Little Andrew: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:13072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill and say that the objective of this bill is a very important objective—in fact I would go as far as saying it is an essential objective and we have no objection to it. That objective is to protect victims of violent crime and to protect them after the perpetrator of the crime against them has either been convicted and served their sentence if they have been incarcerated or if they have not been incarcerated at least are managing their post-conviction processes.But the problem with this bill is that the way it has been promoted by this Government is just totally cynical. The Hon Chester Borrows talked about the Invercargill case which is the case that prompted this bill in the first place. The reality of that Invercargill case is that a rapist was sentenced to a term of 4 years and then post-release harassed and basically made a nuisance of himself towards his victim. In that case the victim would not be able to avail herself of an order under this bill because the threshold is too high. When we look at the detail of that particular case and at what is in this bill actually the argument by the Government begins to unravel. It is not only the very high threshold that would apply in relation to victims who might be looking for just this type of protection and assistance it is the very fact that it is the victim once again who has to take the initiative to protect themselves from something that the criminal justice system ought to take responsibility for. The burden falls on the victim.This yet again is from this Government which boasts about crows about supporting victims. This is not a victims’ rights piece of legislation. This once again yet again by this Government puts the burden back on the victim. Itrevictimises the victim. That is the problem with a Government that seeks to push red-hot buttons around the electorate but has no real commitment to fixing the problem at all. It is just cynical.Let us go through some of the issues in this legislation. There is the one I have already referred to which is the cost to the victim. It is the victim who has to meet the cost because it is a civil proceeding. Worse the victim will have to front up to court to square off against the very person whom they are seeking a non-contact order against. Thatrevictimises the victim again. Then there is the threshold which requires a 5-year prison sentence which is just way too high. There are victims of sexual offences and violent offences where the perpetrators do not get sentences of 5 years or more. They get much lesser sentences. But after the completion of their sentence that perpetrator is equally capable of harassing and intimidating and threatening the victim of their crime as in any other case. Why should those victims not have a remedy if this Government is serious about victims?This bill is totally inadequate. This is probably one of the laziest pieces of legislation I have seen in my short time in Parliament. When you look at the regulatory impact statement it is quite clear that the Ministry of Justice and the advisers to the Minister of Justice considered a range of options. They considered an amendment to the Harassment Act so that it would apply in these sorts of situations. But the Harassment Act again provides for a civil proceeding. A civil application is required for a restraining order under that legislation. But the other sensible suggestion that the advisers came up with was an amendment to the Parole Act. I think one thing they failed however to suggest was an accompanying amendment to the Sentencing Act. They argued against or advised against an amendment to the Parole Act on the grounds that they were concerned about uncontrollable costs. The problem with that piece of analysis is that when they drew that conclusion they seemed to have forgotten that they expected there would be about 10 applications for this type of order each year but they said they thought there would be a snowballing sort of effect. I think that could have been dealt with ameliorated by putting term limits on the extent of the application with a right to renew on subsequent occasions.But the fundamental point is this: this is a bill that deals with victims of crime—victims of criminals. The criminal justice system is the part of our judicial system that should take responsibility for managing all aspects of the criminal—not leaving it up to the victim once the criminal justice system has disposed of and washed its hands of the offender. It should not leave it up to the victims to have to make applications to further protect themselves. That is the responsibility of the State. That is the responsibility of the criminal justice system. We are saying that the intent of this bill the objective of it should be achieved can be achieved under something like the Parole Act and perhaps the Sentencing Act but should not be left to the victim to make application for.We will support this bill with these very severe reservations. We will support the bill at its first reading to get it before a select committee so we can hear from advisers and perhaps from the Minister to provide some further rationale but also to see if we can come up with a piece of legislation that is a real victims’ rights piece of legislation not the piece of whitewash that we have in front of us at the moment. The Minister in an article at least in relation to the “Beast of Blenheim” had the temerity to come out and say that she is sick and tired of hearing from people like the lawyer for the “Beast of Blenheim” and his defence of that case and the argument for his rights. The Minister in fact was quoted as saying: “Frankly I’ve had enough of listening to people like thelawyer for the Beast of Blenheim worrying about their rights—and I am far more concerned about victims and their rights.”Well that is a piece of bunkum that is just hocus-pocus by probably one of the laziest Ministers of Justice we have had for a long time. But I want to say this. Frankly I am sick and tired of hearing from a Minister of Justice who does all the window dressing she can but does not deal with the real issue. She does it on victims’ rights. She does it on other issues as well. She does not care. She does the minimum she can to get away with the appearance of doing something meaningful. But this is not meaningful as indeed are any other pieces of legislation that she has been responsible for. I was going to say “championed” but she is not a champion of anything apart from herself.This is a hopeless piece of legislation in its current form. It has good objectives. We should be doing something for victims of violent crime. We should be protecting them. We should be making adjustments to the criminal justice system so that those victims are protected. We should not be putting the burden back on victims so they have to stump up at their cost and front up and face the person who has abused them has raped them has violently assaulted them. We should not be putting victims in that situation. We should be providing proper protection. This bill does not do that. Let us get past the hocus-pocus and the bunkum and all the window dressing that this Government and this Minister of Justice represent and let us do something meaningful. Let us not only make the criminal justice system responsible for dealing with offenders who upon conviction are then punished and if necessary incarcerated and serve their time but also make the criminal justice system truly responsible for protecting the victim. Let us come up with a system of orders that will properly protect the victims at the State’s cost so that they do not face the threats and intimidation that were exemplified in the case in Invercargill. This bill simply does not do that. If we are serious in this House’s drive and call to provide better protection for victims we need to do something way better than this very lazy piece of legislation coming from a very lazy Minister.We will support this bill at its first reading. We will get it in front of the select committee and we will pull it apart. We will hear from officials why they have abandoned their advice to the Minister to amend the Parole Act and to consider the Sentencing Act. Let us see if we cannot together if the National Government is serious come up with something that will afford proper protection and be a genuine victims’ rights piece of legislation.