Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12059. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. In effect this bill extends the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for 2 more years following the current expiration date of 30 June 2010. The bill ensures that the current restrictions on prisoners’ claims are retained and that prisoners are awarded compensation only if no other remedy is appropriate. It also ensures that the victims of those prisoners awarded compensation continue to have priority to claim against that compensation. In addition the bill clarifies a potential ambiguity in one of the Act’s provisions. The bill makes it absolutely clear that the victims’ claims process applies to compensation payable for claims made by prisoners before 1 July 2012. 
I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its consideration of the bill in the short amount of time available. The committee received six submissions on the bill and has recommended that it proceed without amendment. That is not surprising as this bill simply maintains the status quo for a further 2 years and ensures that the application of the victims’ claim process is clear. The effect is a transition period that gives prisoners particularly those with historic grievances 2 more years to make their claims before a second bill which the Minister of Justice intends to introduce before the end of this year takes effect. That legislation will mean that if compensation is awarded to a prisoner then anything remaining after the prisoner’s victims have sought redress will be redirected to the broader victims’ services appropriation. The victims’ services appropriation is currently holding the revenue generated by the Government’s offender levy initiative and the funding from the disestablished Criminal Justice Advisory Board and the Sentencing Council. That money is already being put to good use by funding five new or enhanced entitlements for victims of serious crime. 
From 1 July 2010 three more initiatives will be rolled out. A new court support service for victims of sexual violence will be introduced as well as an enhanced homicide support service. More comprehensive information resources for victims of crime will also be available from July. This will provide a guide to the criminal justice system and explain the support that victims and their families can get. 
The bill before us and the new legislation to come will not prevent prisoners from seeking to uphold their rights through the courts; nor should it. Agencies responsible for wrongdoing will still be held to account and required to pay compensation where a sufficiently serious breach of a prisoner’s rights has occurred. That is appropriate because prisoner mistreatment should not be tolerated. However I make no apology for ensuring that where compensation is necessary victims of that prisoner have every opportunity to benefit from that compensation and seek redress for the harms committed against them. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be supporting the extension set out in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. It is a technical amendment. Why are we supporting it? Quite clearly we are supporting it because we in 2005 put in place the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act whilst in Government. This is Labour Government legislation that the current Government is seeking to extend for 2 years from 1 July until 30 June 2012. So on the basis of an extension of the legislation that the previous Labour Government passed of course we would support this legislation. 
This bill is designed to assist victims. The aim of course is to extend those restrictions in awarding compensation to prisoners for a further 2 years as I have said so that the victims’ claims process also applies to compensation awarded in or to be paid pursuant to an out-of-court final settlement in respect of a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July 2010 but before 1 July 2012. So in essence this amending legislation bridges a gap. Labour agrees with this. We wrote this legislation—that is the primary Act—and we agree with its extension but I would make a couple of points in passing. 
This Government has made many lofty claims in respect of assisting victims. I suspect that we putting aside our political prejudices all support that ethos of supporting victims who have been subject to either heinous crime at the horrific tragic end of the scale or even so-called minor crime smaller incidences at the other end of the scale. But I make this point. If this Government was serious about assisting victims this legislation would be followed by legislation that does away with what is happening with accident compensation whereby sexual abuse victims are no longer able to get the support they need thanks to the changes made to our accident compensation system by this National Government. This issue is germane to this legislation because we are talking about victims of crime. That member over there might have a bit of a peck as she is wont to do but this is the truth and I challenge this Government. If this Government is serious about assisting victims I ask every member of the Government about the men and women who have been subjected to horrific crime through sexual abuse and other sexual crime and who formerly under the previous Government could get the assistance they needed. There is no dispute in my view about the crimes committed against those people. They will live with the horrific nature of those crimes for the rest of their lives. They need counselling perhaps psychological assistance perhaps medical assistance and other support. 
We know that under the previous Government those victims of sexual abuse and sexual crime were getting the assistance they need. Under this Government many of them most of them are not getting that. I challenge the ACT Party because we know of the affiliation between the ACT Party and the Sensible Sentencing Trust through Mr Garrett. He was intimately involved with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I challenge the ACT Party. I ask Mr Boscawen to get up in this debate and challenge the Government that he and his colleagues prop up every day. If that party is serious about assisting and supporting all victims of crime I ask Mr Boscawen through you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker whether he will get up and challenge this Government and demand that it change its policy so that victims of heinous sexual crime can get the assistance they need through accident compensation. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Leave it to you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: What? Oh the shell of the defence Minister has been burst. 
So I challenge the ACT Party member to get up and challenge his own side in the debate. I challenge the Sensible Sentencing Trust which has not at any time—and I could be wrong; I stand to be corrected—put out a statement decrying this Government for the changes to accident compensation policy and for the lack of support that victims of sexual abuse and sexual crime receive thanks to this Government. Most of them are not receiving that help and I challenge Mr McVicar who has very strong views on the rights of victims many of which I agree with to perhaps put out a statement and decry this Government for the withdrawal of services to victims of sexual abuse. When we talk about victims at the top of the scale in terms of the offending they suffered—whether it be the tragic circumstances of murder rape or sexual abuse—I do not think we do think of sexual abuse victims as second class to any others. 
Although Labour supports this legislation there is a wider issue. In the crime of sexual abuse those crimes have been dealt with and there is a guilty party. A jury has rendered a verdict and somebody is in the clink or paying the price for abusing and violating a member of the community. So there is no dispute that the crime happened. Then the question is what we as a Parliament a people and a community do about it. How responsible do we feel for aiding and assisting those victims of sexual crime? I know that a speech was made by Chester Borrows I think—if I am wrong I apologise—in which he asked whether it was appropriate that victims of sexual crime get help from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). I will say what is appropriate. What is appropriate is that they get help—full stop. The bickering over the pot it comes out of has to stop. If the Government feels that ACC is not the appropriate place to assist victims of heinous sexual abuse then I ask those members and I ask Mr Borrows where the replacement funding comes from. Where does the funding for those victims come from? Is it from the Ministry of Health or another Government department or agency? Let us stop the bickering about whether the money should come from the ACC pot or another pot and whether sexual abuse is deemed to be an accident under the definitional rules of ACC. If it is the Government’s judgment that ACC is not the appropriate place to help the victims of tragic and heinous sexual crime then I challenge those members to tell us what they are doing about it what they are replacing it with and where the money is to help these people. 
The Minister for ACC has been derelict in his duty. He has been deficient in his job. He has not as a member of our Parliament and as a member of our community stepped forward and made a case in Cabinet. If he does not want these compensatory benefits to come out of Vote ACC then he has a duty as does every member of Cabinet and the National caucus who bleats on those organisations and support parties such as ACT and those organisations outside this place like the Sensible Sentencing Trust and others that purport to stand by victims—and I take them at their word and I respect them for those views—to hold this Government and Cabinet to account and to demand that the resource is provided from some vote from some agency from some department to assist those men and women who live with the crime of sexual abuse for the rest of their lives. I am told that many of them are not with us in our community any more. They have passed on by their own hand through suicide because they could not get the assistance they need. The acid test in this debate the acid test of this Parliament’s and this Government’s commitment to assisting victims is not in this bill. 
We support this bill we wrote the Act we came up with the idea and this Government—and fair enough—is extending it. I commend it for that. But the acid test as to whether we are truly in support of victims and are committed to that is what we do to assist the most vulnerable. I would argue that children young men and women and old men and women who are victims of sexual abuse and sexual crime who under the last Government received the assistance they need but who were denied that assistance under this Government for petty bureaucratic reasons or cost cutting are some of the most vulnerable of our citizenry. Although we have had days weeks months and now years of this issue not being addressed by members opposite the acid test for this Government is what it does and what it proposes to do to assist those victims and whether its support parties stand up tonight if they truly believe in victims’ rights and hold the Government to account along with others outside this place like the Sensible Sentencing Trust which in my view have been somewhat quiet on this issue. We support this bill. We wrote this bill. We support the extension to it but I am serious when I invite members opposite to tell the victims of sexual crime how they will assist them as a Government. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. New Zealand Maori are 17; Wales are 13. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is always gratifying to hear one’s words come back to one. I believe that I was the person in the first reading of this debate who told my friend who has just resumed his seat that yes the victims of sexual abuse and child abuse need to be supported and it has to come out of the taxpayers’ pocket. We do not care what bucket it comes from. That is a firm priority. 
But the point I want to make in respect of this bill is that it seeks to put victims at the heart of the justice system. I believe that victims are at the heart of the justice system but what we need to recognise as a community and as a civilised society is that some of the victims at the centre of the justice system are there as complainants as victims of crime and as witnesses and other victims of crime are in the court system as offenders. When we talk about abuse and when we talk particularly about sexual abuse and violence those victims can go on to become offenders. It is very very easy for some of our lobbying groups within this country to regard everyone as a victim up to a certain stage and as soon as their victimisation is shown in their own offending behaviour automatically all sympathy is chopped off. They become labelled as offenders and that is it. They are due absolutely no regard whatsoever and that is wrong. It is uncivilised to treat people in that way. 
This bill recognises that if people who are in prison and who have grievances against the prison system—whereas those grievances may well be upheld and may be compensated in some way—owe outstanding debt to society or to their own victims directly as the result of their own behaviour then they will not be able to access any financial compensation but they will still get regard in other ways in terms of redressing the wrongs that have been made against them. 
I am pleased to see that we have support from the other side of the House. I acknowledge that it was Labour when in Government that started the work on this bill. We look forward to the upcoming legislation that will replace it. But before I sit down I reiterate that if we are going to call ourselves a civilised society we need to recognise that the vast majority of people in our prison cells at the moment have been offended against in heinous ways and their resulting behaviour is to be expected. We need to show some understanding of that and treat them accordingly in the way they deserve to be treated. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow the erudite challenge set out by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. His challenge puts the responsibility of victims’ rights squarely in the hands of the Government which does need to do more. 
Labour’s record of standing up for victims’ rights is clearly set out by our commitment and by our actions in the past to address the interests of victims. I will outline that for the record. We introduced and passed the Sentencing Act in 2002 which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used more frequently. The same Act also recognised the potential of restorative justice processes to make offenders more accountable to victims. It enabled courts to take both financial and non-financial offers of amends by an offender into account. 
Labour introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002 which extended a number of rights to victims such as the right to information and the ability to have an input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements. That in itself had a transformative effect on addressing the rights of victims. In terms of the practical examples that have come through my office I have seen that it has made a big difference. 
In 2003 the Ministry of Justice launched a campaign to trace those owed money. It introduced an 0800 number and it also established new collection centres to further bolster the collection and disbursement of reparations. In 2005 we passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act as Clayton Cosgrove has mentioned. It ensured that the victims of inmates who were awarded compensation could claim against the inmates’ compensation. 
Labour introduced the Pay or Stay initiative in September 2006. It enabled the Ministry of Justice to stop those people who had unpaid fines or reparations from travelling overseas if they attempted to leave New Zealand. 
The changes we introduced in the Evidence Act in 2006 provided for the needs of vulnerable witnesses and victims by making provision for witnesses to give evidence in alternative ways such as giving evidence from behind a screen via closed-circuit TV or pre-recorded video. Victims of sexual offences for example have utilised this particular mechanism. 
