Volume 626 Week 90 - Wednesday 1 June 2005(continued on Thursday 2 June 2005) 
Volume 626 Week 90 - Wednesday 1 June 2005(continued on Thursday 2 June 2005) 
[Volume:626;Page:20957] 
Wednesday 1 June 2005 
( 
continued on Thursday 2 June 2005 
) 
Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Prisoners’ and victims’ claims ( 
continued 
)  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 We are debating Part 2 which deals with the provisions for prisoners’ and victims’ claims. It is interesting that there are more provisions for—and I would say barriers to—victims getting hold of any compensation than there are for the crims. I want to repeat my comments from last night that this bill is a huge fraud that the Government is perpetrating on decent New Zealanders. 
Members will recall that this legislation came about because of some huge payouts made to some of our worst criminals. The public rightly got up in arms and said: “What about the victims?” and now we have a bill before us that deals with compensation paid to some of our worst criminals for supposed hurts they suffered while they were under the care of the Department of Corrections. It also contains provisions that allow victims if they are known or can be identified to claim some of that compensation before the money finally gets into the criminals’ hands. 
What is annoying is that this is typical liberal namby-pamby Labour-type legislation. This bill is an absolute affront to decent New Zealanders. In urgency we are making sure that criminals who are awarded compensation get the money they have been awarded. The Government has put some provisions in the bill supposedly for the victims which I will come to in a minute. Ordinary middle New Zealanders—the people who could have expected something from the Budget that we had just the week before last—now have to be a witness to legislation that will allow some of our worst criminals to partake of compensation paid to them for who knows what. The criminals go into the prison behaviour management regime. They can allege that they have been treated wrongly or that they have suffered some kind of mishap or stress and get awarded some compensation. The Government is obviously soft on law and order. We have known that for the last 6 years. It is absolutely soft. To top it all before the election it will make sure that criminals can keep their ill-gotten gains for whatever hurt they say they suffered while in the care of the Department of Corrections. 
As I said Part 2 sets out the provisions for the award of payments to prisoners. That money is to go in trust to be kept until victims come forward with their claim. But why would anyone do that? Why would a woman who had been raped by one of those vicious criminals given the provisions in this legislation put herself through the trauma of trying to claim some of the money that had been awarded to the offender? The provisions in Part 2 consist of barrier after barrier. It is a whole re-traumatisation for victims. Why would a woman who had been raped or seriously harmed by one of those vicious criminals put herself through that trauma? There is no guarantee that victims will get the compensation. They still have to show good reason why they ought to get some of it. It is absolutely outrageous. 
That is what this Government thinks of victims. It absolutely does not care about victims. Shame on it! If the women in the Labour caucus are sitting there thinking that they are doing victims a favour I say to them that many of the victims are female. They are subject to rape and all sorts of horrible heinous crimes. The women in the Labour caucus are sitting there and letting this bill go through. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking in this debate on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill I put on record the fact that New Zealand First believes that this is a sad day for New Zealand. It is a sad day not only for New Zealand but for the victims of crime. It is a sad day for the families of victims and it is also a sad day for prison officers up and down this country for reasons I will highlight in just a couple of minutes. As I said it is a tragedy for this country when we see a bill like this being passed through Parliament. 
One would think that when the Government was constructing a bill such as this one on issues concerning the claims of prisoners the very centre or core focus of the bill would be designed to look after the needs and emotional well-being of victims. But when we look at the clauses in Part 2—clause 16; clause 18 subclauses (2) (3) (4) and (5); and clause 48—we start to realise very quickly that victims are not at the heart of this bill and that this bill is soft on crime. The bill should not be called the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. It should be called the “Soft on Crime Leftie Liberal Labour-backed-up-by-the-Greens Bill”. That is what the title should be. It is probably a long title and would not work in that respect but that is exactly the meaning of this bill. 
This bill will continue to allow payouts to the most vile and vicious criminals—unlike what Nandor Tanczos from the Greens was saying last night. When I said that this is a sad day for New Zealand in respect of prison officers up and down this country I meant that they will be victims of prisoners taunting them and being able to say: “Ha ha! We’ve got one up on you here. The Government is on our side. We’re going to give you a hard time and see what we can get out of this so-called justice system.” That is what they will do. This Government and the Green Party know it but they will not do anything about it. They have not done anything about it for the last 2 years since Justice Young made his decision. They have done nothing. They have sat on their hands because they have not wanted to do anything. They have wanted to keep the status quo and they continue to do so with this bill today. 
