Dalziel Lianne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1894. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too rise to make a contribution to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. My contribution to this debate is probably not on the detail of the legislation but rather to comment on the regulatory impact statement and how that might impact on our consideration of this at the select committee. The regulatory impact statement was prepared at relatively short notice according to its cover note. The cover note is dated 28 March 2012 which is actually not very long ago and I am a little bit concerned about how short a period of time was allowed for this to happen. The comment that is made in the agency disclosure statement states the following: “The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament on 13 October 2011 to give effect to the redirection policy but did not receive a first reading. There is now insufficient time to progress it through its Parliamentary stages before the sunset clauses take effect on 1 July 2012. Due to this the Ministry of Justice was asked to urgently consider alternative options to maintain the existing provisions of the PVC Act until the redirection policy can be given effect at a later date.”  
Of course the regulatory impact statement does within its content refer to defining the problem in terms of how the status quo impacts on the problem definition. I guess the paragraph that I have just read out highlights exactly the problem that the Government is faced with. This is legislation that had sunset provisions built into it which have now been breached twice. So there have been two amendments to those sunset provisions and one other. I think the debate that I would perhaps like us to have—in another context and probably across party lines—is about how we best achieve what I think we are trying to achieve on both sides of the House which is the balance between certainty and the need for review of regulatory regimes.  
 I think that when the sunset provisions were originally written into the legislation they may in fact have been too short and perhaps that is explained by my colleague’s contribution about the almost experimental nature of the regime that was being introduced. But 2 years is a relatively short period of time for something to be implemented reviewed and analysed and for a decision to be made about whether there should be a further extension of the principles that were established at the outset. I think that this is an important discussion that we should have at some stage because we will continue to face the situation where we are having to extend the expiry date of legislation or the implementation of sunset provisions in a position of extremis really where the deadline is looming and people have no real choice other than to agree to the extension.  
That being said I think that it is important that we deal with this legislation in a timely fashion. I did note within the agency disclosure statement that even though the exact numbers of existing and potential claims by prisoners for compensation were not stated in the regulatory impact statement—and I did notice that they were absent—the reason they are absent from the statement is that the information is defined as legally sensitive. I totally agree with that. I understand that but would like to receive an assurance from the Government that that information will be made available in secret to members of the committee because I think it would be useful for us to understand the context in which we are debating this. I note the Minister of Justice is nodding her head; I think it is a matter she would be prepared to take on board and consider. And the reason I raise this is due to the statement in the regulatory impact analysis about the issue around potential behaviour management regime claimants. I guess it had not occurred to me until I read the statement that there were still people who had not lodged their claims as a result of that particular issue which of course was the whole basis for the original legislation.  
I think it would help us get a good understanding of some of the technical detail that we do need to understand but I want to reiterate that I do understand why it is legally sensitive and I feel that the solution to that would be to provide for secret evidence to the select committee which would not then become part of the record in this House. I actually agree with the point that is made in the regulatory impact statement—that it is really important that those claims are resolved in the foreseeable future. They were the reason for the original legislation. And to find now that perhaps some of them still have not progressed and that perhaps people are waiting to see whether the regime will be less intrusive or less able to take away some of their outcomes and divert them to the needs of their victims would I think be a great shame indeed. And neither side of the House would want to see that as an outcome. So on that basis the Labour Opposition as clearly articulated by my colleague Charles Chauvel will be supporting the passage of this bill.