When we amended the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act we included a provision to ensure that victims of youth crime could attend Youth Court hearings. We also put in place provisions to ensure that these victims were kept informed of proceedings. In 2008 a Victims Charter was developed to build awareness of the standards of service that victims could expect from Government departments. We know that the Accident Compensation Corporation in particular was one Government department where a number of concerns were raised with regard to the handling of sensitive cases. An 0800 victim helpline was also introduced in that same year as was a website for victims and a boost in funding for Victim Support which offers much-needed services in many communities. All these types of initiatives built a profile of ensuring that the rights of victims continued to be addressed. 
We also announced that we would provide additional services in 2008 through the Family Court such as the introduction of an independent victim advocate or support person to provide support and assistance to victims of domestic violence. I know that in many of the communities I support this important service is heavily utilised to ensure that those suffering from domestic violence are supported. 
Labour also asked the Law Commission to look at how to set up proper victim compensation schemes. I understand that that work is still continuing. 
We know that this particular bill is an extension of the gains that Labour made and we are happy to support it. It is considering a minor technical change. 
We want to ensure that the big picture in terms of how National addresses victims’ rights will have to supersede the record that has already been established by Labour. It is just not good enough in terms of the accident compensation issues raised by Clayton Cosgrove not to provide an avenue for those who have suffered sexual abuse and for them not to have a remedy for reparation or to have their needs addressed. I know from the particular cases I have dealt with that the ongoing support provided by mental health and counselling services are very much needed services. It is absolutely reprehensible that this type of support might not continue to be available. 
I did not intend to take a long call on this reading of the bill. As we have said this is a minor technical change but let the case state that Labour’s record of advocating for victims’ rights stands in its own right. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. When the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill was first proposed prior to 2005 the Greens opposed it essentially on the basis of its effect on human rights—that is its reduction of human rights—because it was likely to be ineffectual as has now proven to be the case and because most of the effects would be negative. It had very few positive elements or redeeming features. We were at the time persuaded to support the bill through its final stages on the understanding that it would be quickly followed by a major reassessment and a major overhaul with significant attention being paid to the whole issue of victims’ rights. Clearly everybody in this House is supportive of finding ways and means of compensating the victims of crime—of getting redress for them—as well as punishing and rehabilitating those people who cause problems and who create victims. However we cannot in all conscience support this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill at its second reading which would mean the continuation of what is essentially a flawed and indeed a failed Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. 
The Act has two features. It intends to restrict the circumstances in which courts can award compensation to persons under the control of the State whether in prison or through some other means and it intends to provide a simplified process for allowing victims to make claims on compensation awarded to prisoners. In fact that has been more symbolic than real: there have been remarkably few successful instances where victims have had any benefit from this legislation in the 5 or more years since it has been enacted. 
The Act denies prisoners the possibility of redress for wrongs done by the State. Why would one continue with legislation that has failed? The victims in this case can benefit only if a prisoner or an inmate—somebody under the control of the State—has a windfall or if the State abuses the human rights of that prisoner. That is about the only mechanism through which a victim can get any redress. Is it not perverse to create a situation where imposing on the human rights of one person is the avenue to rewarding another for wrong done to that other person? It is simply a peculiar and perverse model and it would be better to simply remove it from the books and go looking for a proper solution. Part of the solution could be to establish a fully independent prison complaints authority. Such authorities are known to work successfully and are quite commonplace in other jurisdictions and in other countries. Absent such an authority we need to be very sure that there is a very robust set of circumstances where prisoners can rightfully be awarded some compensation if their human rights are abused while they are in the control of the State in prison. If there are no checks on abuses in prisons then inevitably prisons become more dangerous places—they become more dehumanising environments. The flow-on effect of this is that prisoners become more brutalised more dehumanised and therefore more dangerous to society when they are released. It increases the likelihood of recidivism. 
There is no value in the Act. It has not worked for victims and it has certainly not worked for prisoners; it can work only through a very perverse link of abuse recompense and secondary recompense to victims. The recent move to such unhelpful strategies as double-bunking to deal with the increased prison numbers is increasing tension in prisons. It is increasing the likelihood of tension and stress and the violence that inevitable follows from that in our prisons. We know that there are better ways to deal with crime. We can reduce recidivism. We know that there are strategies that work strategies such as the faith unit at Rimutaka Prison which has had an extraordinarily good success rate at reducing recidivism. The rate of recidivism is down to perhaps less than 10 percent for inmates who have been through that programme compared with something like 50 percent otherwise. We know that mechanisms are available to us today that could be applied within existing budgets by moving budgets away from concrete steel and wire towards serving the needs of the community by reducing the likelihood of recidivism and by healing prisoners. They are damaged people in the same way that their victims are damaged. We know that there are better strategies than continuing the failed strategies of the past. 
If the Government wants to get serious about crime about reducing the prison population and about reducing the knock-on and flow-on effects and the social environmental and economic costs of crime then we know there are strategies and mechanisms available to us. Inhumane treatment of prisoners is effectively protected under this bill because it takes away the likelihood of prisoners claiming compensation or objecting to the fact that their human rights have been taken away from them. We will continue to oppose the Act. It does not work; it was flawed at its enactment. It has proven itself ineffectual and it would be a much better situation simply to start with a clean slate and look for a set of solutions that will deliver good outcomes. Kia ora. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. I start off by stating up front that I am opposed to the victimisation of any people whether they are inside or outside of prison. 
On the global website called Restorative Justice Online 
there is an article that is entitled “Can prisoners also be victims? Promoting injustice through legislation.” The article is written by Kim Workman the very person who began the faith-based units in prisons that we have just heard spoken about by the Green Party. He was the head of prisons at the time of the Mangaroa assaults a period of time that Workman described as one of the most shameful incidents in the history of New Zealand’s prison system. He proceeds to discuss the situation that unfolded at Mangaroa Prison in January 1993 when three young inmates were systematically beaten and tortured by prison officers. The article is gruelling in its detail recalling the way in which the officers held the young men naked in outside exercise yards and used hit squads to repeatedly beat them over a 3-day period. We need to be thankful that none of those three were one of our own sons. The prisoners were initially denied access to health professionals for the injuries that they had sustained including bruising and cracked bones. Those 3 days from hell might have ended there. Fortunately they did not. An inquiry was initiated and it led to the dismissal of 12 prison staff but it was a long time coming. 
Over a decade later the 2004 United Nations Committee Against Torture reported the significant level of concern it had about the findings of the Ombudsman regarding investigations of alleged assaults on inmates the reluctance to confront such allegations promptly and the quality impartiality and credibility of investigations. Now 17 years later with the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill we are still dealing with the after-effects of that initial assault at Mangaroa Prison and the subsequent introduction of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Act 2005 which we heard the Hon Nanaia Mahuta speak about. 
Let us go back to those three young men in 1993. Those men continued to wait for an appropriate response to such a vicious assault for 7 long years. During that time some of the prison officers who had committed the criminal acts were re-employed within the prison system. Eventually the Crown accepted liability and paid compensation to those inmates for the injuries that they had suffered. The public reaction was intense intimidating and aggressive. The Minister of Justice at that time the Hon Phil Goff cast aspersions on the original incident by referring to it as an alleged assault and to the victims as a pack of scumbags. Suddenly the gates of hatred were unleashed. There were calls for the maximum use of custody and the maximum deprivation of liberty. The three prisoners who had been victims of the assault were described only in terms of their own offences. Members of the public claimed that because of their classification as offenders prisoners were no longer entitled to be treated with respect or decency. Letters to the editor urged the Government to make sure that prisoners not have the same rights as any other citizens who are victims of State brutality and violence. In essence there are two categories of New Zealanders: prisoners and everyone else. The overriding philosophy of that era was that prisoners should not have the same human rights as others in this country. They should certainly not be compensated because in many respects so the public record went they should be considered less than human. 
Like Mr Workman I consider the Mangaroa incident and the horrific backlash that followed when due compensation was awarded as one of the most shameful incidents in the history of New Zealand prisons. The 2005 Act further entrenched that shame this bill prolongs it and all the indications are that a further even more punitive bill is waiting in the wings. 
But there is still one fundamental question waiting to be addressed: what are we doing to address the abusive nature of a system that is supposedly meant to demonstrate justice? In responding to this bill the New Zealand Law Society endorsed the views of the Ministry of Justice that the best way of preventing future claims arising from breaches of prisoners’ human rights is to ensure that incidents leading to such claims are kept to an absolute minimum. I could not agree more. Justice is not about handing out punishments and inflicting numerous abuses upon a perpetrator for the rest of their living days. I am becoming increasingly worried about the relentless hostility of the public and political attitudes towards those who inhabit our prisons. Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand told the Justice and Electoral Committee that “Denial of basic human dignity and revenge does not make for good legislation.” This view was endorsed by the Human Rights Commission who warned the select committee that “concern about the victims of crime should not override the importance of ensuring that prison conditions respect minimum human rights standards.” 
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture in 2010 urged States to respect the right of victims to an effective remedy and reparation. The report recommended that each State party should ensure that the victim of an act of torture must be able to obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. The special rapporteur did not take the step of making an exception for those who are in prison to render them ineligible. 
What is the reason that we are taking such a harsh line here in Aotearoa? One of the signs of a mature and inclusive society would be the adoption of a less punitive criminal justice system. But if we were to read between the lines of this bill and all the discourse around it we would pick up a message that going to prison is no longer sufficient punishment on its own. Clearly a climate is developing amongst some parties in this House in favour of shifting the emphasis away from rehabilitation and humane treatment of prisoners to a lifelong sentence in which State brutality is permissible. 
There are victims beyond the victims who deserve to have a voice. There are always the children and family members waiting on the outside. They also suffer if their loved ones are subjected to any cruel inhuman or degrading treatment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The levels of discussions that are going on are such that I am having difficulty hearing the Minister. We have lobbies if people want to go out and confer. I ask members to keep the noise level down because I think it is very unfair to the member speaking. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Our greatest fear is that this legislation will influence the prison environment to such an extent that inmates will be less likely to complain jails will become increasingly dangerous and that danger will go unchecked. The system must be refocused to consider the needs of families and communities and to abide by the common law standard. It would ensure that inmates are treated with some dignity. 
We are aware that Tony Ellis barrister has decided to make direct communication to the United Nations Committee Against Torture to Amnesty International and to the Association for the Prevention of Torture for injustices that were formalised in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. He has also drawn attention to the fact that the Committee Against Torture recommended an inquiry in 2004 in respect of the claims laid by Chris Taunoa and others. 
We have a chance tonight to put things right and stop this ongoing abuse of power by the State. The Maori Party will not be supporting this bill. We believe that the bill does not work in the best interests of prisoners victims nor the common good. Tena koutou. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 If we are upfront as members as I am sure we all are we can accept that all political parties from time to time are somewhat simplistic and reductive in the way they deal with crime from really all manner of viewpoints and persuasions. We can sometimes take the view that all prisoners are bad and all serious punishment is good. Members on the other side can sometimes say that any more punishment is bad and that we should not be doing anything. I think we have to guard against that. The sad reality is that no party in this House and no set of laws—even the best set of laws—will see a New Zealand without victims and without crime. There will always be serious harm caused to victims and suffering for years and years to come whatever the Government response. That is the reality of crime and it goes back effectively to Adam and Eve. 
