Logie Jan: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:13087. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to rise and offer the Greens’ support for the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill at this stage to enable this conversation to happen. I have been interested in the debate so far today. I think it has been constructive. I would like to acknowledge first of all the case that triggered the introduction of this bill the appalling and quite heart-wrenching situation for a woman in Invercargill whose rapist moved in next door. That highlighted for us several areas for legislative review and policy and funding change. This woman actually had an indefinite protection order in place apparently but it did not prevent her abuser from moving in next door. The police had been for a chat and suggested he move but stated that they could not do anything else unless he breached the order and crossed that line. In this situation his friends had been threatening and harassing her as well but this didnot constitute a breach either. It is quite strange that in the case that has triggered the introduction of this bill this bill will actually do nothing to solve that actual situation because the perpetrator in that instance had been sentenced for a crime for only 4 years which does not reach the threshold required in this bill.The Greens have several concerns related to this bill that we are keen to explore through the select committee process while acknowledging that there is a real problem at the moment. The concerns we have as have been raised by Labour are the requirement for the victim to apply for and pay for the order rather than the State taking responsibility for the safety of victims; the situation for people in small towns where it may not be so easy to be able to define their place of living in the same way; and also the possibility that in a larger city this may create a perverse result of enabling abusers to have free rein of a city outside one specific area and the potential that this may actually lock victims in to quite a prescribed safety zone. That may be I think quite a perverse result if it creates this safety zone for victims that they then become locked in to. That is certainly not something that we would want to see happen.We are very keen to have the select committee process and to have victims and their advocates present to the Law and Order Committee to ensure that we are adequately informed on these issues. But I do want to speak now to some of the wider issues. There has been a lot of discussion around the importance of focusing on victims and the terrible situation of victims being so closely engaged with their abuser. I want to remind this House of what I believe is a completely tragic reality. Only one in 100 victims gets justice in this country. Research shows us that only seven victims out of 100 report the abuse. So we know that at the moment because of this situation and the lack of action that has been taken around sexual abuse most victims are on a regular basis if not a daily basis having to interact with their abusers because of the failure of this House and this system to actually provide them with a system where they can access justice. Of those seven out of 100 cases that are reported only three go to court and only one results in a conviction. That is appalling—one in 100 victims in this country accesses justice. Those of that one in 100 whose offender is sentenced to over 5 years will now be able to access this protection. That is not a victim focus. Any pretence that it isis actually covering up what I believe is a massive injustice in this country.I also would like to just speak to the fact that those who have been convicted—Kim McGregor from the Rape Prevention Education network has noted numerous instances—