Clendon David: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16458. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green):Could I begin my comments just by endorsing MrLittle’s remarks about the need for a comprehensive review of all of the legislation and all of our practice around protecting and restoring victims’ rights. That is something that the Greens look forward to working with Labour on next year when we have a new Government. In the meantime to address the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill—the Greens are supporting this bill albeit with some reservation. I was on the Law and Order Committee. I voted for the bill and I sort of stand alongside it. We did not do a minority report or any of those things but we still have some concerns about the bill some of which we might seek to address at the Committee of the whole House stage.We are supporting the bill primarily because there clearly is a gap. It is perverse in a sense that a person who has been the victim of violence from a family member—I was going to say a “friend” but that is the wrong word—or an associate somebody close to them can get the mechanism of a protection order but somebody who has been seriously assaulted or abused in some way by a stranger does not have access to that. That is the gap that this bill seeks to fill and we think it is appropriate. Clearly there are cases—the historical cases—that have demonstrated the need for some sort of mechanism in order to add a layer of protection and indeed to add a layer of comfort to the victims of what are always going to be serious crimes in this sense.I think some of the issues with the bill that I want to talk about may become apparent over time. I would love to be proven wrong. This bill might be seamless and without flaw—and that would be a good thing—but I do think that maybe there are a few things that we have still got wrong. Primarily I would say that part of what this bill does isactually already covered by law. Some of the conditions that would be imposed on a person who is subject to one of these orders already exist. If I was an offender who had assaulted somebody and after my release I was found to be loitering around their house watching them obstructing them leaving objectionable material where they may find it or encouraging somebody else to do some form of harm to this person I am quite surethat there is existing law and in fact that the police would very quickly be on the case and be responding in some appropriate way to that sort of behaviour. So some of what we are doing with this bill is already covered by existing law and I do wonder at the necessity for replicating that.Having said that I do think that the third-party provisions if you like—the fact that if I as an offender in jail or as a recently released one get one of my dodgy buddies to go around and cause harm or grief or fear or whatever then it is entirely appropriate that the legislation should cover that sort of third-party aspect of it. I think that is one of the strengths of the bill that it does recognise that it does not have to be the primary offender causing harm to a victim; it can be some other person—not least of all in gang situations but even in situations where there is no gang activity or influence.Mr Goff talked about the shift from the 5-year threshold to a 2-year threshold and he makes a compelling argument that the 2-year threshold does align the bill with the Parole Act and that is not insignificant. But I still have some unease—not least of all following the initial briefing we had and the talk about the numbers of people potentially affected by this. Five years was arguably too high a bar and there was the one case already referenced where a 4-year sentence was imposed and that offender would have escaped the consequences or the provisions of this bill. My concerns about the 2-year sentence are partly that there is an issue of cost but that is a secondary concern. It will inevitably mean significantly more cost associated with this. The more compelling concern I have is that we were told that currently or over the past 5 years there would have been something like fewer than 1000 offenders released who would potentially be subject to one of these orders—something like fewer than 1000. Let us say 800 or 900. Take out a few of those who would already be subject to protection orders perhaps and you are still talking about quite a few hundred people per year who potentially might be subject to one of these orders.I have a fear that if they proliferate if suddenly we are seeing literally hundreds and hundreds of these things in place at any given time it almost devalues the importance of them and it certainly puts increased load on the police in terms of enforcement. We have a lot of protection orders out there at the moment and we know already that we have seen some tragic consequences. Police have reported to them breaches of protection orders. They need to make a call as to the urgency or significance of them. Generally I am quite sure they get it right and I am quite sure they work very hard to get it right every time but on occasion things will fall through the cracks. They will be sort of downplayed in terms of priority. I do fear that the proliferation of these orders will devalue them in terms of enforcement and that there will be situations where there is not a sufficiently fast response because after all it is only another victims’ order when you have hundreds and hundreds of these things in force as almost inevitably we will. So I think that is something that we may need to give a little bit more thought to.As I said the financial cost is certainly a secondary concern but it is not a trivial one either. In terms of the issue of the point at which somebody can apply for one of these orders and in terms of applications generally I think I entirely agree with the intention of the bill that the application costs should be minimal should be very very low; that it should not necessarily mean engaging a lawyer; and that the application process should be swift and straightforward. Obviously there needs to be an opportunity for the person the defendant if you like to defend themselves to oppose the notion. But I do think we must make very sure that neither process nor cost is a barrier to the application of these and I think the language of the bill and indeed of the explanatory note does seek to ensure that.But I do still wonder about the notion that these things can be applied for immediately post sentencing. Again I think it will result in many more of these orders being appliedfor and issued. After all on what basis would a court deny or reject an application for an order immediately post sentencing? If a person had recently assaulted someone with sufficient severity that they are subject to at least a more than 2-year sentence it is most unlikely that a court would have many grounds on which to say no. Allowing the order to be applied for and imposed very soon after sentencing assumes that the prison is actually going to fail in its job of rehabilitation. Yes we know that there are often recidivist offenders people who continually offend and they are very likely to offend again but even serious assaults can sometimes be the outcome of a very unique and specific set of circumstances and be highly unlikely ever to be replicated. I do wonder about the assumption built into this provision that there is no likelihood of rehabilitation coming through sentences of 2-plus years and I do think that that is again something we need to give some thought to. The argument made was that yes while still in prison people can threaten or cause grief to a victim. Well that is right—they can but that is only because they are breaking the rules. Obviously the Department of Corrections works very hard to ensure that prisoners cannot have inappropriate communications outside of prison. As I said earlier I do believe that the third-party issue where an inmate might persuade one of his friends or associates to go and cause grief to a victim is readily covered by existing legislation. So I think we need to get something a little bit more nuanced in terms of immediately post sentencing.The likelihood of a victim wanting one of these orders a short time after the offence has been committed and thinking: “The person has gone down. Right. I’ve got an opportunity to impose some more burden on them.” is clearly going to be something that a lot of people will want to do. I fear that it could almost become a default position where anybody who is subject to more than a 2-year sentence will find themselves with one of these orders imposed on them. And I return to that notion of these orders being devalued in terms of the likelihood of the orders having a status if you like or not having the sense of this being a very serious matter with the orders issued only for the most vile and objectionable cases of assault on people and the need to give protection to these people these victims to allow them to get on with their lives. There is a balance in that if somebody does come out of prison perhaps the best place for them in many regards would be to return to the community within which they have offended albeit with some protections and comfort for the victim.As I said we are supporting this bill and we will continue to support it because there is a gap but we have some concerns and we will address those in the Committee stage. Kia ora.