Parker David: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10505] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I refer to some comments made by Simon Bridges that I agree with. This bill does not take away all the rights of criminals to get compensation in some cases. We can all at least in theory envisage circumstances where the State through prison officers could breach somebody’s rights. They could terribly brutalise them torture them or unjustifiably deprive them of their liberty. In those situations it is absolutely right and proper that prisoners bad people though they have been should have rights to guard against the State acting like that. This bill acts as a curb against inappropriate actions on the part of the State. It would be wrong for this Parliament to take away all the rights of prisoners in such cases. If we look for examples we find some of the things that happened during World War II where people were imprisoned and treated terribly. Of course those people ought to have had their human rights upheld. If their human rights are abused then it is appropriate that they have legal remedies through the New Zealand courts. I agree with Simon Bridges that that is appropriate. 
The original Act states that that is well and good and this bill extends that provision to a later date and that is well and good. However when a criminal has harmed someone else and that other person may have a reparation order that has not been paid or the victim had a right to take a civil action against a prisoner and receive some form of compensation but did not or could not because the prisoner was broke and it would be like getting blood from a stone—there was no likelihood of being paid—why would they waste their time and effort on making a claim against that person in prison? 
Where there is a change in circumstances as a consequence of compensation being awarded in favour of the prisoner we need to preserve that money so that the victim of the prisoner’s crime has the ability to make a claim against the prisoner and effectively attach the claim to the money that otherwise would be paid out to the prisoner. That of course is very appropriate. I think that just about everyone in this House would agree that whilst not taking all rights away from a prisoner who has been abused rare though those cases are when compensation is paid to a prisoner—and let us not forget that there are high tests before a prisoner would get any compensation as people will not have sympathy for prisoners; there has to be a pretty gross violation of prisoners’ rights before they get any compensation—it is important that we preserve the sum of money where appropriate so that someone who has been injured by the prisoner and who had a right to compensation or reparation can have recourse to the money that would otherwise go to the prisoner. 
That is the balance that this legislation sought to achieve. Indeed if we had gone further and had completely banned any right of compensation we would be going a step too far and we would be in breach of various United Nations conventions. We would be doing something wrong. 
Paul Quinn 
: DRIP. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not know what the member means. This legislation gets the balance right. I will respond to some of the suggestions that were made earlier that tried to defend the Government’s record in respect of victims’ compensation. 
Compensation for victims and the treatment of victims in New Zealand largely rely upon the accident compensation system in terms of the counselling victims receive following a traumatic injury. Nowhere is that more true than in respect of people who have suffered sexual crimes. The victims of sexual crimes are often left in a depressed state and their lives can fall to bits. If the person who abused them was a family member they can have problems with keeping or making good and strong personal relationships in their lives. I do not think there are many people in this country who do not think that the victims of sexual crimes should have access to proper counselling; they most definitely should. Yet this Government through Dr Nick Smith as the Minister for ACC has overseen a huge decrease in the approval of people for counselling. So marked is it that on a year-by-year comparison 300 claims per month were approved in the prior year compared with six claims this year. 
Three hundred claims compared with six claims is more than a 95 percent decrease in the approval rate. I do not think that makes sense. I think anyone can see that something has gone seriously wrong. It was pointed out to the Minister last year that this was seriously wrong. It was pointed out by the Labour Opposition and by the psychotherapists and the psychologists. It was pointed out by the Massey University academics whose work Dr Smith was purporting to rely upon but which they say the Accident Compensation Corporation has misused under his supervision. For the Minister to now turn round and say that we have to have some sort of inquiry to see what has gone wrong without restoring the prior status quo until it is fixed is adding insult to injury on the part of the women mainly who have been abused and cannot now receive counselling in New Zealand. 
I think that is disgraceful to be perfectly frank. I think that the very least the Government and the Minister could do is say: “We’ve got this wrong; we’re going to restore the status quo while we sort it out.” But instead the Minister is hiding behind process. He is not willing to admit fault notwithstanding the fact that the approval rate has gone down from 300 claims a month to six claims in I think it was February. The facts speak for themselves. More than 200 women in that month alone suffered the effects of sexual crimes without receiving any counselling. Counselling sessions generally cost around $100 or more per session. Most of those women who have been abused who have been the victims of some horrendous sexual crimes cannot afford that and they have no avenue through which they can get counselling at present. 
The Government is not addressing the issue. All that Dr Smith says is that we will have a review. But we know that it is patently clear that the first and foremost thing that should be done is to return to the prior system while the Government sorts it out instead of persisting with this new system that as I said in February had only six approvals for counselling throughout the whole of New Zealand. Do we think that New Zealand is such a perfect society that only six out of those 300-odd applications were worthy? Are we saying that the other 294 women were lying? Are we really saying that they had some sort of pre-existing mental illness that meant that they deserved what happened to them? Are we saying that they should not get treatment? 
I really take issue with some of the comments that have been made by National members in this debate. They raised the issue of accident compensation and tried to say how well they are doing for the victims of crime when this is the real situation and these most-damaged people in respect of being the victims of violent sexual crimes are getting no help whatsoever. 
In returning to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill I can say that we support the bill. Thank you.