Chauvel Charles: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3508. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As we have heard there are two sunset clauses in the legislation that is under consideration by the House in this third reading debate of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. The requirement for this legislation arises because of those sunset clauses. As has been canvassed in the previous debates in the House the history of this matter is as follows. Between 1998 and 2004 there was operated by the Department of Corrections a behaviour management regime or behaviour modification regime the BMR. There was High Court litigation the  
Taunoa 
 case about the validity of that regime. It led to the awarding of damages—substantial damages in fact—to inmates who had been physically assaulted under that regime and whose human rights had been infringed. As a result of a concern that the victims of those inmates if they wanted to try to seek a share of the compensation that those inmates had been awarded would have to go through all the ordinary court processes in order to do so Parliament put in place as we have heard from the Acting Minister of Justice an expedited process whereby victims of offending could apply through a special procedure to get paid to them some of the compensation that would be paid to the inmates under the High Court principles that were set out in the  
Taunoa 
 case.  
The original legislation the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act was always time-limited. There was a sunset clause built into it and clearly that indicates that it was appropriate to see whether or not the regime that I have described was working—and frankly on that question the jury is out. There has not been a proper review of whether or not it is an adequate regime. There should have been a review by now. Everybody knew that there was a sunset clause in operation. Members opposite had been members of the Government for 4 years and yet no review was commenced. 
So the question arose as to what ought to happen in these circumstances. There were three choices: let the Act expire and have the discussion about whether a replacement was needed and if so what it should be; agree to extend the Act for a short period of time so that that discussion could still occur; or attempt to pass through all its stages the replacement legislation for the substantive Act which is on the Order Paper. But there are I think it is agreed a number of concerns about that substantive replacement. I think there is a general consensus around the House that there should be a discussion based on evidence and rational principles about what sort of prisoners’ victims compensation claim regime should exist going forward. 
I just want to say one or two words about what that replacement regime might look like if it is the case that there is agreement to create such a regime. Here is the problem in my view both with the existing scheme and with what is proposed on the Order Paper to replace it. First of all it is not sufficiently victim-centric. It looks at the position of inmates who get compensation and then talks about how that sort of compensation can be paid to their victims. If we are taking a properly victim-centric approach in this area then we ought to look at the position of victims and say that we believe that victims should be able to easily get some sort of monetary compensation from those who have offended against them. It should not matter whether those offenders are inmates subject to a community sentence or otherwise. That is the first point that I think ought to be borne in mind in any review of the current legislation. 
Secondly it should not matter whether the offender gets compensation from the Crown through a court order. Any person subject to any sentence who receives some form of unexpected windfall payment ought to have some obligation to make their victim whole by paying them some sort of compensation as a token of apology and redress for the wrong that they have caused. So whether it is a Lotto win or a testamentary bequest under a will if the person who has offended receives an unexpected payment there ought to be an expectation that some of that money should go to their victim. 
There is another important principle here though and that is that everyone’s human rights should be protected including those who are subject to a sentence so people should not be punished twice. How do we get around this? Well one way might be that at any sentencing a judge might be asked to give an indication as to the percentage or quantum of payment that ought to be payable to an offender’s victims in the event that the offender comes into an unexpected payment during the time of their sentence. And to ensure that there is not double punishment there should be an indication as to what discount ought to be applied to the custodial or community-based sentence that the offender is being subject to in the event that they later make a payment of monetary compensation to their victim. It seems to me that if we could come to an agreement across the House that some sort of system along these lines could be brought into being then we would actually have legislation that did start with the interests of victims—where it should start—but that did not seek to double-punish those who have committed offences because that is in itself offensive to our constitution. That is the sort of discussion that I am hoping we will have across the House. 
I know that one of my Green Party colleagues in the earlier stages of this debate expressed scepticism about the likely quality of that debate. Well I just want to say this in conclusion. The reason that Labour has agreed to this extension is in the hope that we will have that sort of discussion. We are willing to have it without preconditions provided that it is a principled discussion. But we will say this up front. Any proposal that starts with the idea of wanting to help victims get compensation for suffering wrong without having to leap through a whole lot of legal hoops need not be in itself offensive to human rights and I think that is where we depart from our colleagues in the Green Party. Equally insisting on a rational debate as to how to achieve this without trampling on human rights including those of offenders is not being soft on law and order or being anti-victim. I think if we get rhetoric along those lines from across the House that will undermine the opportunity that we could have for a sensible discussion about what should be in place going forward on this particular subject. 
With those words I want to conclude my contribution. This Act I think given the votes in earlier proceedings in the House will be extended for 1 year. In that year Parliament has an opportunity to make sure that there is a rational and evidence-based discussion on how we look after those who suffer from offending without compromising human rights across the board. I hope all members of this House will actually take that opportunity up in a bona fide way and I am signalling that certainly Labour members are up for that.