I have to say that I think nevertheless this is a very good bill. We are doing a strong thing and I will come to that later. I will also say with reference to thoughtful speeches by David Clendon and the Hon Tariana Turia that I accept that prisoners can be victims and I accept that certainly in serious abusive cases there is a need for the vindication of their rights sometimes with significant compensation. But I also say that it is my understanding of this bill—which was introduced by Labour and is now supported by the Government which wants to extend it—that it does not take away prisoners’ human rights. If I can put it crassly—at a basic moral level I think this is right—the legislation creates a debt collection mechanism for victims who have been knowingly wronged often grievously so by offenders who were later imprisoned to receive compensation from their offenders. The bill in no way shape or from states that prisoners should not have their rights vindicated nor receive compensation. But where victims of their crimes have been put to cost and they have not received what is their due from prisoners the original 2005 Act the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act goes some way at least to righting that wrong. 
Effectively what we are doing tonight is extending the expiry date in the Act out to 2012. We are allowing the restrictions on the circumstances in which courts can award compensation to prisoners to continue and we are providing a simplified process for victims of prisoners to make claims against prisoners’ compensation before the prisoners fritter it away to put it frankly. I am pleased to say that we are going further than that with another bill later this year. 
I do not think that the members in this House can do everything required to right all wrongs to ensure that there are no victims or to ensure that victims never suffer but I think that through this bill and quite a number of other bills that Parliament has passed this term we are certainly going a good way towards getting better justice for victims in this country. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill extends the restrictions on the awarding of compensation brought in by the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for a further 2 years from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012. Labour’s position is that basically we passed the Act that this bill is seeking to extend and as this bill is only making a technical change to the date of the Act as an interim measure then of course we will be supporting this bill. This bill will ensure that victims will continue to get access to prisoners’ compensation. This temporary measure is to make sure that victims’ access to prisoners’ compensation does not lapse between the expiry of the Act and the commencement of the new bill that the Government intends to introduce later this year—so we hear. The aim of this bill is to amend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act and because it is just a minor and technical change we support it. The current Act states that the awarding of compensation to victims expires on 1 July and that the victims’ claims process applies only to compensation in respect of claims made before that date. This bill will extend that application to June 2012. 
An interesting thing that has come up about this relates to the protection of victims’ rights. I will touch on some of the things that Labour did whilst in Government to ensure that victims’ rights were protected. We took that matter seriously and I think that is proven by our track record with regard to the legislation put into place by the previous Labour Government. We introduced and passed the Sentencing Act in 2002 which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in this sentence being used more frequently. The Sentencing Act also recognised the potential of restorative justice processes to make offenders more accountable to victims and it enabled courts to take both financial and non-financial offers of amends by an offender into account. Labour introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002 which extended a number of rights to victims such as rights to information and the ability to have input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements. In 2003 the Ministry of Justice launched a campaign to trace those who were owed money and it spent $385000 on advertising an 0800 number for people to call. The establishment of new collection centres further bolstered the collection and disbursement of reparation. In the 2003 Budget $9 million was allocated for that purpose. Labour passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act in 2005 which ensured that the victims of inmates who had been awarded compensation could claim against that compensation. The previous Labour Government has a proven track record with regard to taking the rights of victims seriously. 
I will now touch on the lofty promises made by the National Government post the 2008 election with regard to the rhetoric that it has put out about the protection of victims’ rights—because it has been rhetoric. The Government has had a whole line on being tough on crime and protecting the rights of victims. It has purported to represent victims at some sort of level that has never been reached before but unfortunately I think that its track record over the last 18 months shows that that is not the case. We need to look not only at what that Government has done in law and order but also at what it has done across the board. One area where it has failed to protect the rights of victims and failed to provide the necessary services required by victims to help them move on and progress in their lives is accident compensation. I think that this is relevant because when we hear the rhetoric going around about protecting victims and then we see that this other stuff is happening in relation to accident compensation we have to question whether that Government is fulfilling its promises to the New Zealand public. I am talking about sexual abuse victims who are no longer able to get the support that they need under the accident compensation scheme thanks to the changes that National has made. That is something that all of us on this side of the House have seen with regard to the constituents whom we are out there supporting advocating for and representing in this House. We have seen how the changes in policy that that Government has put into place with regard to accident compensation have failed those particular victims. 
I can think of one story I heard when I was in Waitakere recently—maybe a month ago—when I was meeting with different groups that provide counselling services for sexual abuse victims. This case was brought to my attention when I was meeting with those counsellors. It was in respect of a woman who had been sexually assaulted. It was a while ago but she was still suffering from that sexual assault. She had been receiving counselling that had been funded by the Accident Compensation Corporation and the counsellors were concerned that she would lose that funding. This particular victim and her family was very aware of this. The counsellor told me on that day that the woman’s son even rang the counsellor and said that she could not stop providing those counselling services to his mother. He did not think that his mother could do it without the counselling and he thought that she was at risk of committing suicide if she did not receive the service. 
On the same day that the counsellor was telling me the story someone else walked into the room and let her know that the corporation had declined to fund that woman’s counselling. We sat there and I asked the counsellor what she would do. She said that her group would continue to provide the service without the funding. There would be no support from the Government and no support from the Accident Compensation Corporation. The counsellors would keep giving the woman the counselling but they could not sustain that for a long period of time. That is only one example of a person who is a victim and who has been affected by the changes in accident compensation that that Government has put into place. Her right to counselling to recover to move on and to get the care that she needs has been taken away by a change in policy from members on that side of the House. Going back to what I was saying before we are concerned that what that Government says is purely rhetoric about the protection of the rights of victims. 
In that instance it was definitely not something that that Government saw as being a priority. Instead it has left that woman at risk having to look after herself and in potential danger. Talking about that issue a little more over the last couple of years the number of approved claims for counselling were between 200 and 300 each month. The number of approved claims for the whole of New Zealand in January this year was 11 and there were only six in February. So members on that side of the House cannot say that the policy changes they have put into place with regard to accident compensation have not had an effect at all. It is obvious that the care provided to these victims has shrunk to almost nothing. That is only one example of where that Government has failed to protect the rights of victims. 
There are many others. We could talk about the “three strikes” bill and about how some of the submitters on that bill told us very clearly that it would only see victims re-victimised. They would be at risk of having to go through longer court proceedings because of appeals and other things. Those were the things that came through very strongly in the submissions. The last thing that I will touch on is preventing more victims of crime. That is something that this Government over there has failed to do also. The latest crime statistics showed that the number of crime victims are growing not decreasing under National. As the Government’s response the Minister of Police has cut police numbers in a number of areas. We have seen in Waitakere that crime has gone up and violence has gone up yet recent information shows that the Waitemata district will lose 10 police officers. So that will not help with regards to the number of victims we see. We support this bill but we question the Government with regards to its ability and its track record to protect the rights of victims. Thank you. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am privileged to participate in the second reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. The bill extends the restriction on the awarding of compensation for a further 2 years starting from 1 July 2010 and going to 30 June 2012. The second amendment is that the victims’ claims process applies to compensation awarded or to be paid pursuant to an out-of-court final settlement in relation to a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July 2010 but before 1 July 2012. The Government wants to eliminate the all-too-frequent horror stories where victims are forced to relive traumatic events simply because the system has been deficient or has let them down. Invariably the offenders are getting a better deal than their victims. Since this Government took office it has been working hard to improve the law and order situation in New Zealand. It has also given victims’ rights top priority. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee for the Committee stage of this debate to be taken as one debatable motion and that there be unlimited speeches. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That there be one debate and unlimited calls. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Limited to the scope of the bill of course. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Could the member restate the leave so that I understand it. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I seek the leave of the Committee for the debate on the Committee stage of this bill to be taken as one question and that the number of speeches are unlimited but limited to the scope of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Given the wide-ranging nature of this debate but within the scope of the bill that the Government whip has indicated I want to touch on a couple of things that were said that are germane to this Committee stage which were noted in the previous debate. We touched on a number of points. We said that Labour would support this legislation. Why? Because we wrote it. The extensions to it are technical in nature. They simply extend the provisions and the timing provisions for 2 years which were put in place by the previous Labour Government. I listened to the debate with interest but we noted that if this Government was serious in respect of how it deals with victims the acid test was not a technical extension to this bill. The acid test as colleagues on this side of the Chamber have alluded to is how we deal with victims as a whole. The most germane example that members on this side used was the lack of resources that have been cauterised by this Government in respect of victims of sexual abuse and sexual crime. I waited and watched other members and I noted Mr Borrows’ contribution on two points. I invite the Minister to rise and enlarge on Mr Borrows’ point. He said he acknowledged the lack of funding and the denial of funding to victims of sexual crime. He went on to say because I wrote it down: “This will be a priority for this Government.” 
I commend him for the sentiment but the victims are still waiting. They waited at the last Budget they waited at the Budget before that and they wait tonight. They are sitting in dark and cold places waiting for a Government to stump up with some sort of money so that they can get the counselling and the help that they so desperately need. If funding is a priority I say to the Minister I would be very interested to know when where which agency if not the Accident Compensation Corporation how much and how the wrongs that this Minister and this Government have perpetrated will be put right in the denial of funding for victims of sexual crime and sexual abuse. 
I listened with interest to the contribution from the ACT Party members—those bastions who say that they stand beside victims more than anybody else in this Parliament. Was there a contribution? Well I listened very diligently. There was no contribution from the ACT members—none zip silence. What does that say? I then listened to the Maori Party members’ contribution. It was an interesting one. There were some fair points made I have to say about some very tragic and appalling circumstances many years ago. But I also waited for that Minister and that support party to get up and also say: “Hang on. We think that the Government that we aid and abet every day has done wrong by pulling the rug out from under victims of sexual crime and abuse by cutting their funding by not allowing them to get the help that they received under the previous Government.” There was not a word. Oh no. That would be a bit of a tough one would it not? It would be tough to stand grit one’s teeth and criticise the governing party that stands over us every day and demands our vote demands our support and demands our accountability. 
What about the Maori victims of sexual crime who are denied funding under this Government? Did we see the Minister and the co-leader of the Maori Party stand up for her constituents and the constituents that her party purports to represent and say it is wrong that her constituents who are victims of heinous and tragic crimes that they live with every day are denied the funding that they need because of this Government? Oh no. That would be a bit tough would it not? We can talk about history. We can talk about other injustices that occur and we pay respect to them. But oh no it is being a bit meek and a bit mild. It is a bit tough to stand up and say: “We don’t agree with what they have done.” 
I challenge Ms Turia Mr Boscawen and others who were very silent on this issue because of course every day they aid and abet the injustice that is perpetrated by that party. I acknowledge that at least Mr Burrows addressed the issue and at least he said it would be a priority for the Government in the future. The difficulty for Mr Borrows is that he does not sit in Cabinet; maybe he should because at least he is prepared to address it in the debate. His Cabinet colleagues every day on a Monday morning sit there and do nothing about it. I say to Mr Borrows good on him! He said it would be a priority for this Government. I take him at his word that he is knocking down the doors of Nick Smith’s office and other colleagues and asking what priority means. When? Where? What agency? How much? When will we help these people? 
But I challenge every member over there Mr Bakshi and others to stand up and tell us what they will do to assist the victims of sexual abuse and sexual crime. Because of their Government their vote and their aiding and abetting of their party when will those constituents actually get assistance? It is not good enough to say that it will be a priority in the future. I say again that these people waited in the Budget before last. These people waited in the Budget we have just had. These people waited tonight and every night this week and will wait next month and the months after. They have their own nightmare every day and every night as they live with what was done to them and they live with the fact that because they do not have the means they cannot access the resources that they desperately need even though there is probably somebody in the clink and there is no dispute that a crime was perpetrated against them—there is a verdict that says they were done over assaulted maligned and treated tragically and disreputably. No one disputes that. 
