O'Rourke Denis: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will support the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. It is one of a number of moves needed to improve the rights of victims and to support them where they have been subjected to violence. Fear and anxiety about unwanted subsequent contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself and can impair the victim’s recovery and ability to enjoy a normal life.Concerning clause 5(1) which was mentioned by the last speaker Mark Mitchell this defines a “violent offender” as a person who “(a) has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years”. As introduced in the bill this was “5 years or more” and this was clearly too narrow. Instead of requiring sentencing to a period of 5 years or more I suggested at the first reading that it would be more appropriate instead to require only sentencing of an offence punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment or more. That would have broadened the scope of the legislation to capture offenders whose sentences were less than 5 years but who had committed an offence serious enough to enable the 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 a new law such as this. The Law and Order Committee has now instead amended the definition to “more than 2 years”. I think my suggestion was better but this new provision substantially widens the offences to which the clause will be applicable and that is acceptable to New Zealand First.Concerning clause 7(1) as introduced this provided that a victim may apply to a District Court “for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender” who had been convicted and that an application may be made “at any time after the offender has been released from prison”. The requirement that the application must be made after the release of an offender from prison was of course far too late. I said at the first reading that 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 from the date of release. My concern was that there was likely to be a significant delay between the victim learning of the offender’s release and the making of an order and its service on the offender. That would potentially be a period of high risk for the victim. This issue has been addressed by the select committee and the amended clause is therefore now acceptable to New Zealand First.Concerning clause 9 I still have some concerns about subclause (1) as I stated in my first reading speech. This subclause 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;”. But I would have to ask why the court has to be satisfied that there are ongoing effects for the victim. 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 anyway. It would be better for clause 9(1)(a) to be deleted and clause 9(1)(b) should be deleted too. It refers to the contact between the offender and the victim to possibly be detrimental to the victim’s ability to deal with the ongoing effects referred to in clause 9(1)(a).It should not be necessary for a victim to have to prove these things. Clauses 9(1)(c) and (d) by themselves are sufficient. That the order is reasonably necessary to avoid contact is what the issue really is for the victim so that is what this clause should use as the only test. Why should the court have to be satisfied that there are ongoing effects of the offending? It is not acceptable to New Zealand First that a victim should have to prove any more than that a sentenced violent offender’s contact is unwanted and that the order is reasonably necessary. That should be enough and that in my view is the only serious defect in the bill and I regret that the changes that New Zealand First suggested have not been adopted.With regard to clause 11 this clause sets out the effect of a “non-contact order” now amended to “temporary non-contact order”. Such an order prohibits the offender against whom it is made from 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 concern that I had about this at the first reading was that this clause clause 9(1)(c) “to and necessary for the offender’s employment” was problematic. I said that I would like the select committee to look at whether it was desirable to require as part of the clause that the court specify an area only as large as necessary to enable the offender and the victim to avoid contact with each other. I said that 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 his or her employment and carrying out his or her duties of employment.Clause 11(1)(c) has now been deleted and we now have a new clause 11A relating to the effect of the final order. New clause 11A has much more comprehensive and refined powers for the court to specify so that the effects of the order will be no more than needed to properly protect the victim. This new clause 11A is therefore very welcome as far as New Zealand First is concerned and similarly new clause 11B is welcome. That deals with the need for a final order to be directed by the court to apply to specified persons other than the person who was the offender and whom the offender may have encouraged or would encourage to engage in the contact behaviour that the offender might engage in.Concerning clause 15 I suggested at the first reading that the select committee look at whether the court should be required in this section 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 because that is also relevant; and obviously the place where the victim and the offender then live permanently. I note that this clause has now been deleted and replaced with much more comprehensive provisions in new clause 15 and additional new clause 15A which address the sorts of issues that I suggested be looked at.So New Zealand First is happy to support the bill for the reason that those amendments that we sought have been made and have been so well made. New Zealand First also supports the addition of new clauses 15B 15C 15D and 15E which cover the rights to a hearing and the procedures around that. Lastly New Zealand First agrees with the deletion of clause 16 relating to vexatious proceedings which was unnecessary and with the other more minor amendments made.Overall although the bill does not include all that New Zealand First wanted it does adopt most of what we had sought and also adds some other worthwhile changes. In the end this is a good bill which New Zealand First will support as a means of improving the protection of victims against unwanted and potentially dangerous contact by violent offenders. As I have said New Zealand First wants this legislation and will vote for it to go further so that we can get the most effective law possible to protect victims from the ongoing risks resulting in unwanted contact from offenders.