Members voting against this bill asked the Minister last night before he got up and spoke why he had to put the bill through and why he had to put it through in this way. The Minister said in his heartfelt speech that—wait for it—this bill would not abide by international conventions if it took on amendments such as the ones put up by my New Zealand First colleague Dail Jones and so on that would provide for money obtained to go to victims. He did not say—but he might as well have—that countries like Sudan Namibia and Zimbabwe would be offended and that groups like the Taliban would say: “Oh no no. You can’t do that.” That is how ridiculous that answer—that excuse—is. It is just unbelievable what this Government will stoop to to find a way to be able to slip through its leftie soft liberal legislation. It is sad and that is why it is a sad day for this country. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 We can tell that there is huge public support for this bill by the number of people in the gallery who have turned up to support it—or the lack thereof. A number of things about this bill deserve special mention. Although some of the broader themes have been talked about already and no doubt will continue to be talked about and debated I think that a couple of points in the bill are actually quite sinister. 
Firstly in clause 14 “Guiding considerations for awarding of compensation” subclause (1) includes “(a) whether compensation is required to provide effective redress;” and “(b) the quantum of an award of compensation required to provide effective redress.” The interesting thing is that that assumes a sum of money can ameliorate an infraction that no other form of redress can. Time and time again during the select committee process I asked what those things are that could not be addressed through means other than money. The Justice and Electoral Committee never received an explanation—not once. When we think about it if an individual has a broken leg he or she can be given medical treatment and I do not think anybody is against that. And if some counselling is needed for those poor misguided criminals in prison then by all means let us provide them with that. But why should they walk away with a sum of money? Why should they be able to profit over and above the medical or counselling expenses that we would otherwise provide for them? 
The interesting thing is that there is a bit of a contradiction when we look at clause 13(1)(b) which refers to exactly that: “another remedy or a combination of other remedies cannot provide in relation to the act or omission on which the claim is based redress that the Court or Tribunal considers effective.” The problem is that this Government never actually came out and said what that redress was. There is a bit of subterfuge here. The advisers told us that part of the point of awarding a sum of money is as a penalty against the Department of Corrections. Nobody can deny that that is a viable and reasonable option but why should that money go to the offender in prison? It is one thing to exert a penalty on somebody who causes an infraction but it is quite something else then to reward a criminal. 
So we have had cases like that of Taunoa who was paid $40000-odd because with him we did the only sensible thing we could. That man had slashed the throat of a person so badly that it exposed the spine. He was a danger to guards and other inmates. 
Peter Brown 
: How much did the Government give him? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Over $40000. There was an appeal yesterday. What are we supposed to do with him? If we try to elevate his human rights—as perhaps the Greens would want to do—then we put the human rights of guards and other inmates at risk. Where should the balance be? It seems clear to me that the balance has to be on the side of the prison system the guards and in fact other inmates. Taunoa was put in solitary for a prolonged period of time and that was the only place for him. It was where he would do the least amount of damage. To turn round and reward him for that is crazy. 
The point is that two things have been inextricably woven together that need not have been: firstly the penalty against the corrections system for allowing infractions brutality or mistreatment; and secondly the rewarding of financial compensation to the inmate. If we skip over to clause 16 “Compensation of prisoners etc must be paid to Secretary”—and this is the part that I find very disturbing and in fact quite sinister—we see the subterfuge that the money will be put aside so that the victims will have the ability to take that money off the prisoners but further down the track in subclause (5) we find something that has been slipped in quite surreptitiously: “a creditor includes the Commissioner of Inland Revenue …”. Am I just imagining things or is that a way in which the Government is trying to extract the victims’ money? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 We are debating Part 2 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill and the essence of this part— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: No “Prisoners’ Compensation Bill”. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claim Bill. The first key element that needs to be made is that this is going to strengthen victims’ rights to make civil claims against offenders. Point No. 1 which the Opposition seems to overlook is that it is going to recognise that victims have first claim against any compensation. Who in the House would say that that is wrong? No one. That is what it does yet the Opposition votes against it. The bill goes on to state that when compensation is required to be paid by the Crown to prisoners then the compensation will be first paid into a trust account to satisfy any valid claims that are brought by victims against the offender. So the victims get any compensation paid to them first. 
Marc Alexander notes that the bill will also provide that if a person owes fines or owes outstanding reparation payments or other bills to the State he or she will come second. He says this is somehow sinister. Well I cannot get my head around that being sinister but neither can I get my head around some other parts of this debate. It is true as Mr Worth said before that this legislation is closely linked to the case being heard in the Court of Appeal today. Yesterday Mr Worth put up the proposition that we might not have to do anything because if the Court of Appeal says there is no compensation to be paid then this bill is irrelevant. Well that is not quite right. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Why? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because it is the sort of logic that says we should not put the roof on the house because it might not rain. Well the fact is that the claims are there. The compensation has been awarded and if this legislation is not passed through this Parliament and the Court of Appeal does not uphold the appeal against it then the money will be paid out to Mr Taunoa and others. The very action they rail against will happen. I am amazed that Opposition parties are trying to stop legislation going through this Parliament that will give effect to the end that they want for themselves. 