The acid test is not this legislation; this legislation is about extending what we did when we were in Government. The acid test as to whether the Government is committed as I have said before to assisting the victims and the most vulnerable is what it is going to do about those victims whose funding those members over there in that Government cauterised. Oh no. Members can hear a pin drop in here can they not? There is not a word. Mrs Turia smiles. Well I say to Mrs Turia as she grins away at me that when she does her next clinic and a member of her constituency Maori or Pakeha walks into her office and says: “I need help; I was raped I was assaulted I was abused.” and that constituent cannot get the assistance that he or she had in years past because of the vote that that member and her ilk give that Government every day I wonder whether Mrs Turia will sit there quietly meekly and mildly as she does in that Mother Teresa - like way and grin at that constituent. I wonder whether she will. 
I think better of that member actually; I suspect she will not. But again it is the acid test. She is a Minister. She has incredible power. She actually has the power as a coalition partner to not only stamp her feet but to say that she and her party are out of here that she is not going to tolerate this. But no they are—to use the biblical phrase—like lambs to the proverbial slaughter. Well I say to Mrs Turia Mr Boscawen Mr Garrett and the Sensible Sentencing Trust that those who stay silent and do not protest this injustice against protecting the most vulnerable those who stay silent and bear witness to it will have to be accountable to their various constituencies both at an election and in other places and other times. 
I invite the Minister in the chair to deal with Mr Borrows’ pertinent point: he said this will be a priority for the Government. I invite him to get up—we will give him as long as he wants—and tell us when this injustice will be righted when the money will flow and become available and what agency will administer it. These poor folk live with it every day and every night. As I think my colleague Lynne Pillay said some are no longer with us. They have taken their own lives because they cannot cope they cannot deal with the crime that has been perpetrated against them and they receive no assistance from this Government. How many lives could we have saved if we had ensured despite the bureaucratic bickering over there from Nick Smith and others that—to hell with it—these people would get the assistance they need? How many victims’ lives could we have saved? 
I say to people who get up and make lofty statements about victims that here is where the rubber hits the road. We will wait and see what happens in the lead-up to the next election because I suspect all of us on all sides of the House have had victims of these crimes come to us in terrible circumstances begging for assistance. They should not have to beg. The Government that they are governed by in this country is there to assist them support them stand by them keep them alive and give them the assistance they need. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 One of the problems with the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill—and it is a problem with the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act which it amends and which came into force under the last Government—is that it gives the impression that victims are getting serious financial compensation. In fact they are not. It is just crumbs from the table for a few victims. The real question of proper compensation for all victims of crime is not addressed in the bill. 
It is interesting that when the original bill came through under the Labour Government and became an Act the victim support organisations were amongst the harshest critics of it because they saw that it would give some pretence that there was real compensation for victims when there was not any universal scheme for providing appropriate financial compensation. There has been some development—and the police have done a good job in this area—of victim support immediately after a crime is committed when people are suffering badly from psychological trauma. There is a great volunteer system across the country of people who give freely of their time to help the police and to be with victims at their time of greatest trauma. But when we come to the follow-up system of proper financial compensation to put people back on the road and to compensate them for what they have suffered we find that it is not really there. 
In fact as has been commented before there is a perversity in the legislation in terms of the crumbs from the table that some victims might get. Victims almost have a vested interest in criminals in jail being beaten up then making a compensation claim because the victims will get a little bit of the compensation themselves. It is a twisted way of a victim of crime getting compensation. The whole concept of punishment is distorted by this bill. When people commit crimes they are sentenced to be punished by a term in prison. That is the punishment—the term in prison. They are not sentenced to have other things done to them like being beaten up or anything like that. There is almost a concept behind this bill that they deserve a bit of beating up a bit of punishment because if that happens they will not be rewarded so much in terms of any compensation. 
There is the concept that prisoners are lesser beings in fact with lesser rights and that is a very bad concept that eats away at our ethics. The root of all prejudice is defining a category of people as lesser beings and perhaps subjecting them to mistreatment and beating. In extreme cases we have fratricidal conflicts and ethnic conflicts where people beat up and kill each other because they treat the other lot as lesser beings. Prejudice in this society towards prisoners—and Tariana Turia mentioned this in her very good speech—carries over to prejudice against other races particularly races that are more highly represented in the prison population. This bill by treating prisoners as lesser beings with lesser rights including lesser right to compensation is feeding that stereotyping of people in a negative way. It cannot be tolerated and that is why the Green Party is voting against the bill. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 We support the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. As has been discussed it is just a technical change. It amends the Prisoner’s and Victims’ Claims Act which was an Act that Labour brought in in 2005. We support it because it addresses the rights of victims. 
I will touch on something that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove discussed earlier with regard to the absence of the ACT Party in the debate on this bill. That is concerning because so often we hear from its members about the protection of victims and the rights of victims. We heard that rhetoric over and over again in relation to the “three strikes” bill. Yet when there is genuine legislation before us that actually addresses the rights of victims those members are nowhere to be seen. That is concerning because it shows that ACT really is not about the rights of victims or the protection of victims; it seems that it is more about punitive measures for offenders with no real compassion for victims fuelling that. That is of concern to members on this side. 
The bill addresses the rights of victims to any compensation that prisoners may have access to. Victims will be able to make a claim on that money. So the bill addresses the rights of victims. But this side of the House has an overwhelming concern that although the bill does that it is only one part of what needs to be done. A lot of other things need to be done. A lot needs to be done by the National Government to protect victims’ rights but unfortunately over and over again it has failed to do that in so many ways. 
One of those ways is the Government’s changes to accident compensation policies. It has failed to protect the rights of sexual abuse victims and it has failed to provide the support that those victims require. It has let down those victims and it has let down the extended families of those victims. This side of the House feels that that is intolerable. It is hard for us to listen to members opposite say they support this bill because they support the rights of victims. We know that on the one hand National is supporting this bill that it has introduced this technical change so that the legislation Labour introduced in 2005—the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act—can be extended yet on the other hand National has denied sexual abuse victims their right to accident compensation services to the counselling that they require. That is a concern but it is only one example. There are other examples. 
I will touch on the increase in crime that we have been experiencing across the country over the last couple of years. There has been an increase in violent crime and in crime generally. One of those places that has experienced that increase is Waitakere but unfortunately the Government cut the number of police in that area by 10 officers. It is difficult to comprehend how we can assist victims of crime or stop there being further victims of crime when we see actual cuts to the number of police available to address call-outs to ensure that those things do not happen or to address them when they do. That is another area where we have seen the Government fail to protect victims. It has avoided doing anything about the increasing number of victims and it has not represented them by making sure that whatever policies whatever measures whatever actions it takes are supportive of victims. 
Labour members support this bill. We support it because we introduced the Act in 2005 and we know that it is good legislation. It does all of those things that I said the National Government should be doing in other areas but has failed to do. The bill protects the rights of victims and it addresses the rights of victims so we are supportive of it. We are happy that the National Government is extending the Act. It is good to see the Government doing something right. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It seems a little odd that all the speakers in this Committee stage so far have come from the Opposition and that this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill essentially just extends a provision that the Labour Government brought into effect back in 2005. That seems odd because National campaigned so heavily at the last election campaign on being tough on crime on being the law and order party and on being the party that would put victims at the centre of justice and law and order policy. Of course its campaign was all about what a bad job Labour had done. Well if National were really serious if National actually had some ideas and if National were to follow through on its campaign promises then it would not be extending something that Labour had already brought in back in 2005. 
The party that has had some success in pushing through harsh and Draconian law and order legislation is of course the ACT Party which is also stunningly silent this evening. David Garrett was the architect of the “three strikes” legislation and I was lucky enough to have an interesting debate with Mr Garrett not so long ago. He came up to Palmerston North to extol the virtues of that legislation and we talked about all the ways in which that legislation has also failed to put victims’ rights at the centre. We will see victims going through much longer trials as the incentive comes into place to encourage those who have been charged with a crime to fight it to the bitter end by appealing against their sentence because it will be so harsh. We will see victims dragged through all of that. 
The “three strikes” legislation did nothing to support victims in the way that the forerunner of this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 went a small way towards doing. We talked about the fact that the “three strikes” legislation has absolutely no preventive character about it whatsoever. Mr Garrett even accepted that the Ministry of Justice figures were right in that we would see more people going into prison because that legislation simply would not be effective in actually preventing any crimes or in preventing any more people from becoming victims. It was “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” stuff which in a way I suppose this legislation is as well. That is why it was always only a temporary measure. Labour brought it in as a temporary measure only but National is so devoid of ideas and so shallow in its campaigning that it has nothing to follow it up with. The ACT Party the party that is supposedly tough on crime—it is even tougher on crime than National; they are trying to outdo each other as to who is tougher—has absolutely nothing to say about this bill whatsoever. 
Given that this bill is an extension of what the Labour Government introduced perhaps it is worth reflecting on what a good job Labour did in putting victims’ rights at the centre. Back in 2002—as long ago as that—the Sentencing Act was adjusted to introduce a presumption in favour of reparation and that resulted in reparation being used as a sentence far more frequently. In 2002 we also saw an increase in the use of restorative justice so that offenders would actually be more accountable to victims. That legislation really put victims at the centre of sentencing and of law and order policy. 
Labour introduced the Victims’ Rights Act back in 2002 as well. Moving forward to 2008 Annette King introduced the Victims Charter to develop and build awareness about the standard of service that victims of crime could expect. Of course Labour promised to put a significant amount of money—about $1.5 million or more than that I think—into Victim Support to boost that organisation’s ability to provide services to victims. That is the kind of policy the kind of legislation that puts victims’ rights at the centre. 
This bill is perfectly reasonable and that is why Labour will support it but the legislation it amends was only ever something temporary. It was a temporary measure with a view to doing more. Frankly the National Government midway through its term has had plenty of time to think up new initiatives to show that it had more to its campaigning more to its rhetoric than just a shallow knee-jerk reaching out to those who felt affected and abused by crime if they had been victims of it. This is a nothing bill. We will support it but really it does nothing for victims. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is interesting to hear the tirade that is coming from the other side of the Chamber as Opposition members seek to elevate themselves in terms of the issue of protecting victims’ rights just as when previously in Government they sought to elevate themselves by claiming to be harder and harder on crime. It is very interesting to note the number of things that they did not do along with the number of things that they have not supported when they have come up within the House to actually address things such as preventing crime preventing the causes of crime and looking after victims. 
For instance we remember the tirade that we heard about the introduction of the DNA legislation which provided for the taking of DNA samples from everybody who was arrested for an imprisonable offence. We remember the long speeches that we heard from for instance Moana Mackey who told us what terrible things one could do once one had secured the DNA from somebody who had been arrested for an offence. That legislation allows us to isolate the DNA profile of somebody who has been arrested for a minor offence so that at some stage in the future if further and more serious crimes are committed against victims that person can be identified early. That is probably the single most significant legislation that has been introduced to this House in 100 years to prevent victims from being violated in very serious ways. All that we received were brickbats from the Labour members in respect of that. 
