Connell Brian: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21033] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have to say that this PC nonsense that has come out of the Government speakers today demonstrates that this Government has completely and utterly lost the plot. I will take great delight in getting on a platform and debating this bill with Government members anywhere any time right around the country. It is an absolute no-brainer. The country simply does not want this legislation. The people of New Zealand want to see justice done and they simply do not want it dealt with in this guise. They do not want lowlifes getting compensation because their feelings were hurt when they were languishing somewhere in prison. 
Let us be absolutely clear: some of those prisoners are amongst some of the worst in the prison regime right at the moment. The people of New Zealand do not want this sort of society. They actually want common sense to apply. Sam Te Hei murdered a young woman in the most brutal manner imaginable yet he got compensation. What could I tell the mother of the victim— 
Edwin Perry 
: Mrs Hawkins. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the member for the name. What could I tell Mrs Hawkins when she asked me what her daughter’s rights were? “What about the human rights of my little girl?” she beseeched me. So that members are clear I tell them that this animal beat this girl so badly that her own mother could not recognise her. Yet this Government wants criminals such as Te Hei to get compensation because the lights were left on once too often in their prison cell. 
What do I tell the son of the Sanson hotel owner who had his throat slit from ear to ear by a vicious thug? “What about his human rights?” he asked me. It is a difficult thing when one comes to the reality of it all—when one has to sit across the table from the victims of crime and they ask those sorts of questions. The same thug blamed the son for the murder and the son incurred $5000 in legal fees just to clear his name. The police did not think he was guilty but he simply had to clear his name as anyone else would have done. Did he get compensation? I will let that question hang there. 
I can now tell Mrs Hawkins and the son of the Sanson hotel owner that the Government now says that they can sue those vicious criminals for compensation. That is right. To get any justice now by way of compensation the victims must now incur a financial cost by way of legal expenses to engage with the very criminals who caused them so much harm in the past. They are now expected to sit across the table from these vicious thugs and engage with them once again. Their pain and hurt go on and on. 
That is why I will enjoy getting on a public platform and saying that this is a Government that prefers that type of justice rather than ensuring that these criminals get nothing. The victims’ nightmare will continue on and on. Instead of saying that vicious criminals and rapists will not get compensation—which would have been the right thing to do—the Government has now legislated a convoluted process whereby criminals can profit and victims can go fly a kite. 
By way of mitigation the Associate Minister of Justice told the House that the legislation extends the period of limitations for victims so that if for example one of these vicious thugs decided to write a book it is successful and he or she gets a windfall the victims could sue. That really beggars belief. Can members imagine the high interest in a book entitled  
Ten Brutal Ways to Kill and Rape Innocent Women 
? That would be a real winner would it not? Victims of crime will be lining up to sue those types of individuals! Not only can the criminals probably not read and write but even if they were smart enough to write a book does the Minister think they would not create some form of trust or company structure to defeat their victims who might want to bring a claim against them? 
 This bill presupposes that criminals will have a regard for the law in the first place. Money from vicious criminals? As the Tui advertisement says: Yeah right!. We are not unreasonable people. All members of the Opposition have argued that prisoners should not be mistreated in prison but we say that we should fix the problem and not just treat the symptom. If prison officials are acting unlawfully they should be dealt to. But let us be clear: most of the infractions that these prison officers have supposedly committed have been minor. For example a window was left open for an extra half-hour in winter lights were left on for just a little bit too long or someone did not get to read a letter that had nothing to do with that person in the first place—it was private correspondence anyway. That is the sort of thing we are talking about. 
In terms of our prison models we had a perfectly good working model in the private prison in Auckland. No prisoner complaints came out of that prison but the ideology of the Labour Government put the prison back into State management. More precisely the Government put it back into the Public Service Association’s management. That is right. In order to keep jobs for its union mates it closed down a perfectly good working model. Prisoner abuse was not happening under that private prison model; it was happening— 
Marc Alexander 
: The Greens supported that. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh no the Greens would not support that because they came to the House last night and said this bill was bad law. They said this bill was bad so surely they would not have voted for that closure. No they would not do that; I am sure the member has got that wrong. 
Prisoner abuse was not happening under the private prison system; it was happening under the State system. Now we have a Clayton’s bill that supposedly enables victims to get justice from vicious criminals. In the final analysis—[ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis is screeching like a hyena as is her wont—the sophisticated member from Whanganui. She might think that this is a light moment but I do not. This is a very serious issue and she would do very well to keep her smart alec mouth closed and listen and learn. In the final analysis victims do not want compensation from these thugs. They actually do not want anything to do with them at all. They have already lived the nightmare once; they do not want to live it again. Is it unreasonable that victims do not want anything to do with those criminals? Would reasonable people want that contact? So why does this Government not want to help victims? It is simply a disgrace. 
The Associate Minister claims that we are bound by a UN convention. Other members have responded to his claim so I will not go into it again other than to say I think it is a load of bollocks. I simply ask him and the members of the Labour Government: what about the conventions that one does not murder and one does not rape. Why cannot those conventions be more important to Labour members? I conclude by saying that if the Associate Minister cared more for fellow Kiwis and less for UN conventions then New Zealand would be a better place for it.