind of behaviour and healing the wounds that it's causing in a family is really important. Now if a section 27 report can say not only just what is the offending but what is the network of relationships between the actual victim—that is to say the person who perhaps has been assaulted in a domestic violence situation—and the offender and the network of harm: the children the wider family all of those things that information is of critical importance. So what my Amendment Paper H says is "Look OK you've taken a point of view in respect of these reports but let's carve out this most valuable information which gives victims a greater voice and makes the sentencing process more victim-centric." Now this is utterly consistent with the Government's position in respect of shifting the needle towards victims and I endorse that. I think we do need to always have a clear eye on the impact on victims the voice of victims the right of victims to be properly heard.It's counterintuitive that the bill before the House is removing one part of a victim's voice. I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist because there's such a thing as a victim impact statement but you've got to remember what a victim impact is—the prosecution essentially taking from the victim what effect it had on them. It's quite different to say "What is the network of relationships? What has the offender done since the offending? What does the future look like in terms of your relationship with the offender?" And we love to think in black and white—we default to black and white—but I think we need to recognise that in much criminal offending there is a very large world of grey where the offender and the victim are often in an intimate relationship or even if they're not there they're in some kind of family relationship they're members of the same whānau and they're going to have to learn to live together at least at some time in the future. So Minister I'd ask you to carefully consider that Amendment Paper. It's not trivial. It was carefully thought out. It's about victims and I hope you will support it."