Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15577] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Will the Government accept an offer from the National Party to pass through all stages this week a bill to prevent convicted criminals from collecting significant taxpayer compensation for alleged human rights breaches; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No but the Government will look forward to National Party support when the Minister of Justice does bring a bill before Parliament. The Government wants to ensure that the bill is properly drafted. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Minister seen reports of lawyer Tony Ellis asserting that he is preparing to lodge claims for another 18 prisoners before the Minister could change the law; if so why in light of his earlier tough statements on the issue would he not accept National Party help to facilitate legislation passing through all stages this week? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am aware that the lawyer referred to is filing applications. I have said that the Government will accept the National Party’s offer of support when the bill is properly drafted. There are complex issues that need to be gone through and this Government will move expeditiously to bring a bill before the House. 
Dave Hereora 
: Why is the Government moving on the issue of compensation payments made to inmates? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Most New Zealanders would agree that the harm suffered by inmates pales into insignificance when compared with the harm done by offenders to their victims. That is why the Ministry of Justice is working on a law change that will ensure that victims who have in all likelihood never been compensated for the harm done to them have the first call on any such payments. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not the case that despite all the rhetoric we have heard from the Government as to how unacceptable this is this Government has in fact faced this situation on numerous occasions such as the case of the man in Dunedin who was let out of prison got $40000 and did not pay the $500 that he owed in reparation to the barber whom he had punched in the mouth; and can the Minister tell the House what after a record of doing nothing for 5 years it has taken him to move to do something now? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This Government has worked very hard on law and order and justice issues in the last 5 years. The fact is that the number of police on the road is up the number of people being caught and convicted is going up and the number of people in prison is going up. In addition to that the crime rate is falling. This Government has an outstanding record on law and order issues and this issue will be fixed. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister tell the House what would be just about a law that allowed a millionaire to murder to be sentenced to prison and to keep all of his or her assets but that if a poor person were to be tortured in prison would remove his or her basic right to compensation? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This is a matter for the courts to decide. If a person was a millionaire and did conduct a regime of torture then the victim could very well take a common law case against him or her for compensation. This legislation is not going to change that at all. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may have misunderstood my question. My question was about a millionaire who murdered someone and went to prison. There was no reparation order granted so none of that person’s assets would be lost whereas an inmate who was in prison and was tortured would under this proposal lose his or her right to compensation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the question that was asked. I could see that it was open to two possible interpretations. The Minister chose which one he was going to give and he is entitled to do so. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that prisoners alleging breaches of human rights have a number of avenues for complaint but that in most recent cases those avenues were not exhausted before the inmates took their case to the High Court; if so will he change the law to ensure that prisoners must attempt to exhaust those other avenues for complaint before they start to hire lawyers? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That could well be part of the consideration of the legislation that the Government comes back with. I think that is a very good suggestion and we will take it into account. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Minister seen reports that state another 200 prisoners may be eligible for compensation from the Department of Corrections; if so can we take it from his refusal to accept the National Party’s offer of immediate assistance that he has no intention of backing up his tough words with tough actions? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That member has the answer completely wrong. This Government will take tough action. This Government will go through the legislation and get it right first time. We are not going to act rashly and quickly and get it wrong—that may be the National Party’s style of doing it but it is not the Government’s style. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers—and particularly the answer to my colleague Ron Mark as to why this legislation is taking so long—does the Minister recall that some years ago the Government paid out something like $340000 on the instructions of the Hon Margaret Wilson with much of it going to that ratbag who took to a police sergeant with a screwdriver; can I ask the Minister again why it has taken so long to address this issue? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot give the member a precise answer on that but I can give him a precise answer on this: this Government will introduce law to fix this problem expeditiously—watch this space. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that if the Department of Corrections is unable to segregate prisoners due to claims that that breaches human rights then allowing dangerous inmates to mix with the general prison population could also potentially breach the right of other prisoners and Department of Corrections staff to their safety; if so whose rights should prevail? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is more a matter for the Minister of Corrections than for the Minister of Justice but I would make two quick comments. Firstly the Government does accept that prisoners have basic minimum rights and that those rights should be adhered to and secondly that Department of Corrections staff must have the ability to control and manage prisoners in their care. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Minister explain why when it has become clear that up to 200 prisoners may be able to claim up to $4.5 million in compensation from the Department of Corrections he has refused to even consider the offer from the National Party to get legislation through immediately without delay or can we take it that he simply does not care? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This Government cares very much but I want to make the point to the member that this was an issue— 
Opposition Members 
: Ah! [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not having Mr Power interjecting at me and he knows he is out of order. [ 
Interruption 
] He did. He interjected in the second person. He should not have done so and I am warning him. He has done that a lot of times today. I want the Minister to now continue with the answer. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The comment that I made was: “Why doesn’t the Prime Minister answer?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that was not the comment that I ruled the member out of order on. He said: “Tell me …” and all that sort of thing after that. I did not rule that comment out. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on this matter because Mr Power has just given the House a very firm undertaking as to what he did or did not say in the earlier exchange. You know that members are obliged to accept the word of other members in situations like that but it appeared to me that you may have been casting doubt on Mr Power’s comment. I want to be assured that you were not doing that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was not. I did not rule the member’s interjection out when he referred to the Prime Minister; he is entitled to do so in that way. I ruled subsequent interjections out of order. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I want to assure that member and the House that this Government does take this issue seriously. I would also like to make the observation that this issue arose weeks ago and it is only now that the National Party is issuing press statements and jumping up and down in this House. I say to Don Brash that he should catch up with where the Government is at. We are miles ahead of him; we have done lots of policy work so far. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What responsibility will the Minister take if a prisoner receives a compensation payout before his proposed law is passed or will he just hope that it will be someone else’s problem when it is in fact paid? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am sure that the Minister of Justice takes this responsibility very seriously and secondly— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has not finished. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not appropriate for a Minister answering on behalf of a Minister—who is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister—to say that if the Minister who was initially to answer on behalf of the Prime Minister but who is not here was here he would think that. Surely he should answer as if he were the Minister of Justice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the first comments the member made were: “the Minister of Justice” etc. I presume he was referring to himself. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What he actually said was: “I am sure that the Minister of Justice …” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well that is the same thing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I would have thought that if he were answering for himself he would be a little more certain rather than expressing some doubt about what he is saying. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This matter is taken very seriously by the Government. A good deal of policy work has been done and I have given the member an assurance that legislation will be brought into this House as expeditiously as possible and it will be thoroughly worked out. I make the point yet again that the Government had been working on this issue for 2 weeks before the National Party put out a press statement. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to clarify your earlier ruling. I realise I should have brought this point of order up immediately but I was obviously hesitant to raise it because I do not want to be seen to be challenging your ruling in any way. You ruled Mr Speaker that my question could have been interpreted in a way consistent with the Minister’s answer. In my question—to give you the actual wording—I asked the Minister about a situation that allowed a millionaire to murder to be sentenced to prison and to keep all his or her assets. I am asking for your clarification because I do not see how that question could have been interpreted in line with that answer. I am pushing the point because I think it is important that the Minister justify what is a significant proposal to remove the right of inmates to go to the law—a proposal that is not being questioned by any other party in this House. The Greens have an important role in standing up for these fundamental human rights. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not agree with the member. The Minister addressed the question by dealing with whether a civil action could be brought against the millionaire. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: My question did not refer at all to whether civil proceedings could be brought against that millionaire. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot carry on with this. I could not quite understand the member’s question. The Minister addressed it as he heard it. I adjudged that he addressed that question.