Hughes Darren: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21035] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 There is nothing like law and order legislation for bringing out the worst in some Opposition members of Parliament. Over the last day and a half we have seen it in a mixture of total exaggeration melodramatic theatrics and complete misrepresentation of what the Government is trying to propose here. I am not shocked by that because it happens every single time and—surprise surprise—it is the same members of Parliament from the same Opposition parties who seem to do it all the time. I see Mr Franks volunteering. I was not going to mention him because anyone who has ever followed anything he has had to say will know that the member from the “Freedom Party” as he likes it to be known wants to make sure that things are tough for absolutely everybody. 
Let us be very clear what this bill does. We had a law on the books under the previous National Government—I do not want to be political about it but the National Party in office brought in the legislation—that resulted in the  
Baigent 
 case where the prisoner got to keep 100 percent of all the cash that was paid out. That is fine; that is the state of play as it was. That law was effective for most of the 1990s when National was in office. I see Dr Wayne Mapp over there who was a member of that Government. He went into that National Government and said nothing to reflect the absolutely huge moral outrage we have heard about for the last day and a half. But that is Wayne Mapp the member for North Shore; he says one thing when in Opposition and does absolutely nothing about it when in Government. 
So Labour inherited that situation but we asked what would happen in a case of someone who has offended against a victim but who has been rightly punished by society. The person has been to a court and received a punishment but the judge has not been able to order the person to pay any reparation because the person has no money. Of course if offenders do have money as part of the sentence they are ordered to pay some money to victims. Often as we know people who commit violent crimes do not have much money so the judge cannot make them hand any over. 
We come to the offender who has done a wrong and terrible thing against a victim. Nobody in any political party supports that but members can read out every crime they have ever heard of and make it sound as if only their party is upset about them. We are all upset about violent crime. Let us get the nonsense out of this debate in that regard. Labour was upset about it to the extent that we have improved the sentencing laws and we are putting people away for longer. 
But once offenders are in prison if the State then turns around and mistreats people in the very ways we have said that offenders did wrong which put them in jail in the first place—that is we say as a society: “Please don’t commit violent crime. If you do we will lock you up.” and then the State says: “Once we’ve got you incarcerated we’ll treat you violently and badly and that will somehow make sure you don’t reoffend. We all disapprove of the reoffending rate.”—then the State of course has to be held accountable for the way officers of the State are treating people. 
Now that is not to say that all of a sudden we are not on the side of the victim. But we are saying that we should be spending all our resources in trying to stop the people who have been put away from reoffending once they get out. Members have got up for the last day and a half in this House and said we should treat those people terribly because here are terrible cases they have heard about and we should make people even worse once they leave prison. That is what they are saying: lock them up throw away the key treat people badly. That does not work. Two-thirds of people are reoffending—we have to do better than that. 
If a case comes to court and it is proven that the State mistreated people in prison and if those people are awarded money the Government is saying that the money should not stay with the offender. The first people who should have the call on that ought to be the victims—the people who at sentencing missed out because the prisoners we are talking about had no cash at the time. Where prisoners have had a windfall gain this legislation actually gives victims the opportunity to benefit from it. This is pro-victim legislation. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member to have an extension of time. He plainly has too much to get through. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. The member has no right to ask for an extension for someone else. The person seeks it on his or her own accord. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: That reinforces the very point about the way Opposition members behave on law and order issues. In that regard it brings out the juvenile in even the most ageing middle-aged men on that side of the House. 
The Opposition was worried that victims would have to “relive their crime” in order to get the money. Not having read the bill they did not realise that a District Court judge sitting as a victims’ special claims tribunal will be able to decide the case using papers. The victim does not have to prove again that the crime occurred. As the member for Whanganui said the victims can use an advocate in order to make sure that he or she gets access to the money. 
Once again we have gone through a process in the House whereby we have totally distorted the issue because we all like to pretend that we are the toughest roughest meanest and baddest on dealing with law and order issues rather than looked at what this bill does. It is a process bill that tries to make sure that people who have done wrong do not get to benefit from doing that wrong and that people who have been victims having missed out in the first place then get the chance to get some of that money if it is paid out in that way. 
I support the bill for that reason not for the ridiculously exaggerated reasons that Dr Mapp Brian Connell Stephen Franks Dail Jones and Ron Mark—all the usual cast of characters—have gone through. It is a process bill—but then National would oppose that having talked its way out of process and missed a question time. What a hopeless lazy useless Opposition!