The other thing that amazes me is that this issue has been before this Parliament and the public before. In 1994 a Mrs Baigent took a case against the Crown. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: We were told this last night by you. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: And Mr Worth did not listen. Mrs Baigent went for a breach against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The then National Government Minister of Justice went to the Law Commission and asked it what it thought. The Law Commission said that there needed to be an effective remedy for breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that the international law reports link these remedies to these rights. The Law Commission said that people should be able to get monetary compensation for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The National Government did nothing about that and accepted that advice. That is what it did. Now the National Party turns up here and says that it does not accept it. Well why was it good enough for the National Government in 1994-95 and is now not good enough for it today? It was confronted with this problem and ran away with it. 
This Labour-led Government with the support of the Greens says that that is not good enough. In our view if there is to be compensation then compensation should go to the victims first and then any other payments made afterwards. But better than that we have said we want to see these breaches stop. We are going to have an independent commission look at prisons and manage the concerns or issues that prisoners raise. Because one of the problems with the current situation is that if people perceive that their rights have been breached they can simply leave the issue until they go to court at a later date. The public have this perception that a person can go all the way around the board back to “Go” collect $200 and do nothing in the meantime. Well we are saying that that will not be good enough. 
So we are going to have an independent prison complaints authority by the end of 2006—independent of the Department of Corrections—to ensure that if people do have problems and their rights are being threatened or abused then they can make a complaint and it can be dealt with at that level and there will be no issue of compensation. It will be independent. 
The third point that the Opposition overlooks is that the Government with the Greens has undertaken to have an inquiry into the victims of serious crime. Reference to this will be picked up very shortly and we will be under way with it. This is something that the Justice and Electoral Committee said it wanted to see happen. The Government and the Greens are going to make it happen. The Opposition parties oppose this. 
 I reaffirm the point that this is about giving the victims their rights first; secondly it is to make sure we are compliant with international law. Some people make a laugh out of this and I find what Craig McNair says—that we are looking to have the same sets of rights as the Taliban—distasteful. Also it is wrong because the Taliban is not a signatory to the UN conventions on human rights as he as a member of the House of Representatives should know. The Taliban is effectively a terrorist organisation and to compare its rights with human rights is just absurd. The member devalues the currency of his own opinion and standing. 
I make it clear that the advice given to the Government is that in other like countries such as Britain Canada the United States the EU and Australia the rights of people to take claims when their human rights have been breached do enable them to have monetary compensation as part of it. 
Brian Connell 
: What about the human rights of victims? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We have a shrill shriek coming from National members for political ends but the truth of it is that that is the dispassionate advice to the Government from officials with no political agenda at all. That is their advice. Members can check that advice if they want to. New Zealanders go overseas and they like to hold their heads up high as being good international citizens. We do the right thing and we are good international citizens. I say to those members opposite that we should not have laws in New Zealand that are less than those of the people in the countries we compare ourselves with—Australia Canada Britain the US the EU and so on. Those are the places that will enable them to have compensation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I still have barracking from members on the left of me from the National Party. I say to Mr Connell that in 1994 when Mrs Baigent got paid compensation for a breach of her human rights in New Zealand the National Government did nothing about it. It said that it was acceptable to it. The point of this is that Tony Ryall who has been leading this campaign for the National Party was a Minister in the then National Government and all the other hangers-on and Klingons in the National Party are still here. They did nothing then; they said it was OK. They said it was good that it was fine and that it was acceptable to them. This Government has said that it is not. We believe that if there is to be compensation paid the victims should get the money first and that is what this law will do. If this law is not passed then the money that has now been awarded by the court to Mr Taunoa and others will be paid out. The people who are opposing this legislation will do their best to ensure he gets the cash and we are opposed to that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 We have heard from this Minister. This bold Minister is apparently announcing an inquiry into victims’ rights. That says it all; that sets out the Government’s priorities. When confronted with the real issue—the balance if you will—between this bill the “Prisoners’ Compensation Bill” and the rights of victims what does the Minister do? He takes urgency on legislation for prisoners’ compensation and apparently announces an inquiry for victims. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Another delay. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Just a delay. The Government had real choice. It could literally have turned that round. It could have had urgent legislation to provide compensation for victims and have had an inquiry about discipline within prisons. Instead it is doing it the other way round and that is a disgrace. 