The previous speaker Iain Lees-Galloway talked about this Government having done nothing for victims. I ask what about the Child and Family Protection Bill? The Opposition members will very quickly say they drew up the provisions that are now in that bill introduced them in the House and did a whole lot more than we are doing. But I ask when Labour’s bill was introduced to the House. It was 4 days before the Parliament adjourned for the 2008 election. It was introduced then because Labour had been too busy self-promoting in terms of the Electoral Finance Act to get on with the business of protecting the citizens of this country. Although in the whole course of this debate those members have banged on and on about victims they failed throughout the whole term of the previous Government—9 long years—to address the prisoners who are languishing within our cells and the victims of their crimes. The previous speaker talked about the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. That Act replaced the Victims’ Rights Bill which had been introduced by the former National Government prior to its leaving office in 1999. Labour waited 2 years before it did anything about replacing that bill. It is all very interesting to hear the Opposition members accusing us of doing stuff while we are in Government in respect of victims yet Labour wasted and squandered the opportunities that it had to do things while it was in Government. 
The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill maintains the integrity of those people who are in jail by making sure they receive the best treatment and punishing those who would keep them in a manner that does not give them the best treatment which they deserve as inmates being held at the bequest of the Crown. But having been sentenced for a crime it prevents them from accessing big amounts of monetary compensation that should rightfully find its way to the victims of their crimes. The Opposition members will vote for this bill; in fact almost everyone in the House will vote for it. We have not heard one single reason why the Labour Party supports this legislation other than that its members bang on that they might have thought of it first. Any sensible Government would have done so. We do not try to claim lots of points for promoting legislation that Labour put in. Labour agreed with this bill and it transitioned through the Justice and Electoral Committee very speedily because of the ability that we have on that committee to compromise and understand one other regardless of which side of the House we come from and because of the sterling work of that committee. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I will give the previous speaker Chester Borrows one reason why Labour is supporting the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill: this is transitional legislation and it relies on the National Government bringing legislation to this House soon or so those members say. We do not trust the National Government to bring in sensible legislation that will follow on from this. As has been said before this bill flows from an idea when Labour quite rightfully identified some problems with victims seeing themselves as being ill-treated when compensation was paid out. As a former Minister I agree that the Mangaroa situation referred to by the Hon Tariana Turia was a sad state of affairs. The process was a lengthy one and compensation was paid out to prisoners. People at that time said it was rather unfair that prisoners got compensation but they or their family member as a victim of crime were unable to get any assistance. 
In principle as the speakers before me have said Labour supports this but the devil is always in the detail. The fact that the bill and the Government state that we will be bringing back into Parliament later this year another victims’ claims amendment bill makes us wary. That is why we will support this bill but we have reservations. The question that the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy might be able to answer is this. Today we have a prisoner on the run. The Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Police are one and the same so maybe she can talk to herself and work out who is responsible for this prisoner escaping; but he is on the run. I suppose we can assume that he is under State responsibility and if he commits a crime does this bill kick in? Does this bill provide a process for anyone—victim or prisoner—who may be hurt in the pursuit or the recapture of that particular prisoner? 
Unfortunately we are seeing too much of this. I suggest that we will see a whole lot more problems with prisoners under National Government control under the care protection custody or security of the Minister who has double-bunked up and the down the country and who in my view is creating for herself a powder keg. We will see more problems for prisoners themselves we will see more victims—and many of them will be prisoners because they may have been assaulted by other prisoners. We know there is a huge gang influence in the prison system. 
The question I ask of the Minister in the chair is how this legislation will affect prisoners who might be dealt to or severely harmed in prison under the control of the Government. Does this mean they receive compensation; if so where should it go—to their family? Perhaps the Minister can take a call as there is plenty of time for the Minister who I am sure has some idea of whether this bill will address the issues of compensation that might be claimed by a prisoner who is severely beaten by another prisoner. 
Paul Quinn 
: Come on. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Quinn knows that that happens quite a lot. 
Paul Quinn 
: Do I? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes out at Rimutaka close to his home. He knows— 
Chris Hipkins 
: He doesn’t live anywhere near the Hutt. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Is he not near the Hutt? 
Chris Hipkins 
: He doesn’t live anywhere near the Hutt. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: No I suppose he never is out there; I guess that is right. Perhaps he lives in Rimutaka Prison. No I cannot say that. There are some legitimate questions that the Opposition has about this legislation. The previous speaker asked why Labour is unsure about this. I tell the member that it is because it is being passed on the basis and on the assurance that the next legislation coming through will address and assist victims. We have already heard from my colleagues that if someone is a victim of sexual assault then he or she is likely to continue to be a victim because no assistance will be provided by the National Government and its accident compensation system. Maybe the Minister can take a call and answer some of the questions I have for him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: While we are here working under urgency the Committee might be interested to know the rugby score is England 28 and New Zealand Maori 35. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill in the Committee stage. Of course Labour is supporting this bill. I was interested to hear the member Chester Borrows comment that he did not know why Labour was supporting this bill. I tell that member that it is because it is an extension of the legislation the Labour Government passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. I remember that I was at that time a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered the Labour legislation and National Party members were very critical of it. I am very pleased to see that they have seen the error of their ways and have decided to extend the legislation Labour put in place. 
Labour’s legislation attempted to address a very very difficult problem. I recall members of the National Party saying that we should have taken away the right to sue altogether. That view ignored the reality that we were dealing with a range of issues from the very ridiculous to the very serious; we felt that that was the best way to address them. I am pleased that Chester Borrows has confirmed that National has seen the error of its ways. 
I will also address comments that Chester Borrows aimed at me in regard to DNA legislation. Again it just confirms that National has absolutely no understanding of this issue at all—no understanding. Chester Borrows criticised me for raising very valid concerns about the funding of increased powers for DNA use by the police and the funding of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. The point I was making was that when Labour introduced extended powers for DNA use by the police and the criminal justice system we could be assured that Labour would properly fund the police and the Crown research institutes to carry out that work and avoid a miscarriage of justice in the use of this very powerful technology. Yet under this Government we have seen a broken promise on the funding of Crown research institutes—a broken promise. We have seen science funding slashed and we have seen scientists let go. The point I was making which appears to have evaded Mr Borrows was that if the Government will not fund DNA legislation properly it opens up the very real possibility that there will be an enormous miscarriage of justice. 
I remind Mr Borrows of the case that happened right here in New Zealand when a man in Christchurch was arrested for a homicide. He had given a DNA sample because he was the victim of an assault. Fortunately he had a very good alibi for the homicide which was that he was in Christchurch being assaulted at the time of the homicide in Wellington and therefore could not possibly have committed the crime. That case highlights why DNA legislation needs to be backed up by funding. If Mr Borrows does not understand that fact I am concerned about what it means for our police Crown research institutes and the citizens of New Zealand who could be wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. 
I also point out to Mr Borrows that it worried me that the Government seemed to think that DNA testing was foolproof. It is not. If the Government thinks DNA testing is foolproof that having DNA evidence means an automatic conviction and that not having a DNA sample means we will not it is a very dangerous situation. It concerns me that the member seems to be so scientifically illiterate that he would attack me for raising those very valid concerns in the Chamber as we extended powers of DNA legislation beyond that which already existed. All a DNA sample at a crime scene proves is that someone’s DNA was at a crime scene. It is then up to the rest of the evidence to prove that the person was there and that what the prosecution says happened actually did happen. It is up to all the other evidence. The flip side is that the fact that there is no DNA evidence at a crime scene does not mean that we cannot get a conviction. I know it has been frustrating for prosecutors around the world that because of what is called the  
CSI  
effect people seem to think that if there is no DNA evidence we cannot possibly get a conviction. 
This goes to show why as my colleagues have been saying this Government seems to have absolutely no understanding of those issues. 
Chester Borrows 
: Which ones? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: All of them I say to Mr Borrows—all of the issues that have been raised tonight. We are pleased that the Government is carrying on a piece of Labour legislation as it has in so many other areas despite saying that Labour’s time in office was the worst 9 years in the entire history of the universe. It seems to have carried on with most of Labour’s legislation and changed hardly anything. The fact is that the comments made by Mr Borrows which inspired me to come to the Chamber and respond show just how out of touch this Government is when it comes to victims of crime. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. The purpose of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill and the Act that it seeks to extend is clearly about compensating victims and indeed that is appropriate. Victims suffer loss of property they suffer physical damage and they suffer emotional and mental injuries and it is appropriate they should be compensated for that. The Greens have been very happy to support legislation that is effective in compensating victims for the wrongs done to them. 
That raises a question that I would like to pose to the Minister or to any of his Government colleagues who would like to comment. How many individual victims have received compensation in the 5 years that the Act has been in place? How much money have those people received? Give us some ballpark figures. Approximately how many victims have actually benefited and to what extent have they benefited? It is a fairly simple question but it would be interesting to hear the answer. 
There has been quite a lot of activity around the Department of Corrections this year. We certainly cannot accuse the Minister of Corrections of being idle. We have seen legislation that enables the use of court cells as holding cells for sentenced prisoners despite the fact that we know from the UK and elsewhere that that is quite a dangerous mechanism that inevitably reduces prisoners’ access to rehabilitation. It removes them from their families and at worst makes it difficult for them to be provided with basic adequate food and sanitation. We have seen an active move towards double-bunking in our prisons. Prisons that were designed for a certain number of inmates now carry significantly more than that number and that inevitably will raise tensions in prisons. It will make them potboilers and will increase the likelihood of violence and more victimisation both within and outside those prison walls. We have seen the “three strikes” legislation which takes away the opportunity for judges to make considered judgments on individual cases. It effectively takes the mandate away from judges and puts it on to Parliament. Again that is an imposition on people’s rights to be heard fairly and properly in a court and to be sentenced by that court. We have seen the way opened for private management of prisons and once again we know from international experience that that will degrade conditions within prisons. Inevitably the profit extracted from them will mean there are fewer services available to prisoners and there are fewer staff. Prisons will become more dangerous more violent and less humane places. 
A week or so ago the Law and Order Committee was treated to a show-and-tell from the Minister and her chief executive officer. We saw a demonstration of the equipment being given to guards to protect them such as helmets stab vests heavy boots batons and pepper sprays. The Minister’s solution to more violence in prisons is equipment to defend or rather to protect the officers who have the unenviable job of going in after violence has broken out to try to clean up the mess to try to resolve an incident that has already occurred. 
All of those measures are reflective of a very busy and active Minister who has a very busy portfolio. But where is the legislation that would return some justice to the victims of crime? Amongst these bills and these new policy moves it is very difficult to see anything that will contribute to the well-being of victims. We are all committed I am sure we agree to compensation being given for harm done. But where is the proactive policy where is the drive to find solutions to crime to find solutions to victimhood to recompense victims to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and therefore to reduce the creation of more victims? We are simply not seeing it from this Government. What we are seeing is activity legislation and policies that are symptomatic of a view that prisoners should lose their rights that they should be locked up for longer and that they should suffer tougher sentences. That is despite the evidence and the common-sense assessment that those strategies will simply lead to more violent societies and less safe societies and will leave the victims of crime out on a very long limb with very little support and very little likelihood of recompense. Kia ora koutou. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I have one question for you Mr Chairperson Roy. The New Zealand Maori rugby game against England: where was that played? In Napier I think; the lucky city is in Hawke’s Bay. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is a very interesting bill. Chester Borrows talked about DNA. I think that every now and then the Government has to take a DNA sample to check whether Chester is still alive. Well he may be at the moment but I can tell members that the word on the street in Whanganui is that Hamish McDouall is ahead in a poll that was taken recently. He is storming ahead in Whanganui. Here is a tip: if members have a spare $10 they should put $5 on the All Whites and $5 on Hamish McDouall. Hamish is safe odds in Whanganui. It used to be our seat and it will be our seat once again so I say “Go Hamish!”. 
