O'Rourke Denis: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:13081. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill going to the Law and Order Committee with the hope and expectation that with amendment we will be able to continue to support it thereafter. The bill would enable a victim of a violent crime or a close family member if the victim has died to obtain a non-contact order against an offender where the offender has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years or more. Fear and anxiety about unwanted contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself. A fundamental duty of the State is to protect victims and we think that this bill is very much overdue. In fact the Government has been rather slothful in progressing it to date. New Zealand First wishes to assist its passage through the House as expeditiously as is practicable. I am unable however to agree with the Greens that the existing protections are adequate. Yes there are existing ways in which people can get these protections but they are not easy to use.This bill I think is needed but I have a number of suggestions to make so that the bill might be as effective as possible. The first concerns clause 5 which defines a violent offender as a person who “has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 5 years or more”. That definition is quite narrow and I suggest that it should be widened. Instead of requiring sentencing to a period of 5 years or more I suggest that it would be more appropriate instead to require only sentencing for an offence punishable by 5 years of imprisonment or more. That would broaden the scope of the legislation to capture offenders whose sentences are fewer than 5 years but who had committed an offence serious enough to enable a court to sentence them to 5 years or more. After all if the offence was so serious as to attract imprisonment at all then the victim should be able to use this new law.Another issue concerns clause 7 which provides that a victim may apply to a district court for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender and that an application may be made at any time after the offender is released from imprisonment. The requirement that an application must be made after the release of an offender from prison is I think too late. The victim should be able to apply for the order at any time after the conviction so that the court can make an order to have effect immediately as from the date of release. My concern is that there is likely to be a significant delay between the victim learning of the offender’s release and the making of an order and its service upon the offender. That would potentially be a period of high risk for the victim and this issue needs to be addressed by the select committee. Another point for its considerationwould be the meaning of the term “release from prison”. Does this include release on parole? If not then the victim may become subject to risk and may have to rely only on parole conditions rather than this new law so let us have a look at that.I also have concerns about clause 9(1) which 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 are ongoing effects of the offending? What will the victim have to prove to satisfy that test? I do not think that the effects of the offending are really the issue here. It would be better for the subclause to require only for example that the victim reasonably believes that he or she may be subjected to unwanted contact by the offender. That is what the issue really is for the victim. So that is what the subclause should use as the test. Otherwise it would be satisfactory to delete this test and this subclause altogether because the other requirements in paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) are sufficient by themselves with the words “ability to deal with those effects” being deleted consequentially from subclause (1)(b).I move on to clause 11. This clause sets out the effect of a non-contact order. Such an order prohibits the offender against whom it 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 in a specified area. The only concern I have with this clause is that subclause (1)(c) should be qualified by the addition of an exception as to entry that is incidental to and necessary for the purposes of the offender’s employment. I would also like the select committee to look at whether it is desirable to require as part of clause 11 that the court is to specify an area only as large as is necessary to enable the offender and the victim to avoid contact with each other. Although we need to make the order effective we should also see that it does not unnecessarily cause problems for the offender in obtaining or maintaining their employment and carrying out his or her duties of employment.Finally I come to clause 15. This provides for a non-contact order to be discharged by the court if it thinks fit on the application of the victim or of the offender against whom the order is made. I suggest that the select committee look at whether the court should be required in this clause in considering whether a discharge of the order should be granted to consider some specified matters such as the record of the offender in complying with the order; the behaviour of the victim which may itself justify discharge; and obviously the places where the victim and the offender live permanently. If one lives in Australia and the other lives in New Zealand then I would expect that to be an important factor in deciding whether to grant the discharge.As I have said New Zealand First does want this legislation. We do think it is necessary. We do not think that existing laws are adequate to protect victims who have justifiable fears in relation to ongoing contact with an offender. So New Zealand First wishes to vote for this legislation not only to be referred to the select committee but also hopefully thereafter as well provided that we can get the most effective law possible to protect victims from those ongoing risks resulting from unwanted contact by the offender. But as I have said there are a number of ways in which the bill might be improved that we wish to discuss and I hope that other parties and the Government in particular are willing to look at amendments for those purposes.