Clendon David: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a call on behalf of the Greens on technically these four bills—the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2)—but for the sake of convenience we will continue to treat them as the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. The Greens will continue to support this legislation as we have done up to this point but as with our Labour colleagues we do so without any particular enthusiasm. This legislation is much less than it could be.The legislation does do some useful things. It has elements of a restorative justice approach within it and that is something at the heart of our justice policy—a commitment to restorative justice a genuinely restorative form of justice. This legislation gives victims a greater freedom to express their feelings in their own words. It gives them an opportunity to speak directly to an offender in a court of law. It does broaden and strengthen the processes around victim notification of the ultimate fate of offenders and indeed inmates. It does some useful things things that have been called for. It could have done a great deal more though.In fact my colleague noted almost 3 years ago in the first reading of this legislation that to some extent the legislation draws on the Justice and Electoral Committee’s 2007Inquiry into Victims’ Rights which was actually a Green Party initiative and which developed some very useful recommendations. But sadly only about a third of those recommendations have seen the light of day and have been incorporated into this legislation. We look forward to a time when more of those very good recommendations in fact will be put into practice. We share with our Labour colleagues the view that we need a much more comprehensive approach.The Minister of Justice in introducing this reading I think referred to it as ambitious legislation. Her colleague Scott Simpson the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee used words like “innovative” and “imaginative”. I have to say that if this legislation represents innovation imagination and ambition one must set a very low bar for those qualities or characteristics because frankly I fail to see much of them in this legislation. It is quite a tentative approach. It is a very incremental approach to improving the lot of victims. We do need and look forward to a time when we will do something much more comprehensive something rather more courageous and something that draws on recommendations that have been made here in New Zealand and we can look for ideas internationally. There are many constituencies countries where this is managed much better than we do it and I look forward to being part of that in the future.This legislation goes part-way towards a restorative approach but it runs the risk of trying to mix elements of a restorative process into what is essentially a combative adversarial system. Any budding young scientist knows that mixing together elements that are not compatible can lead to some unfortunate and even explosive outcomes. The idea of bringing victim impact statements into the court—a restorative element in as I say what is basically an adversarial context—can lead to some unfortunate consequences and some submitters made that point. A victim pouring out their heart explaining or expressing the hurt that has been done to their family and to their friends or whatever it might be and looking at an offender who might be laughing joking and really not taking it on board is not helping the victim in any way and even the good andwell-intentioned parts of the legislation do run the risk of not achieving particularly positive outcomes for victims.The point has been made in an earlier reading I think that there seems to be an unfortunate assumption on the part of some at least if not all Government members that victims’ rights can be advanced only at the cost of offenders’ rights. A restorative justice approach is to understand that one seeks to guarantee rights to all parties in the justice system and to the credit of this Government and a previous one we have seen some useful and positive advances. We do see restorative justice meetings conferences and the like. We have community justice panels doing some useful work particularly in Christchurch. We see the emergence of specialist courts such as the homeless court in Auckland and the trials around drug and alcohol courts. These are very positive moves forward and I think we need to resource them better and advance them more quickly. But sadly despite the assurances and in fact the commentary from some of the Government speakers who have suggested that they are actually doing a lot of work about advancing victims’ rights the approach is very tentative. It is very incremental.Sadly we still see too many instances where this Government is even complicit in creating victims. By that I mean the very many instances we have seen recently where the rights of offenders and indeed inmates in our prisons have not been respected—where inmates for example have been illegally deprived of basic rights basic conditions—and sadly no consequences have befallen those people in Government and management positions who have been responsible for allowing that illegal treatment to occur.As we know inmates and offenders have themselves often been victims. The relationship is very close and we know that that is well proven not only in New Zealand but elsewhere.Inmates and offenders have often been victims themselves many of them sadly through their long experience of the justice system. They know their rights very well and they know when their legal rights are being compromised or are not being met. What sort of message does it send to offenders when they see the Government agencies responsible for enforcing the law actually breaking the law? What price rehabilitation when offenders see a model of “Do as I say not as I do.”? That is where the Government needs to look very hard at itself and at its actions and needs to understand that it must be consistent in its approach. It is not difficult. Any good parent understands this. To the extent that this Government has established a “Do as I say not as I do.” model that will not advance the well-being of victims and certainly it will not advance New Zealand’s reputation as a country that respects human rights.On the face of it as I say the Greens will support and will continue to support this legislation because essentially it does no harm.Chris Auchinvole: Are you going to vote for it?DAVID CLENDON: Thank you we are going to vote sir. Listen carefully Mr Auchinvole. I have made that point. Listen carefully sir. We are going to support it because it does no particular harm. But what is actually needed was a comprehensive review. As I said I am pleased to hear Labour colleagues who agree that that is what is called for.The world has moved on. We need to get beyond the simplistic punitive approach that has sadly typified and characterised the evolution of justice legislation in New Zealand for at least the last two decades or indeed for probably longer than that. We look forward to a time when we are in a position to initiate and undertake something that is genuinely ambitious genuinely innovative and genuinely imaginative and we hope that that time comes very soon. Thank you.