Borrows Chester: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10495] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove for his contribution and for a number of the comments that he has made. 
One of them was that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is a technical piece of legislation—and it is. It will receive support as I understand it from across the House and so it should because all of us would agree that the offender who finds himself in custody and then through some other circumstance finds himself with access to a significant amount of money should be forced to pay his victims out first; or at least his victims should have the opportunity to make a claim against that new-found wealth no matter how it was achieved. Unfortunately if the offender happens to win it in Lotto victims will have to go through protracted court proceedings to get their mitts on any money that he may have. But under this legislation victims have the ability to make a claim before the victims’ special claims tribunal to access money. 
The bill will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank the committee members who have served on that committee from time to time. This is the 17th piece of legislation that has come before that committee over the term of this Government and 12 pieces of legislation have exited and been reported back to the House. We would just like to pat ourselves on the back for a moment and say that that is more legislation than has been reported back from any other select committee. We look forward to discussing these matters when they come before us. 
This legislation shuts another door. What I am mindful of is that over the course of this Government and previous Governments we have shut a number of doors in respect of those who find themselves in custody. What we also know from experience and from our learning over generations is that a number of people who find themselves to be offenders and quite rightly behind bars have found themselves at some stage to be victims too. We as a civilised society must stop closing our minds to that. We need to address things within the history of those inmates in prison so that they do not go on to create further victims. So whereas I fully support this legislation I also fully support any move to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders or to run programmes of a restorative nature in prison. 
I will pick up on something that the previous speaker said. Clayton Cosgrove was saying that the victims of sexual abuse and other abuse had traditionally had their counselling paid for by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). For a number of years now especially since 2003 report after report has asked whether ACC should be the agency dealing with these matters. The throwaway line that the member used was “Well abuse is not an accident.” Actually if we scrutinise it we see that it is not an accident. What we do know is that successive Governments in spite of that fact have allowed ACC to become the provider of all those counselling services when those services could quite rightly and quite justifiably sit more appropriately under a mental health cap for instance or under a Ministry of Social Development cap. That is where they should be. 
Lynne Pillay 
: No funding; there’s no funding. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I will take the point of Ms Pillay who is calling out right now and say we do not care whose bucket it comes out of as long as the taxpayer— 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take issue with that. I did not say that we do not care. I said that this Government has cut the funding. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I want to make it quite clear that I was not saying that she does not care. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What recourse does the Opposition have when a Government member deliberately misrepresents an interjection from the Opposition? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the member has taken offence under Standing Order 116 she can state her objection. But a member cannot litigate a debating point; that is a matter of debate whether or not the member likes it. But if the member has taken offence Standing Order 116 allows some recourse. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have taken offence given that that is certainly not what I said. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are not getting into a debate of whether it is right or wrong. I hear the point. I ask the member to withdraw the comment. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I withdraw and apologise. I apologise because I was not clear enough in what I said. I did not say and I certainly did not intend to say that the member had said “We do not care.” or imply in any way that the people on the other side of the House or in any other part of the House do not care. 
The point that I was trying to make was that we as citizens of this country do not care who or what bucket what portfolio or what Government agency gets dipped into to pay for funding for counselling. We only care that it is funded. Surely the member has no complaint about that. Because we quite rightly expect that if someone who has been abused as a result of an attack—whether it be sexual abuse physical abuse or anything else—needs counselling then the wherewithal to cover the cost of that counselling will be met by the taxpayer. My criticism has been that we have traditionally allowed ACC to do that when quite rightly it fits within other portfolios which have escaped it. That is what the Government is trying to put right at this stage. 
This bill will receive support from across the House and so it should. But the point I am trying to make is this: while we run around within the criminal justice area shutting doors on free and democratic rights in a civilised society that it is incumbent on the State to provide for people in its custody we must remember the other side of their offending which needs to be addressed. To leave them without access to rehabilitation—as successive Governments have done which as we are addressing now—was wrong. We need to recognise them for the people they are and to recognise all the things that interact to affect their behaviour and their existence with the result that they offend against victims of crime. I hope that at some stage this House will scrutinize as to exactly what we provide for people behind bars as closely as we scrutinise what we provide for people outside. Thank you.