I say to the country that this bill is a code of compensation for prisoners and I say that because detailed rules whereby prisoners will receive compensation are set out in this bill for the guidance of the courts. Those are the provisions of this bill. No doubt the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui will take a call and try to deny it. But can he deny that under clause 14 detailed rules are set out whereby the courts will be required to pay compensation to prisoners? That is the effect of this legislation. 
Under clause 14(1)(a) and (b) the courts will have to consider whether compensation is an effective redress and then they will have to consider the quantum of an award of compensation. So they have to decide: firstly whether compensation is the right remedy and secondly how much the prisoner should get. That is why National says this is a statutory code being passed under urgency by this Government to deliver monetary compensation to prisoners—not to victims but to prisoners. That is the starting point. 
Then and only then will victims have any rights. The first rights actually belong to the prisoners. That is the whole structure of this legislation. It is a code whereby prisoners in our courts can sue for compensation and then as an afterthought maybe victims can have some rights to that compensation. But first of all the legislation is set up to enable the prisoners themselves to sue for compensation. It is a statutory code being passed under urgency that gives prisoners the right to sue for monetary compensation. 
There were other alternatives. The National Party suggested another alternative which was an inspectorate of prisons to deal with the issue of breach of rights because that is an issue of some substance. I know that my colleague Mr Brian Connell has had something to say about the way to deal with issues around international law and breaches of human rights. 
There is a different way which National has suggested. We believe in putting victims first not second. This bill puts victims second and prisoners first. We say turn that round and then the Government would be doing something worthwhile for victims. At the moment it puts the victims into some kind of torturous relationship of further victimisation with the perpetrator of the crime. The victim is expected to almost “hope” that the criminal will get compensation because only then can the victim get compensation. 
I say to the Minister in the chair that the best thing to do would be to set up a proper victims’ compensation procedure—not an inquiry. We have had inquiries. The Justice and Electoral Committee has dealt with victims’ issues for a number of years on other bills and the committee recommended that there ought to be a system of compensation as exists in virtually all states in Australia. The Government does not need an inquiry and the House should not be spending time in passing a code of compensation for prisoners. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First’s view on this bill is straightforward. We want New Zealand to comply with all international conventions so we support the right of prisoners to go along to the courts to make a claim if they have been mistreated in prison. We say that any money they receive should be paid to victims only. We do not want to see the murderer of Coral Burrows or the murderer of the people at the RSA being compensated for their time in prison. We do not want to see prisoners being encouraged to misbehave in prison so they may then get compensation. This bill encourages prisoners to misbehave and make prison officers’ life hell. It is a difficult enough job to be a prison officer without having prison officers being provoked by thugs and the absolute no-hopers of our society which would make a prison officer’s life even worse than it is. This Government has no regard for the well-being of prison officers and for the things they have to go through. Of course the Government closed down the private prison in Auckland. It really does not give two hoots about the prison service. 
 We say that no funds should be made available to criminals. The Government should take appropriate action against prison officers and any other persons employed by the Department of Corrections who have created a situation whereby prisoners are entitled to make a claim. That is the redress that we say should be undertaken. If a prisoner is mistreated then redress should be taken against whoever has mistreated that prisoner but no actual compensation should be given to the prisoner himself or herself. Remedies such as dismissal from the Department of Corrections and prosecution should be utilised by the Government to ensure that any situations that would give rise to claims by criminals will not be repeated. That is what we should be looking at. We should be looking at a non-repetition of those events. But this legislation will ensure that those events are repeated and that is the whole problem with regard to it. 
We want to see any money that will flow as a result of a natural right that is available to anyone who has been mistreated go to people who really have been mistreated. We take the view that when a murderer like the murderer of Coral Burrows and the one who committed the RSA murders commits crimes like those he or she virtually loses his or her human rights. In many societies when people go to prison they lose all rights. Well we do not have that particular type of society nor should we. We should make sure that when people are incarcerated they are given a decent way of life are able to do their time and are able to come out of prison and make a contribution later on. But the people we are talking about—in particular the ones who are before the courts now making claims—have almost lost their right to human rights because of the way they have behaved in society. 
