Logie Jan: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17385. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to speak a little bit more around the non-contact orders. We do absolutely support the lowering of the level to the 2 years’ imprisonment as opposed to the 5 years as in this bill when it was introduced. I spoke in the earlier stage a little bit about some of the challenges that we have to make this more viable or useful for the majority of victims of sexual violence in New Zealand. I would like to just briefly go through some of the changes that were recommended in the Law Commission process so far that would help make that possible.In the Law Commission’s report—in what we have had so far from it—there were three proposals that received almost universal support. They were child protection orders a specialist sexual violence court at the point post-conviction and alternative processes for sexual offence cases which the Hon Phil Goff has just been talking on around restorative justice processes. Although the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice mentioned earlier some of the differences from the time when he was working as a police officer when the sentences were very low for sexual violence I personally still remember the public discussion we had at the time we raised the sentencing for rape. It was a very controversial decision and one that I actually think needs reviewing because it is acting—and we hear this back from people—as a disincentive for people entering the justice system. It is such a high level that people are going to be put away for that it is a disincentive to using the processes. Also we do need to acknowledge that the majority of offenders are known to their victims. They are family; they are family friends. The thought of sending somebody away to jail for a very long time is a disincentive to actually holding that person accountable and getting the response that most victims and survivors want which is having an acknowledgment of the crime and knowing that that person is not going to offend again and that others will be safe. Sadly we do not have that system yet. This bill deals only with those very rare cases where that conviction has happened and does put that measure in place but it is not enough.I would like to also just talk a little bit about how this may apply in a domestic violence situation and also acknowledge the extending of this out to what people are otherwise referring to as surrogates which is usually the harassment of a victim by family or friends of the perpetrator. That is a very real dynamic in domestic violence in this country and everywhere. When I was working in Women’s Refuge that was quite a common experience. We would be with a woman and she would be hiding because her abuser had friends and family out looking for her. It was not possible for her to feel safe walking in a public space because she never knew where they might be and whom she actually even needed to be looking out for. So it is very important that there is a provision in this bill to protect victims from harassment from other people when there is a concerted effort to harass them.But again we also need to be looking at how our court systems are working to support this kind of measure of protection. The reality is that a lot of our Family Court decisions at the moment are working against this level of protection. We do not have a system in place that understands and ensures in particular that the people involved in custody decisions through the Family Court actually understand domestic violence. I was at a seminar last week organised by the Family Violence Clearinghouse. They brought out a US expert Dr BobGeffner who is an expert in custody decisions where there are accusations of child abuse or domestic violence. He is well known over all of the literature. It was very disturbing to hear that in New Zealand we have been getting people who have been thoroughly discredited in the US and who are not allowed to give evidence in the courts there coming out to New Zealand and training people in our courts on matters relating to the supposed best interests of the children in custody decisions through our Family Court.We have no system of oversight to ensure that the counsel for the child the lawyers or the mediators in our systems actually understand domestic violence. Decisions are being made that are putting our children at risk and are taking children from situations of domestic violence where their mother usually has left the relationship and giving joint custody arrangements putting that woman and child at risk because they are having to negotiate shared custody in the context of a violent relationship. As a country we can put things like this in place but if we do not address the absolute fundamentals that underpin it all we are not going to get the result that I believe in and I am sure that everyone in this Chamber wants. We want women to be enabled to get out of violent relationships offenders to get the support and treatment they need to be able to change their beliefs and their attitudes and their behaviours and children to be given back to healthy parents and have hope for themselves of a healthy life free of violence and living up to their own potential. Sadly we do not have those systems in place as a country at the moment. This bill becomes just so piecemeal in that context.