This bill is about the victims of crime. Of course it contains provisions that were introduced in 2005 by a hard-working Labour Minister. It is hard to know which one it was because they were all very hard-working. As we all know after 9 years Labour had got through one hell of a lot of legislation. It changed society for the better without a question of a doubt for victims as well for other people. Chester Borrows stood up and said the Labour Opposition has not given one reason why we support this bill. Well I will give National one reason why we support this bill: because we support victims’ rights as well. Who would not? Of course we support victims’ rights. New Zealanders support victims’ rights because New Zealanders support justice against inequity. 
But I will give members a story about how this Government is eroding the rights of victims. There is a house in Napier called Serenity House. It is on the hill. Anyone knows Napier at all will know that the hill is a beautifully treed place. People would not know that this house was beside them if they lived beside it. It is a house where five women stay for a period of on average about 18 months. They are women who suffer from a severe lack of self-esteem and confidence. Eighty percent of those women are victims of sexual abuse. But that house is scared that its funding is to be cut. I ask members as I asked the Serenity House manager where those women would be if they were not in Serenity House. There are three places that they would be: firstly in the psychiatric ward of the mental health unit of Hawke’s Bay Hospital; secondly perhaps living on the streets and occasionally working on the streets; and thirdly dead from suicide. That is the stark reality when we take away the rights of victims and when we cut accident compensation funding. When I mentioned to the manager that funding for the counselling of the victims of sexual abuse was being removed from the accident compensation scheme she said she knew that but she was horrified. She could not believe that any Government could be so heartless as to do that. I know that the women on the Government side of the Chamber must agree with me. How could they not? 
Serenity House has been going for a while now and once the five women pass through their course—these are mothers and there is a registered nurse in there; a lot of them are educated women—they go out and become productive members of our community. That house does a fantastic job for those women and a fantastic job for our community but there is a possibility that its funding will be cut. I challenge the members over there and I challenge Nick Smith to organise a meeting with women’s groups—with the Women’s Refuge; with the women from Serenity House and from DOVE for example—to front up to these women and to tell them why he is cutting the funding for counselling. Why is Nick Smith doing that? Then in the same breath the Government says it stands up for victims’ rights. That is an oxymoron. I do not understand it the women who are affected do not understand it and New Zealanders do not understand it. 
Chester Borrows stood up and asked what Labour had done with regard to crime. Well I will tell him what we did: we reduced crime. That is what New Zealanders wanted to be done. We reduced crime. As Chester himself will know we sent the police out into the community and we set up community police stations. When I talk to the police officers of Napier they say they think that was a fantastic initiative because it allowed the police to communicate and integrate with their local communities and boy that has made a huge difference. That “us and them” mentality between the police and the community has all but disappeared in Napier. The police are now part of this community; they are accepted. The community goes to them if it has any problems and the police are proactive about going out to the community. It is a wonderful initiative and Labour set it up. 
We talk about being hard on crime—like David Garrett and his “three strikes” policy. That harks back to the 19th century when in England paedophiles were put in the same prison cells as the young children who had stolen loaves of bread. Is that what Mr Garrett wants this country to head back to? Mr Garrett is the voice in Parliament of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Is that not an unusual name—the Sensible Sentencing Trust? We all want there to be sensible sentencing. Garth McVicar is from the Bay as well; sometimes we throw up interesting characters in the Bay. He is passionate but he gets it wrong and that is a shame. Unfortunately for him he ends up with people like David Garrett in the House trumpeting the “three strikes” legislation which evidence has proven does not work. In fact Mr Garrett himself stood up in this Chamber and said he acknowledged that it would not work but he thought we should still go ahead with it. National with its blind faith in the ACT Party said it would support that measure because it had said in its supply and confidence agreement that it would do so. Where is the ideology? Where is the evidence? That legislation will not help ordinary New Zealanders. It will not help the victims of crime; in fact more than likely it will create more victims. It is a travesty and it is not what sensible sentencing is all about. It is not about that philosophy; it is about how we deal with those people. But no we do not lock them up in cells now. 
I will tell members what England used to do. Before it sent prisoners away to the colonies it stuck them in decommissioned warships out on the Thames. Then they were sent across to Australia. Well we are not putting prisoners in decommissioned warships these days; we are putting them in decommissioned containers. That is not a far cry is it from what England used to do in the old days. I think that if Mr Garrett had his way he would actually stick prisoners in decommissioned warships. How does that help the victims of crime? It does not help them. 
I plead with the Government to think about whom it is harming when it takes away accident compensation funding for the victims of sexual abuse. I would love to take any member from the Government side of the Chamber to Serenity House to see the good work that that organisation and its staff do and to see the difference that they are making in our communities with damaged women 80 percent of whom are there because they are the victims of sexual abuse. I am a huge supporter of the victims of crime. I think anyone who doubts whether any MP on this side of the Chamber supports the victims of crime needs to have his or head read and does not understand what the Labour Party is about. We support this bill but we have serious reservations about the words that are coming from the Government benches. Thank you. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call as we debate the Committee stage of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill which deals of course with the victims of crime and tries to ensure that they get some justice from the processes of the courts. 
The bill picks up on some good Labour legislation that was brought about by the quite notable Taunoa case where compensation was awarded to a murderer and others. The Government of the time—with Mark Burton as a Minister and Phil Goff as the Minister of Justice—was determined to bring in legislation that ensured that although we met our international obligations and did not deny those in prison the right to the justice system where compensation was provided to offenders inside the prison system it would not mean that those who had been the victims of violence by those offenders would be excluded from benefiting from that compensation. This bill is about extending the date for a couple of years while the Government looks at a replacement model—and that is fair enough. But I would like to comment—and my colleague Stuart Nash touched on this issue—on the difference between the Government’s approach in respect of this legislation and the treatment it has given to victims of an equally serious heinous part of a judicial system and that is sexual abuse. 
I was interested to note that the number of people seeking counselling support for the trauma of sexual abuse was 200 or even 300 a month last year. Then suddenly with the changes that were introduced in February by the Minister for ACC Nick Smith we saw six people being awarded compensation in the form of sexual abuse counselling. I think about an organisation in my electorate the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust. It is headed by Ken Clearwater who does an exemplary job and who was a victim of sexual abuse in the past. The sorts of people who come through his office have often been in court have been damaged at an early age and are now perpetrating offences against others as they lash out to try to find some kind of redress for the abuse they suffered sometimes many decades before. 
The idea that we can be a just and humane society but not provide those people with the only support that we can provide—that is counselling and assistance—that we can cut the number of people being granted counselling support back from 200 or 300 a month to just a handful is an indication of this Government’s lack of commitment despite it talking the talk about supporting victims and about how it really is providing support. We can recall Nick Smith maintaining the pretence that the new guidelines had been conceived under the previous Labour Government by Massey University but Massey University blew the whistle on that and said that no the new guidelines were not of its initiation; they had been devised by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). We had months and months of Nick Smith trying to say that the new pathway that had been developed was perfectly fine and was based on evidence but only last week an ACC manager finally admitted to Mary Wilson on  
Checkpoint 
 that the changes might have been introduced far too fast for sexual abuse victims. The numbers very much make that very very clear. 
I think also of the double-bunking that has been introduced under this Government. We know that crime and punishment— 
Hon Member 
: Wonderful! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Oh it will be! We need only think about the poor lad in the back of the van in Auckland and what happened to him. When we start putting violent criminals with others it is a recipe for disaster and the price will be paid very very quickly. 
We know that crime and punishment is about the scales of justice and they have to be balanced and they have to be balanced on an ongoing basis. When we see what is happening with sexual abuse victims we see that the balance is certainly not there and if the Government is going to do more than pay lip-service to the victims of crime it needs to acknowledge that it has made a ghastly mistake in respect of savagely cutting back counselling services for victims of sexual abuse both male and female—both male and female. The Government needs to acknowledge that the least we can do as a decent just and humane society is to continue to provide support to people who have been subjected to trauma. 
We are beginning to celebrate some of the people who have gone through that kind of abuse. I heard Louise Nicholas on the radio this morning. She is an outstanding New Zealand woman who stood her ground and brought to the attention of the public some of the abuses that can happen when people are not called to account. I think that most people regard her very very highly. Aaron Gilmore—the dancer not the politician—was recently in the media relating his story. Abuse happens to males and females and both sexes need access to counselling. We have heard this Government talking the talk about victims’ rights but when it comes to delivering services to them we have seen the numbers receiving help fall from hundreds to a handful. That is an illustration of the fact that this Government will talk the talk but not walk the walk in respect of delivering for those who are the victims of violence in New Zealand. 
Labour’s record on this issue goes right across the board. We introduced the Sentencing Act in 2002 with its presumption in favour of reparation. We introduced the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002 which extended a number of rights to victims. We introduced the legislation that is being amended by the Government now—the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act—in 2005 and of course in 2008 Annette King announced that the Victims Charter would be developed to build awareness of the standard of service that victims can expect from Government agencies. Those victims include those who have been the subject of sexual abuse and I would like to see the Government reinstate the counselling that was available to those poor people who have been the subject of sexual abuse trauma and who deserve every bit of support that can be mustered by the State. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is straightforward. It prevents significant parts of the existing Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 from expiring on 1 July 2010. The bill maintains the status quo for 2 years giving the Government the opportunity to pass new legislation that will direct compensation payable to prisoners to the victims’ services appropriation after any victims have claimed against it. This bill ensures that compensation payable to prisoners for claims made before 1 July 2012 continues to be subject to the existing restrictions on awards of compensation. Those restrictions require prisoners to make use of the many existing complaint mechanisms that are available to them before they seek compensation through the courts. 
If a claim is made through the courts compensation can be ordered only where it is absolutely necessary to redress the harm done. If compensation is ordered victims of the prisoner may first seek redress for the harm they have suffered. The prisoner can access the compensation only once the victims’ claims process is fully complete. In effect this bill creates a transitional period whereby prisoners with outstanding grievances have an incentive to seek resolution before the second set of planned changes comes into force. If their claims are made before 1 July 2012 they will be subject to the existing regime. However prisoners who make a claim after that date will not receive the benefit of compensation if it is awarded. Their victims will still be able to claim against it and anything remaining will benefit victims generally through the victims’ services appropriation. Let me restate that prisoner mistreatment should not be tolerated. However it is time to resolve historical grievances and ensure that where compensation is necessary victims have an opportunity to seek redress for the hurt they have suffered. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 This has been an interesting debate. Mr Guy—the second or third Minister I think who has dealt with this piece of legislation tonight—described the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill as straightforward. He is right; it is a straightforward piece of legislation which in theory given that everybody in this House apart from the Greens and the Maori Party supports it should have flown through the House with a high degree of ease. The bill may be straightforward but the issue of assistance and support for victims is not. 
I say again that the Labour Party is supporting the passage of the bill for a very simple reason: we wrote the Act it amends. A member opposite said we helped it go through the House. No no we wrote it and we passed it when we were in Government. The Government today is extending its provisions by 2 years and we have no problem with that. This bill extends the provisions we put in the Act which we wrote and passed. 
