Dalziel Lianne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDalziel Lianne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I am happy to assist the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke with some advice as to what would improve this legislation the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. It would require some action away from this place initially because it would require a substantial review of the issues that were really the reason for the original sunset provision.During the period of the legislation’s original enactment 5 years I think was allowed in order for some significant work to be done on the whole issue of reparation for victims. When I read that list before of the number of things that the best evidence shows would support victims in terms of their recovery from serious offences I saw that reparation was an element of that. The question of reparation comes well down the list after respectful and confidential treatment individualised response and flexible services but within the context of individualised responses obviously reparation comes up.The real issue with the sunset provision—the period of time before the provisions expire—was that we were asking how we would get reparation to the victims and how we would do that in a timely fashion because the timeliness of reparation is veryimportant. A number of the submitters who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee made the point that “Actually we don’t want to hear about this guy again until we have to front up for a parole hearing.” In terms of the thought that they might take some comfort from the fact that the prisoners had had their human rights abused in some way shape or form and that that therefore enabled them to pay some money to victims they said they could not think of a worse way of receiving reparation because it would just bring back all of the memories of everything that had already happened.So the idea of the extension of time with the provisions falling out of play was to enable us to establish a system for providing reparation to victims and then decide after that how we then fund that payment. Part of that payment was not to come just from the chance that a person’s rights had been abused in prison; it would have enabled us to then look at any windfall provision. It could have been a tax—an additional tax like a student loan or an additional tax repaid from earnings by those who have offended against someone.Remember not everyone who is in prison has actually caused a victim of a crime. They may in fact be the sole victim of their crime. They may have driven drunk several times and ended up without having caused an accident but having been caught they may have ended up in prison. They may have been in prison for possession of marijuana or they might have been in prison for possession of another drug for their own personal use. So there are a whole lot of reasons. Driving offences are actually a significant reason why people end up in prison at any one time. If their rights are violated they have no credible claim for compensation if it is simply going to be taken by the Crown for the general use of victims because they have not actually caused a victim of a crime.So that is why this bill is problematic and that is why I have no enthusiasm for it. I believe that we are doing the right thing in voting for it simply because it does not offend against the underlying principles. I actually agree with the New Zealand Law Society that it is not really needed any more as a result of theTaunoa case and subsequent changes to how the courts might approach these issues.I think that the best thing we could have done would be to actually step away from the issue and ask what we were trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve is we are trying to ensure that victims have access to reparation at a very early stage so that it is timely—in fact it is immediate—and so that people do not have to spend money. We heard people saying that they had had to travel great distances to the original arraignment and then to the court hearing itself. They ended up in a town where they had not expected things to be held over for as long as they were and so they had to buy extra clothes. There were just lots of little examples that people gave to us of significant expenditure significant costs that they were confronted with at a time when they were grieving the loss of their daughter the loss of one of their children or the loss of a husband or a wife.We have had people give evidence at the select committee that that is what the priority is. What we were supposed to be doing in the period within which this had its sunset was actually establish what the best way was to provide for that in advance immediately and then how we claim it back. One of the groups of people whom we had to claim it back from was the people from whom reparation ought to be sought and they are the perpetrators of those major offences. But not every single person who has committed an offence ends up in jail and that is the perpetrator I am talking about. But should those perpetrators in fact be allowed to keep a windfall of a Lotto win after they leave jail? Should they be allowed to keep a Lotto win or should they in fact be required to reimburse to the account from which the reparation was paid to their victim? Shouldthey have an ongoing lifelong obligation to repay that amount if there was a windfall situation?That was the sort of thinking outside the square that we had really expected to be done during this period. That is why on the one hand Phil Goff can say that it does not go far enough and on the other hand the Green Party can say that it goes too far. In many respects they are both right because the legislation that we are dealing with actually does not do what the original legislative sunset period was designed for. That was designed for a very specific serious piece of work. This bill does not deliver on that and I think that is the tragedy of it. But on balance as I said before Labour is voting for it.