Mapp Wayne: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20937] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I shall turn to a couple of points raised by the Minister in his speech. He compared us with Australia. Well let me tell the Minister that in Australia victims get decent compensation. I know that for a fact. My sister suffered an assault in New South Wales—quite a serious assault—and she got worthwhile compensation from the state of New South Wales which I might add has lower taxes than New Zealand. So it is an issue of choice is it not? This Government would sooner spend $250 million on wananga and hip-hop tours and the like and it ignores the rights of victims. What is the Government’s promise? It has made some sort of deal with the Green Party which I could impolitely call the “Dope Dealers Party” and— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is outrageous. I request that the member withdraw that comment and apologise. It is totally outrageous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has taken offence. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I just referred to a party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I withdraw and apologise. It is on record of course that certain members of the Green Party advocate the legalisation of marijuana. Furthermore some of them have admitted using marijuana. That is the reality and no one in that party can deny that fact. 
I return to the issue of Australia. That is a clear choice. What is the deal it has done with the party that advocates the legalisation of marijuana? Has there been some kind of study into the rights of victims? In the meantime we have the wananga which has lost millions of dollars. 
The second point he raised was international law. I heard a discussion today on this issue and for some reason the Government thinks that it can comply with conventions only provided there is a monetary compensation regime. That is false. I am one of those people who believe very strongly in the adherence to international law. I believe in the various covenants and conventions that the Government has entered into. 
They do not require monetary compensation. Certainly they require remedies. In fact National has proposed precisely that in its minority report and that is an inspectorate of prisons where proper complaints can be made in cases of abuse. It is in our minority report if only the person would actually note that. So it is a question of providing a remedy. 
There is no case for monetary compensation because the distorted approach the Government and the Greens have—and it was rather well put by Marc Alexander—is to in an absurd and unreasonable way tie the victim to the capriciousness of the offender suing. Who is the type of offender who is actually likely to sue? We have the case of one of the worst murderers in New Zealand Christopher Taunoa. He is a brutal man subject to the behaviour management regime. He is the sort of person who gets disciplined within prisons. That is what initiated the claim. The Government put up some wimpy half-hearted defence in the courts and indeed I understand in the select committee to defend that regime. If it had done it properly he would not have got any compensation. Frankly a man like that with all the problems he had and caused in jail—he is one of the most difficult prisoners in New Zealand—would not have succeeded in his claim. It was a failing in the Crown case in the courts. 
National is outraged on behalf of victims at this frankly pathetic bill. It is pathetic because it does not do what it should do. It should ban monetary compensation to criminals. The Government has failed to do what it should do which is to provide a decent compensation regime for victims. There are real choices when one is sorting out priorities for Government expenditure. Surely innocent victims who suffer lifelong injuries should receive proper compensation for the hurt and injury. The accident compensation regime is in many cases simply not adequate or appropriate. In many cases it depends on having earnings. So the accident compensation regime is insufficient. There needs to be a special regime for victims.