Ardern Jacinda: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16753. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is right I think that before I begin I acknowledge the contribution that Law and Order Committee members as a whole have made to this process. As Mr O’Rourke pointed out there were a number of issues raised in the first reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which were by and large subsequently addressed by the committee collectively. Mr Mitchell raised some questions over Mr Goff’s speech but I think it is only right that Mr Goff does take some credit for some of the changes that were made because he did pursue them feverishly at the select committee and the select committee agreed with him on a range of issues he raised.Probably one of the reasons I guess that Mr Goff was so vehement about increasing the range of people who would have access to this bill is that he as the Minister of Justice under a Labour Government championed victims’ rights through things like ensuring better support for Victim Support and its ability to do its job. It has now become a core component of our justice system. It is now not just a voluntary organisation but a part of the ingrained referral process from our local police. It is also trying to create a charter of victims’ rights as it were—what a victim can expect and should expect from our justice system. So that was really ground-breaking. These kinds of amendments to our law just take that a step further and acknowledge that there continue to be gaps in our system from the perspective of the victim.To put this particular bill the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill into context there are 1150 offenders who have committed serious or violent offences at any given time. If we take a snapshot of the 2 year period between 2008 and 2010 there were roughly 280 protection orders issued and 78 restraining orders. The reason I raise that is that the victims’ orders are intended to be another tool to be used by victims where they feel the same threat that might apply to someone who uses a protection order or a restraining order but in different circumstances. What I think those numbers demonstrate is that they are not used perhaps as frequently as they otherwise might be. That sends us a range of messages that I think we need to pick up on one of which is that there is a gap for some victims that was not covered by protection orders or restraining orders.As has already been mentioned the actual gist of the bill is that it allows the courts to issue a non-contact order which in essence is in the nature of a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act so it has a similar effect for a victim of a violent crime. That order can last for 2 years unless the court specifies a different duration. So it is 2 years if the duration is not specified. If it is left open-ended it will essentially lapse after that 2-year period but as I have said the court can specify a longer period if it so wishes.When the bill came to the select committee the criterion for a violent offence—because that is essentially what this hangs on—was that it had a sentence of 5 years or more. That is not to say that that was an offence whose sentence had a range of 5 years or more attached to it; the criterion was whether or not the prisoner received that sentence. Our concern was that that could lead to an anomaly—that you could have for instance two victims who experienced the exact same serious violent crime but whose offenders had two different sentences attached to them one which could put the offender within the threshold of having a victims’ order put on them the other which would not. We thought that seemed manifestly unjust.The easiest way to deal with that was to simply lower the threshold. Our view was that there was very little harm in capturing a wider range of victims because by definition alone they had had a violent offence committed against them and actually the sentence attached to that should not really be the prohibitive factor in whether or not they are able to access a victims’ order. So we had a good discussion about that and I think we came out on the right side by agreeing to reduce that threshold—because it was an arbitrary decision ultimately that had to be made—to a 2 year process.Mr O’Rourke has already raised what was probably the most significant second change that was made by the select committee and that was the point in the process at which a victim is able to access an order. When the bill came to us a victim essentially had to wait until an offender was released before they were able to seek through the courts for an order to be made. That did not seem to make any sense to us. It allows a gap as it were. If the whole purpose the intention of this bill is to give a victim a longer stretch of time in which they can feel whilst that offender is reintegrating back into the community that they have that extra set of protections around them why would you allow a gap upon immediate release where that protection did not exist? It did not seem to us that that was the intention of the Minister of Justice—perhaps it was just a structural issue. So that is why we made the sensible and necessary change that essentially these orders can now be handed down any time after sentencing so there is no gap between release and there is a wider scope to the orders than parole conditions could provide.That for us was also an access to justice issue. It makes it easer if a victim is able to deal up front all at once with all of the trauma that comes around court processes. Trying to consolidate that into one process was one of our aims. That does not mean that it is still not a prohibitive process. We were concerned that there is a cost attached for an application for this order because it is a civil proceeding. Yes you could use legal aid but unfortunately legal aid thresholds under this Government are such that very few people are eligible now. So we maintain that concern and it is one that we wish as a party to put on the record.One additional element that I think is important to raise—because it was not really the primary focus of the original bill—is the wider scope we wish these orders to have. When the bill came to us as a select committee it was heavily focused on putting restrictions around an offender and an offender alone. Submissions though demonstrated to us that actually even when offenders are in prison they are able to breach an order. They can do that in the examples we had raised with us by communicating with gang affiliates or family or friends and requesting that they engage in harassment of a victim or undertake certain tasks that could be deemed to be harassment because they were at the hand of the offender.We heard first-hand examples of where that had happened and it was our view that it would be sensible to allow for a protection order to extend not just to the offender but to their associates if it was under the offender’s instruction that they were acting. It was particularly alarming for us to hear that that was happening whilst offenders were in prison. So we felt justified in making that extension to associates of the offender in certain circumstances so that those penalties could apply to those associates who were acting knowingly against that order.All in all we support this bill. We think it enhances victims’ rights. We are glad we had the ability to I think improve the bill as a select committee and I look forward to further debate at the Committee stage.