The bill is straightforward but the issue is not. Throughout this debate it has been very instructive to listen to the words that have not been spoken to listen to the silence exhibited by especially the ACT Party. We have raised an issue as an acid test of one’s commitment to victims. I agree with my colleagues who say they suspect that no one in this Parliament does not have a genuine belief that victims should be supported despite all the political gasbagging that we have heard from some people on the other side of the House. The ACT Party believes that it has a monopoly on supporting victims that it comes from a higher plane and that everybody else’s commitment to victim support is lower than its commitment. I say to those members that their silence on this issue tonight has been absolutely deafening. On the one hand Mr Garrett and those members say that they support victims; on the other hand on the issue raised tonight that this Government which ACT props up has pulled the rug out from under victims of sexual crime and sexual abuse by cutting their funding aided and abetted by the ACT Party which purports to support victims we have not heard one word tonight about that policy stance. 
It is interesting that every Minister who has been in the chair or who has introduced a stage of this bill has not made one contribution that addresses that issue. The only member who had the guts to raise it and at least address it was Chester Borrows and I think he made a reasonably robust contribution. Chester Borrows said—and it was tantamount to admitting that his Government had cut funding—the Government will make addressing the issue a priority. He said that and I respect him for it. But not one other member opposite did so. 
Government members prattled on and listed all sorts of legislation that they had passed and that is an undeniable fact in this House. The quality of much of that legislation is in question as is its effectiveness or lack of it to support victims but it is an undeniable fact that this Government has fired through various Acts that it claims will assist victims—and the jury is out on that. But that does not negate the issue that has been raised time and time again tonight about the lost souls and there are a number of them who have committed suicide because they could not get the support and the funding that they needed and that they used to get under the last Government and that is an undeniable fact— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Prove it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member should look at the last Budget and at the general policy statement on the bill. That is the first time the member Tariana Turia has squeaked any words in this House about that issue. All she has done tonight is grin about it and laugh about it. I say again to the member that when a constituent comes to her office who is a victim of sexual abuse and cannot get funding because Nick Smith and the National Government have cut that funding I wonder what she will say to that woman man or young person. Will she grin and say as she did tonight “Prove it.”? Thanks to her vote she could say that she is part of the problem because she voted for that cut she aided and abetted it and she supports it today. The proof of that is that not once in this debate did she get up and express even mild disapproval on behalf of those lost souls the men and women who every day and every night wait for some assistance. 
Mr Borrows said that the Government will make it a priority. Good on him. At least he is prepared to say that. But sadly the problem with Mr Borrows is that he ain’t in a position to deliver. I am sure that he is knocking on the doors of his Ministers and saying that they have to do it they have to make it a priority an agency has to fund those people and something has to be done. He is a constituent member; he has probably had these folks in his office. But not one other Government member has addressed the issue. Government members talk about everything else. They talk about the fact that they have passed legislation for victims’ rights and other things. That is all well and good but not one member from any party opposite will address this issue apart from “Miss Laugh A Lot” down there who has grinned and laughed about the issue throughout the debate. Not one of them will say that they will make it a priority that they will make it happen tonight tomorrow or on Monday at Cabinet. 
My colleague Brendon Burns mentioned Ken Clearwater a constituent of mine who is doing the Lord’s work with male survivors of sexual abuse. Ken Clearwater and his clients wait for help every day. They waited for help in the Budget before last and they waited for help in the last Budget. Every man woman and young person who is the victim of a sexual crime has waited for the help they used to get under the last Government. And I say to Ms Turia that I do not have to prove it. The proof is every person who got counselling psychological assistance and their medical needs met by accident compensation over the 9 years of the Labour Government. The proof is the men and women who survived the trauma of sexual abuse and sexual crime because over the 9 years of the Labour Government they got accident compensation funding and they got assistance. I say to Ms Turia that that is the proof—that they are alive today. That is the proof that the system is broken. 
An injustice has been perpetrated and it has been aided and abetted by every last one of the members opposite who would not stand up to take a call—there is a word for that and I would love to use it—to even talk about the constituents who have walked into their offices. They will talk about everything else. They will talk about legislation the Bail Act or anything else. I ask them what they will say to the constituents in their electorates who walk into their offices. Many will not walk in. Because of the shameful acts that were done to them they will hide in places they will hide from their families and they will not ask for help. They hope and pray that the Government will stand by them. Because of the nature of the crimes perpetrated against them they feel ostracised and they rely on the Government to protect the most vulnerable. 
I would have thought there was not a lot of politics in this issue. I would have thought there was a lot positive politics to be gained for a Government and a Minister that did as Mr Borrows did and said that that assistance should be made a priority. But not one Minister—not the Minister for ACC not the Minister of Health and not Nathan Guy—did that nor any member of the two parties that are led by the nose like lambs to the slaughter including the “tough on crime” party. Not even the Sensible Sentencing Trust has ever decried the fact that the National Government has cut the funding for the victims of sexual crime. I wonder why it would not make a comment. Why would it not express anger? I challenge members opposite to use Mr Borrows as an example and at the conclusion of this debate get off their chuffs go to their various Ministers and demand funding for those victims. I do not care whether it comes from the Accident Compensation Corporation; I do not care where it comes from. But they are the victims. That is the acid test not a couple of clauses to extend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. The acid test is whether that crew over there will help the most vulnerable who have nightmares every day and night because of what was done to them. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is good to come to the third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill and to see it progress. I was pleased to hear the member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Clayton Cosgrove say that there is not a lot of politics in the bill; I thought he actually beat quite a bit of politics out of it. 
I am pleased that the bill will progress through the House tonight and that people will be in a better situation as a result of it. I am disappointed that it is only interim legislation until another bill comes in to fix the problem on a permanent basis. I am very sorry that although the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 could have been fixed before 2008 it was not. It is one of this Government’s priorities to deal with it. This bill is one of a number of very worthy bills that address the range of issues affecting victims offenders and their behaviours in our communities. 
I look forward to the bill being passed and I commend it to the House. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill and to say why Labour will be voting for it. As has been expressed previously the bill comprises a technical amendment to extend restrictions on the awarding of compensation brought in by the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for 2 years from 1 July this year until 30 June 2012. The Government has indicated that this is an interim measure. It is interesting that the Government member Chester Borrows said that he is disappointed that that is the case. We understand that a more comprehensive bill may be introduced later this year. 
Contributions on this side of the House have raised a flag and asked the Government to think about the victims of sexual abuse and to reinstate funding to the Accident Compensation Corporation to support those victims through counselling and support services. Members of the Labour team have given numerous local examples expressing just how important those services are to women and men throughout the country. It is not good enough for members on that side of the House to purport to listen to the rights and interests of victims when those who have suffered sexual abuse and are vulnerable are suffering both physical and mental abuse and continue to do so. They are not able to receive accident compensation funding to break through some very dark places. A number of us have been told at a personal level some stories that we would not repeat in this House. Suffice it to say they are the types of stories that would urge this House to think again and certainly urge members of the Government to get their Ministers to act now address this issue of funding and ensure that women can get the types of support and counselling services that they need—women and men. Men are victims too I say to the Minister of Justice and they need help. 
I have also listened to other views expressed in the House. I agree that the Government must not create further victims as a result of its policy flaws and the flaws in some of its thinking—policies like double-bunking which increases the risk to both prisoners and security guards. I say to members to go and visit a prison and look at just how small those rooms are with single beds let alone double beds. None of the prisons were designed to be double-bunked; they are such small closed and confined spaces. Policies like container cells are creating conditions that I believe are inhumane no matter how we dress it up. If one puts lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. These are inhumane conditions and I do not think it is the way to go. 
The Government has policies like profit-driven incentives through private management of prisons where the bottom line is more important than rehabilitation initiatives and programmes aimed at reducing long-term recidivism—yes it takes investment. The Government needs to rethink its “three strikes and you’re out” policy which is just a dumb policy. Those policies are all a range of measures that the Government has introduced creating victims in some sense but also not creating a very good approach to a way forward that supports restorative justice supports rehabilitation reduces recidivism and promotes greater investment in the system. 
I raise these issues to draw attention to the numerous matters resulting from the Government’s broader policy ambitions. At the end of the year the House will be waiting to see how the Government intends to stitch together a comprehensive approach to addressing victims’ rights—we cannot wait. However this country can ill afford to take a “lock ’em up and throw away the key” approach. Restorative models of justice are necessary; long-term rehabilitation to reduce recidivism is absolutely critical. Investing at the front end of youth development initiatives will go some way to making a long-term difference to the lives of many New Zealanders and will make for a better New Zealand. But will the Government listen? That is the question. 
This bill contains one minor technical amendment; the bigger debate is yet to come. We can already see the writing on the wall in terms of the policy ambitions and the devastation that will result from them. The country deserves more from this Government and it should do more. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I must begin by acknowledging the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage the Associate Minister of Justice for his very prompt and complete answer to the question I posed as to the number of victims who had been compensated under the terms of the Prisoners’ and Victim’s Claims Act 2005 over the last 5 years and the amount of that compensation. I am now informed that a total of $25000 has been awarded to the victims as reparations and a total of four victims have been awarded a total $38000 under the provisions of that Act. So we know that in 5 years some $65000 in total has found its way into the hands of victims who otherwise would have received nothing. That is an extraordinarily small amount of money. My expectations were not high; I have not been disappointed in those expectations. I would have thought it not beyond the wit of this House to come up with a mechanism that would deliver a great deal more real practical compensation to victims than a very paltry $65000 over 5 years. It seems hardly worth the time of this House to extend the life of this Act in order to perpetuate legislation that has clearly failed in its intention to return even a small amount of compensation to victims. 
Clearly the Greens and the Maori Party are alone tonight in this House in terms of our opposition to the extension of this Act through the Prisoners’ and Victim’s Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. But we know that others outside this House support the position we are taking. We know this in part through the submissions that were made to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will quote from a couple of those submissions firstly from Caritas the agency for justice peace and development that is the social services arm of the Catholic Church in New Zealand. It is quite clear: “Caritas opposes the bill. We originally opposed the 2005 Act on which it is based because victims of crime will only benefit and be compensated if the offender is mistreated by the State and awarded compensation as a result of this mistreatment.” A point that has been made tonight is that it is a very perverse mechanism to award compensation to a victim only if the human rights of another person an inmate have been transgressed. That is a very strange daisy chain and a very peculiar mechanism for delivering compensation to people. 
The Caritas submission goes on to say: “We still believe that under this legislation … few prisoners will pursue complaints of abuse and violence and even fewer victims are likely to receive compensation payouts.” Clearly that expectation is borne out by the history of the last 5 years—a very paltry $65000 of benefit. Caritas further points out that “There is no incentive for prisoners to be compliant with prison authorities. A situation in prisons is created where there is nothing left to lose … The Act creates an environment where prisons are potentially more dangerous and the extension of those provisions in this Bill repeats that risk.” Caritas is an organisation that is not self-interested; it has no axe to grind. It is an organisation concerned only with peace and justice in this country. It is making very clear and well-informed statements that this legislation is not worthy of extension and that it sees no value in it. 
The Human Rights Commission in its submission supported the continuation of the Act but only rather tentatively and on the grounds of an assumption that there would be a full review of this legislation and that by 2012 we will have legislation in place that is more compatible—to use the commission’s language—with article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the body of its submission it makes the point that in its opinion the process of awarding compensation in this Act does not amount to an effective remedy in terms of article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Commission went on to say that proposals to deal with the capacity crisis in our prisons—such mechanisms as double-bunking two to a cell—are short-term remedies and are likely to increase the number of human rights issues that will need to be dealt with and the likelihood of transgressions of human rights. It goes on to say: “the State faces fewer adverse consequences when it fails to meet its obligation to prisoners.” under this legislation. 
