Goff Phil: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17383. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I say that it is refreshingly honest of Minister Chester Borrows to acknowledge that although useful the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is relatively small in its effects and it does not tackle the wider and more serious underlying problems.I concur broadly with the figures that the Associate Minister of Justice used that showed that at best 10 percent of those who are victims of rape report the crime and that at best 3 percent of those who are victims of rape get accountability through a conviction in the courts. Actually the rape survivor groups say that the figure Minister is probably closer to 1 percent but let us say 1 percent to 3 percent. When only 1 percent to 3 percent of those who suffer as victims of a horrendous crime get accountability and get justice then it is time to change the underlying fundamentals of a justice system that is failing those who are such victims.I want to contrast Chester Borrows’ attitude with that of the Minister of Justice who wrote to me on 14 March. I have got the letter in my hand. I had raised—advocating on behalf of the rape survivor groups—that we actually need to take a more fundamental look at what is happening in the area of sexual offending. What I got was a reply that was full of excuses such as “We’re doing this minor thing we’re doing that minor thing and those bigger things that the Law Commission talked about they’re just too big and we can’t do it.” They are not too big. They are not too big when we are failing 99 percent of those who are victims of sexual offending. I just cannot wait for the day when maybe Mr Borrows is in the chair as Minister of Justice—perhaps as early as next week or the week after—Hon Maryan Street: Tomorrow.Hon PHIL GOFF: —maybe tomorrow judging from the activity on the other side of the Chamber—because I think he would at least take an honest view of it. It is refreshing to have that level of honesty where somebody can tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth which unfortunately is not a characteristic of the present Minister of Justice and hopefully she is the outgoing Minister.I want to look specifically at Part 2 of this bill. In Part 1 we addressed the fact that the major change that was necessary in this legislation was to have a threshold where a non-contact order could apply to those who had been sentenced to 2 years or more for their sexual offending as against the 5 years that Judith Collins introduced this bill with. That is the most significant and the most important change in the bill. Otherwise this bill would have dealt with 10 people a year when we are talking about literally thousands of victims. It was a nothing bill and the Labour Opposition supported by the other Opposition parties in the Law and Order Committee got that essential change to lower the threshold to 2 years.The other changes we got come within Part 2 of the bill which we are looking atat the moment. Under clause 7 the application for a non-contact order can be made not at any time after the offender has been released from prison but at any time after the offender has been sentenced in respect of the offence. That is the second most important change in this bill. It means that the victims can get that order from the time of sentencing before the offender has actually really got into the sentence in prison not after the offender is released with that gap after release and the threat the victim may feel from a person who ends up living near or working with them despite the fact that that person is the victim and the other person is the offender.The important thing in relation to these non-contact orders is that it does fill a gap. You cannot get a non-contact order if you are eligible for protection under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 as you can get a protection order under that Act. But again let us not pretend that a protection order means protection. We saw that in the tragic case down south where a maybe disturbed or angry person shot the two children of a woman who had a protection order against him. So a piece of paper does not actually necessarily provide real protection but it is a way of warning a person off. If we really want to solve this problem we have got to go much deeper than something as simple as that.The other order that is available is of course under the Harassment Act and that is a non-harassment order. That is available if the person is actively harassing the victim. There was this gap and the bill is at least successful in closing that gap. That does not mean to say that the non-contact order will be made automatically. Clause 9 of the bill sets out clearly that the court makes a non-contact order when certain conditions are met and I think they are reasonable conditions. There needs to be ongoing effects of the offending for the victim. That will not be a high threshold. For anybody who is a victim of sexual offence there will be ongoing effects. That is part of being a victim. So that threshold will be easily met.Clause 9 refers to the possibility of contact between the victim and the violent offender. Well of course that is necessary for the non-contact order to be given but there are cases—New Zealand is a small country—where the offender will end up living near to the victim or working close to where the victim is. In those cases the victim must be given a remedy that says to the offender: “You might be released from the prison. You might have done your time but the rights of the victim are still more important than the rights of the offender.” That is why these non-contact orders should be given.The making of the order must be reasonably necessary to avoid contact and must take into account all of the circumstances. All of that is common sense. The application can also be without notice if that is required and it is important that that sort of protection can be provided immediately if it is required and if the person had not taken the step of a non-contact order while the individual was still in prison. The other thing is that the duration of the order will go for whatever time the court orders unless the order is discharged or unless the court has set no time limit and 2 years have expired.So I think that the bill that we have got now is a useful piece of legislation. It does provide assistance to victims in a narrow set of circumstances but if you are the individual who is affected in that way—even if the figures are only in scores rather than hundreds—this bill is something that we should support because those people do deserve protection.I want to come back to where I began and that was to concur with the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice and say that it is time—and I have made this comment before—that we look at alternatives that work a lot better. I have been approached by rape survivor groups that say actually in some cases victims do not want a court process at all. They have no confidence in the court process. They do not necessarily want to see the offender locked up and the key thrown away. Often it is the case that they know the offender really well. They do not want a prison sentence. They do want a process where remorse can be shown or reparation or restitution offered—something that shows that the offender can be held accountable and that action can be taken against the offender that is meaningful to the victim.What I am saying to the Minister—and seeking his concurrence and the Committee’s—is that this bill is good in the very limited impact it will have but let us give the Law Commission proposals a chance. Let us look at the possibility of an inquisitorial system rather than an adversarial system. An adversarial system simply does not work in the area of sexual offending. Let us get even more serious about restorative justice and where the victim opts for that process let us make that process available. There would at least be some accountability in a situation where 99 percent of rape victims get no accountability at all.