Sepuloni Carmel: Victims of Crime Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sepuloni Carmel: Victims of Crime Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21684. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak to the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. Labour agrees that victims need to have a greater role in the criminal justice process because there is a lack of visible complaints processes and oversight of victims’ rights I say to Mr Ashraf Choudhary. In 2007 under the Labour Government the Justice and Electoral Committee conducted an inquiry into victims’ rights. It highlighted some of the issues that finally have been addressed by this bill. 
The Law Society has expressed reservations about some of the initiatives presented by the National Government particularly expanding the role of victims in the courtroom which might move the courts away from a dispassionate dispensing of justice. Labour will pay close attention to submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee to ensure that both the rights of victims and the rights of the accused are balanced to achieve an appropriate and fair outcome. As one of the Labour members of that select committee I assure the House that we will do that. The Law Society supports the move in the legislation to give adult victims the right to read their statements in court but subjecting children to further court processes might not be a particularly positive advancement of children’s rights. Furthermore the use of pictures could be misleading. 
The Ministry of Justice has identified three broad concerns that victims of crime face. First victims find it frustrating to deal with multiple Government agencies to get information about the criminal justice system their rights and services. Second the mechanisms for making criminal justice agencies accountable for the information they provide or the services they deliver to victims are weak. Third many victims find the current criminal justice processes bewildering and feel that they do not have any role in the criminal case involving them. 
My colleague Charles Chauvel spoke earlier and said that we needed to reflect on some of the rhetoric and we needed to recognise that New Zealand has some way to go in dealing appropriately with those caught up in the criminal justice system through no fault of their own. The rhetoric we have listened to from the National Government over the course of its 3 years in office has been concerning at times because the rhetoric does not necessarily match the action. We have seen examples where unfortunately victims have been re-victimised by that National Government. A good example was highlighted by the member Lynne Pillay in her valedictory speech earlier this evening. She talked about the re-victimisation of sexual abuse victims that was undertaken by the National Government through ACC’s denial of counselling to sexual abuse victims. She spoke of the incredible harm that was caused and the fact that these victims basically were re-victimised by the system by ACC and by the National Government. Lynne Pillay took over the victims’ rights portfolio but unfortunately the re-victimisation did not end. 
Continuing on from that time we saw even further re-victimisation when Dr Peter Jansen attempted to sue a victim of sexual abuse for a quarter of a million dollars. That re-victimisation was horrendous. All that occurred was that that victim of sexual abuse dared to speak out and dared to attack the Government and question Dr Peter Jansen Nick Smith and the National Government on their decision to deny sexual abuse victims the right to counselling. Although we have heard through the rhetoric that the National Government purports to stand up for victims and wants to legislate in order to ensure increased protection for victims in some of the actions that have been undertaken by this National Government one has to wonder whether the spiel matches what it is actually doing. 
Labour will be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee but we will be watching it very carefully in respect of the reservations that I have expressed and that were expressed more articulately by my colleague Charles Chauvel in his speech. Thank you very much.