The Law Society is an organisation that cannot be trifled with. It is a highly credible organisation with a long history of analysis and commentary on legislation and law. It noted that in 2005 it opposed the Act being enacted. It quoted the United Nations Committee Against Torture as having expressed concern that the 2005 Act limited the award and the payment of compensation to prisoners. The society agrees with the Minister of Justice quoting him as saying that “The best way of preventing future claims arising from breaches of prisoners’ human rights is to ensure that incidents leading to such claims are kept to an absolute minimum.” 
Would it not be more sensible to put our energy and our efforts into minimising and reducing the offences against inmates while they were in prison—to get that unlovely proposition out of the way? Would it not make a great deal more sense to put effort into finding and applying the known mechanisms for reducing crime and recidivism therefore reducing the number of victims? It is about finding real mechanisms and restorative justice processes that will enable victims to feel that they have experienced some closure and received some compensation be it of a financial sort or simply in being able to let go of the emotional mental and occasionally physical trauma that results from crime. 
We know that programmes that work are in place. The Sycamore Tree programme works with high-end offenders and has achieved remarkable outcomes in turning round lives and giving victims an opportunity to see that their concerns have been heard and that their issues have at least been confronted by the perpetuator of the crime against them. I mentioned earlier the faith unit that manages to deal with some 60 people a year but probably could offer useful service and better outcomes for some 2000 prisoners—that is the estimate of the Prison Fellowship. Some 2000 prisoners would get benefit would improve their behaviours and would reduce the likelihood of recidivism if they were able to get access to programmes of that nature. 
We know the solutions that work and this bill is not one of them. The Act that it seeks to extend is not part of the solution; it is part of the problem. For that reason we will vote against this legislation. Kia ora. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have respect for the previous speaker David Clendon and I think he has raised some valid points. But I think he has at base proceeded from a misguided sense of what this bill is doing. He is essentially saying to this House that the human rights of the prisoner will be transgressed by this bill. Well I say to him and to other members of the House that that is not actually what this bill does at all. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Didn’t the Nats vote against this in 2005? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I will give Carmel Sepuloni a little bit of advice on this bill. I agree that it was originally her party’s bill and I am supporting it so there is not really any need for heckling. But I say to David Clendon that he comes from a misguided position. In fact this bill does not take away any prisoners’ rights. Let us say that a prisoner is wronged in a serious way by a prison guard and the prisoner receives compensation. I agree that that prisoner should receive the compensation. But the issue then is what happens with that money. Rightfully and morally the guard owes the victim of the prisoner’s crime some money. Perhaps the victim has been seriously and substantially put out of pocket because of the wrongs the prisoner has done. Well I say that morally that person deserves some of that money. That is what this bill does. His rights have been vindicated because the State has had to pay out for argument’s sake $25000 to him. It could be a “her” but it is more likely be a “him” going on the numbers of men and women in our prisons. But then from that his victim of crime is also vindicated. 
The idea that the State pays out for its wrongs is not without controversy. I happen to agree with that. But it was something that the courts did without reference to Parliament and I think it was through Baigent’s case in the early 1990s. It had another name— 
Simpson v Attorney-General 
. That case was not without controversy. I personally agree with it. But it is controversial to argue that somehow dishing out compensation is a basic fundamental right. It is not necessarily the absolute truth. But I come back to the point. This is a good bill and it does the right thing. I think David Clendon although working from good motives is misguided when he says that the human rights of prisoners are transgressed with this bill. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I want my colleagues to listen very carefully to my views on this bill because the words I am about to express are not necessarily the same ones that my colleagues have expressed. I am told that this bill is an appalling fraud that is being committed on the people of New Zealand. I am told that the fraud being perpetrated on the House and on the public will only re-traumatise victims. Those are not my words or my beliefs. 
Hon Member 
: Whose words are they? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: They are the words of the Hon Tony Ryall. In 2004 the Hon Tony Ryall in the most extraordinary pantomime way possible told the House that this kind of legislation was an appalling fraud that was being committed on the public of New Zealand. Mr Ryall in response to an interjection from Labour members about what he would do said: “I will stop this kind of legislation when I get into Government.” That is what Tony Ryall said. That is the kind of consistency in the justice portfolio that we see from Tony Ryall. In the same way in the health portfolio at question time today we heard that in Opposition it is very important to close the wage gap with Australia for doctors and in Government it is an impossible thing to do. 
I will give the Hon Tony Ryall one piece of credit which is more credit than his own colleagues give him. He said that he only stopped these kinds of payments under a Government led by Don Brash—he regaled the country in December 2004. But of course do not forget that Tony Ryall was the man who used to scarper along the parliamentary corridors with a big folder under his arm saying “Te Puke bypass”. That was when he was organising the coup for Jenny Shipley to roll Jim Bolger. So he was on Jenny Shipley’s side. When it came to this legislation before Parliament he was on Don Brash’s side. He thought he should be the Prime Minister of New Zealand in respect of this bill. But now that it is back before Parliament all of a sudden he is in favour of it. But the most amazing thing is that not only did he say those things in Opposition but he sat in the chair tonight as Minister in charge of the bill pushing it through Parliament; that is what he did. 
I want to say one thing. When Dr Wayne Mapp who is a Minister I know that members opposite are so proud of gets up in the House to answer questions we can feel the pride radiating from Government members. It is like a rerun of the great BBC drama when the Rt Hon Jim Hacker Minister of Administrative Affairs gives his answers. Wayne Mapp said that this bill is a bizarre lottery. Wayne Mapp probably never having won many prizes in life would know. Georgina te Heuheu is an extraordinary answerer of questions with regard to legislation on appropriations. No one is better in the House. In fact to be fair the only place where the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs is better at answering questions is on  
Morning Report 
. She is pretty good there; she answers good questions on that programme. But in the House she tells it like she sees it. She said this was a fraud perpetrated not only on the House but on the public. 
In 2005 Simon Power got up in the House as the Opposition shadow spokesperson on justice. By the time Simon Power spoke there had been yet another leadership change in the National Party. Don Brash had gone and John Key had arrived. Simon Power was reinvented in the justice portfolio. He said that the problem with this bill is that it re-traumatises victims and National will have no part of that as he led the National members into the Noes lobby. Do members know what Tony Ryall said? He said: “I will not let a figment of the United Nations decide what happens in New Zealand.” Well the United Nations was going to decide whether we passed the original legislation which through this bill we are now turning into a revalidation. We were not going to kowtow to the United Nations convention on torture. But of course when it came to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples not only were we going to sign up to it but we should do it in secret. We had the stealth jet flying from Mangere Airport and landing at John F Kennedy International Airport in New York and the Minister of Maori Affairs scurrying across the tarmac and signing up to this declaration because by that stage Tony Ryall believed that declarations like this were aspirational. But of course when it came to this bill he was not going to have a figment of United Nations law taking any part in what we should say about this. He said legislation like this was window-dressing. 
I am trying to explain why members before they commit to the third reading should decide whether they vote for it. Members opposite I know are such staunch researchers of their own party’s history. The great thing about the 2005 and the 2008 intakes is that they have no idea what National has done before which is why they clap and cheer like performing seals whenever their leaders speak; it is because they are hearing everything for the first time. 
One man with a future in the National Party—and I say this to make sure he does not have one—is Simon Bridges whom I endorse. He spoke with such pride on the Government’s bill but he would have no idea that his neighbouring MP Tony Ryall had said those things in 2004 and 2005. Get this. Do members know what Tony Ryall of all members said? He said of this legislation: “This is nothing more than a public relations exercise.” yet here we are today passing this law. At least our bill was several clauses and several parts long. This bill has only two parts and seven discrete clauses—seven deadly sins one might say. 
National finished up by saying that this bill should be blocked stopped and wiped which is exactly what the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Date) Amendment Bill does does it not? Oh no sorry. What it does is to give the Act new life. It resuscitates and breathes new life into it. I tell you what I would not want to take any advice from him. 
I will finish by saying that we should quote somebody who is a man of great substance and a person who is always over the detail. I can quote no other such person than the Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee. He said: “Why would you vote for a bill that just lines up New Zealand with other countries? This bill is out of touch and should not be supported.” He also said that this bill was a load of rubbish. Well we have heard a lot of rubbish from members on the other side of the House tonight as they have got up and tried to say why they are revalidating legislation that just a few years ago they said they were against. I do not mind that they do things like that. I understand that conservative politicians are always years and years behind where they need to be. No matter what the issue is they wait 10 or 20 years and then they say: “Oh yeah that is status quo now. I am conservative. Status quo is for me. I am all for it.” All that the Opposition asks tonight is if those members are going to flip-flop on a bill then they should at least have the good grace to get up and say that they might have been wrong. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I intend to take just a very short call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. All night we have been asking why the Government has been so quiet on this bill and why the ACT Party has been absolutely silent on it. Of course now we have figured out what that was all about. They were not prepared to put themselves in the position where they had to accept that actually this bill which extends legislation that the previous Labour Government brought in turned out to be extending legislation that the National Opposition had voted against at the time. 
It was interesting that the one member of the National Government who got up and spoke on this bill during the Committee stage was Chester Borrows. His contribution was quite good; it was quite a reasonable and measured contribution to the debate. Interestingly from what I have been able to find in the last few minutes—although I am not sure about it—Mr Borrows did not make a contribution to the debate when the legislation was first debated. But Tony Ryall spoke for him. Tony Ryall spoke on behalf of Mr Borrows and he stated: “… Chester Borrows will tell the people in Wanganui that under this legislation offenders will still get the money.” and that is why people like Mr Borrows and Mr Ryall were going to vote against it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What’s he saying now? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well this is the thing. Just a few years later Mr Borrows got up and did not tell the people of Whanganui that this is a terrible bill at all; he got up and told us why it is such a fantastic bill and why it represents such progress from the Government on law and order issues. Tony Ryall said that he would stop these payments. Of course he did say as my colleague Darren Hughes pointed out that he would stop them under a Don Brash Government so he has managed to keep that promise. But he also said that the Labour Government was prepared to mislead the public about the effects of this legislation. Well I ask what is more misleading to the public than standing up and abusing legislation and telling the country that it will do nothing for victims’ rights that it will simply be in favour of offenders and that it is misleading legislation. And what do we get from a National Government just a few years later? National members have finally figured out what good legislation it is and why they should vote in favour of it. 
The ACT Party was doing exactly the same thing. It was pointing out all the areas in which it thought this bill was so deficient but very quietly—silently in fact—it has supported the Government. It has bowed down done as it was told and done what the National Government has told it to do and it has allowed this bill to go through. It is amending legislation that ACT members such as Stephen Franks got up and spoke so vehemently against when it was first mooted. 
As we have said throughout the night this bill is a nothing bill. It is quite innocuous and it really does nothing harmful so Labour is happy to support it. But we have been asking all night why the Government is so quiet. Why is the Government so quiet? It is because it was not prepared to tell the New Zealand public just how much it misled them and how much of a U-turn this is. That is why this Government will never be the Government that puts victims’ rights at the centre of its policy. It has no ideas on victims’ rights. All it can do is regurgitate the ideas of the previous Labour Government that National thought were so bad when it was in Opposition. We are happy to see this bill go through but this Government has been found out tonight. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time.