Alexander Marc: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20958] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 We can tell that there is huge public support for this bill by the number of people in the gallery who have turned up to support it—or the lack thereof. A number of things about this bill deserve special mention. Although some of the broader themes have been talked about already and no doubt will continue to be talked about and debated I think that a couple of points in the bill are actually quite sinister. 
Firstly in clause 14 “Guiding considerations for awarding of compensation” subclause (1) includes “(a) whether compensation is required to provide effective redress;” and “(b) the quantum of an award of compensation required to provide effective redress.” The interesting thing is that that assumes a sum of money can ameliorate an infraction that no other form of redress can. Time and time again during the select committee process I asked what those things are that could not be addressed through means other than money. The Justice and Electoral Committee never received an explanation—not once. When we think about it if an individual has a broken leg he or she can be given medical treatment and I do not think anybody is against that. And if some counselling is needed for those poor misguided criminals in prison then by all means let us provide them with that. But why should they walk away with a sum of money? Why should they be able to profit over and above the medical or counselling expenses that we would otherwise provide for them? 
The interesting thing is that there is a bit of a contradiction when we look at clause 13(1)(b) which refers to exactly that: “another remedy or a combination of other remedies cannot provide in relation to the act or omission on which the claim is based redress that the Court or Tribunal considers effective.” The problem is that this Government never actually came out and said what that redress was. There is a bit of subterfuge here. The advisers told us that part of the point of awarding a sum of money is as a penalty against the Department of Corrections. Nobody can deny that that is a viable and reasonable option but why should that money go to the offender in prison? It is one thing to exert a penalty on somebody who causes an infraction but it is quite something else then to reward a criminal. 
So we have had cases like that of Taunoa who was paid $40000-odd because with him we did the only sensible thing we could. That man had slashed the throat of a person so badly that it exposed the spine. He was a danger to guards and other inmates. 
Peter Brown 
: How much did the Government give him? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Over $40000. There was an appeal yesterday. What are we supposed to do with him? If we try to elevate his human rights—as perhaps the Greens would want to do—then we put the human rights of guards and other inmates at risk. Where should the balance be? It seems clear to me that the balance has to be on the side of the prison system the guards and in fact other inmates. Taunoa was put in solitary for a prolonged period of time and that was the only place for him. It was where he would do the least amount of damage. To turn round and reward him for that is crazy. 
The point is that two things have been inextricably woven together that need not have been: firstly the penalty against the corrections system for allowing infractions brutality or mistreatment; and secondly the rewarding of financial compensation to the inmate. If we skip over to clause 16 “Compensation of prisoners etc must be paid to Secretary”—and this is the part that I find very disturbing and in fact quite sinister—we see the subterfuge that the money will be put aside so that the victims will have the ability to take that money off the prisoners but further down the track in subclause (5) we find something that has been slipped in quite surreptitiously: “a creditor includes the Commissioner of Inland Revenue …”. Am I just imagining things or is that a way in which the Government is trying to extract the victims’ money?