Alexander Marc: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21027] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 We ended 2002 by passing the Victims Rights Bill and that heralded so much promise. There have been a few baby steps along the way since that time. Sadly this bill goes backwards. This bill turns round to victims having given them some hope in the previous legislation and states that Parliament is going to put offenders first and revisit their victimisation all over again through this bill. The sad thing is that everybody from all parties on the Justice and Electoral Committee really tried hard to do something that would benefit victims ahead of the interests of offenders. In the end that seemed to be put in the too-hard basket. The Labour Government was caught between its supposed obligations to international accords and its desire to do something to prevent inmates from collecting compensation. 
What the Government has ended up with is perhaps the worst of all possible worlds because cynically what the bill proposes to do at least in principle is to allow prisoners to get compensation and then try to make it difficult for them to keep it by forcing victims to engage with them legally in order to strip them of the money they get. The problem is that in order to support the supposed international accords on human rights the bill actually breaches the human rights of victims in the process. In other words on balance when we look at the rights of offenders as against the rights of victims we see that the bill errs on the side of offenders. That is a tragedy; it is the step backwards that I mentioned. 
A number of members have spoken about the fact that we need to fix up the prison system and I think everybody agrees with that. But interestingly the best prison in the country the one with the least infractions the one that did not have the behaviour management regime programme and the one that did not have the “goon squad” was the Auckland Central Remand Prison. Not only was it the best prison in the country and the only one that has been internationally recognised for its standards but it was also privately managed. If we get the Government anywhere near corrections we end up in trouble. The privately managed prison apart from being by far and away the best prison in the country also paradoxically saved taxpayers $27000 per year per inmate. So it actually saved money for everybody including the pockets of victims who now have to stump up to have the prison revert to State control and who of course will see more infractions because the State cannot be trusted to run its prison system as well as a tendered-out operation. 
Penalties should be extracted from corrections staff who violate the law. Most corrections staff are hard-working good people who want to ensure that the job is done properly but unfortunately a few rotten apples ruin it for everybody else. The staff who do violate the law ought to be punished but the penalty must be seen as a punishment against them and the corrections system they work for and not as a reward for the criminal. There is the dilemma for the Government. It cannot see beyond its own nose and realise that there is a difference between the two but it should have created legislation along exactly those lines. If the Government really wants to stop prison infringements and abuses then it should punish those responsible. It should charge them and not just reward the crims. As far as human rights are concerned inmates’ human rights must be balanced against victims’ rights and the human rights of other inmates and guards. Clearly some of the so-called infringements that were brought to the public’s attention and that are the reason why we are here in the House have come about because we have not got that balance right. 
Much has been made of our international obligations. That seems to be a problem of having a Minister who wears two hats. On the one hand Phil Goff is trying to advance the cause of justice in this country and on the other hand he is held firm by the international obligations he thinks he is supposed to uphold. The real question though is: what is the sovereign body of this country? It has to be Parliament. It cannot be up to the people who sit at the United Nations to determine how we choose to live our lives and how we choose to dispense our sense of justice. The people who sit at the United Nations are not the ones who help to heal the victims of this country. They are not here. They are not here to see people like Taunoa who continually victimised guards other inmates and his victims themselves—which is why he ended up in prison in the first place. The people at the United Nations are not here yet we have to abide by the UN accords. That is a travesty. It puts our faith and our sense of justice into the hands of the people who have the least to do with it and that is fundamentally flawed and wrong. 
What we really have to look at here is who really gets compensated by this legislation. The damage done to victims by being forced to go after the compensation if only to deny it to the offender will be considerable. They will be damaged. The people who have to go to the parole board time and time again to try to keep offenders in prison for longer because we have a weak approach to parole have their lives ruined in the process. What we say we do not do. We give a person 15 years but the person does 5. That is pathetic. It is against the interests of victims. This legislation is another part of that process. 
The Sensible Sentencing Trust has come out with a statement that I think is worthy of being recited. I want to take a minute to say that Stephen Franks from the ACT party has already talked about the huge contribution of Garth McVicar and his wife and the team at the Sensible Sentencing Trust in raising awareness—in raising the issues that matter to this country. I—and I think I speak for most members in this House—commend them for doing so. I hope that they continue to do so because unless they do this Government and future Governments will not listen. A comment from the Sensible Sentencing Trust reads: “In the worst example of victims’ rights abuse in modern-day history the Government and the Greens have chosen to ignore victims’ pleas and ridiculed democracy with the introduction of the most draconian piece of legislation this country has seen for a long time. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill was the Government’s pathetic attempt to pacify the public outrage at compensation being awarded to prisoners for some factious abuse of their human rights. What this legislation means is that prisoners will continue clogging up our courts and continue being paid thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money. Watch the legal and gravy-train lawyers milk every dollar possible out of this legislation.” Then it asks a very pertinent question. “Once again criminal rights take precedence over victims’ rights. Whose side is the Government really on: victims or criminals? This legislation proves that it is on the side of the criminal.” 
I will end on this one note. This battle for victims may be lost but the voice of victims will not be silenced. Their blood can never be spilt in vain on the footsteps of our criminal justice system because they are the heart of it. At some point in the future the biggest voting bloc in this country will be victims and then we will see some change. It is a pity that we have to have so many victims in order to effect it. Ninety-two percent of people in 1999 with Norm Withers’ referendum made a loud and clear voice for people who love justice everywhere in this country. This Government has failed them and it will continue to fail them until it addresses the real core issues. This legislation is a crock. It turns its tail on victims’ rights and destroys the promise that started so wonderfully with the victims’ rights legislation of 2002. This is the saddest day of my time in Parliament.