New Zealand First proposed various amendments to this legislation and if those amendments had been supported obviously we would be supporting the bill. That is why we agreed to its going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We wanted to give the Government the chance to get this bill correct so that the various victims of criminal offences around the country could benefit from the funds that are to be made available as a result of this legislation. The Government was not prepared to listen to New Zealand First. It was not prepared to listen to the Sensible Sentencing Trust which took the view that the funds should go into a victims’ claims trust account and should be paid out to all victims around New Zealand once the specific victim of the offender had first been compensated from the fund. But no this Government wants to support prisoners; it wants to support brutal murderers. Well New Zealand First cannot support that viewpoint. We have also made it clear by if I may just indicate this in passing an amendment to clause 2 that this bill should come into effect on 1 January 2005 and should apply to all cases that are currently before the courts including any appeals so that any money that is made available by the courts must go into a victims’ claims trust bank account and be there for the benefit of victims only and not for the benefit of hardened criminals. 
I am staggered that the Greens support this legislation. 
Brian Connell 
: What are you staggered for? 
DAIL JONES 
: Because the Greens are supposed to support the environment and we know that many of those criminals have a great desire to go out into the pristine parts of New Zealand to grow certain plants that damage that pristine environment. I thought the Greens supported the conservation of our environment but no the Greens want to support those types of murderers who commit their crimes while under the influence of cannabis and other drugs—cannabis that has been grown in the pristine parts of New Zealand and destroys our environment. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 There is a race on at the moment. It is a race between the Government and the Court of Appeal because the Court of Appeal is hearing the very issues that gave rise to this legislation. After a quick flick through the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning I see that what is going on in the Court of Appeal is being reported. The argument that the Government lawyers are advancing is that there should be no compensation in cases of this kind; that it should be enough that a declaration is made that a particular prisoner’s rights have been offended. 
I made comment last night when we were talking about Part 1 about the seriousness of what the Government is doing in constitutional terms. It is of course worse than that because both the paper this morning and the Associate Minister of Justice last night indicated that whatever the Court of Appeal decides will be captured in this legislation. 
We heard the most amazing comment last night from a party that is supporting this legislation. That was when the Green MP Mr Locke rose to his feet and said these memorable words: “This is a bad bill but the Greens are going to support it.” How unprincipled is that? “This is a bad bill but the Greens are going to support it.” 
He is in good company in thinking that this is a bad bill. The National Party on whose behalf I am speaking at the moment and United Future New Zealand First and ACT similarly judge that it is a bad bill and we are voting against it. 
But even within the Labour camp all is not well. I was looking at a newspaper report of 10 February. Probably if there is a competent lawyer on the Labour benches it is Russell Fairbrother. Currently he is tasked to be the private secretary—without pay and without position—to the Attorney-General. His task is to support Government policy. His task in a select committee context is to support Government policy but could he? No he could not. He made clear his concerns to the media and they were reported in this way: “Government MP Russell Fairbrother has labelled his Justice Minister’s prisoner compensation bill a ‘lottery’ for victims and suggested principles not emotion were needed ‘to guide us through this mess’.” Then he made another comment. I am a member of the select committee; I heard these comments. He said: “ ‘What worries me about this bill is that it makes a lottery so that some people who deserve it get compensated and others who deserve it don’t.’ ” 
I would like to explain to members of the House and to those who may be listening why National opposes this bill. This bill is all about giving prisoners who are in a harsh regime substantial compensation payments. It is about giving them money for hurt feelings. It is about giving them money in circumstances where their liberty was taken away because they had been misbehaving in prison. 
The Government’s plan is to compensate them and we have heard some very specious reasons advanced by the Minister as to why as a matter of international law New Zealand should do that. Well the Minister is wrong and he has been wrongly advised. New Zealand is completely performing its international obligations at present. We are a party to two relevant conventions that we have signed and ratified; we are a party to two international treaties and we have made it clear in both those treaties that there will be the rare class of case where on an ex gratia basis if a prisoner’s rights have been grossly abused compensation will be forthcoming. The law calls those payments ex gratia payments. They do not arise as a result of the pursuit of legal remedies. Instead they are payments made in the context of our international obligations. So if one looks for example at the New Zealand reservation to article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment one sees that we accept that there is a very limited class of case where such payments should be made. But the Government will go much further than that; it will set up a statutory framework for prisoners to sue and potentially receive massive amounts of money. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 It was refreshing to hear the Hon Rick Barker speak some while ago. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it was for one reason. He held truth in the same regard as one would hold a duck during duck-shooting season. One would not buy it any insurance whatsoever. He was a bit disingenuous when he talked about how all the moneys were earmarked for victims and everybody else who came second and third because clause 17 clearly contradicts that. Clause 17 talks about the secretary deducting money for legal aid reparation and earlier orders and then paying the surplus into an account. Clause 17(1)(a) states: “first pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any relevant charge­­­­—”—then it lists three—“(i) in favour of the Legal Services Agency; and (ii) on proceeds of proceedings relating to the specified claim and to which a grant of legal aid relates; and (iii) arising by operation of section 32 of the Legal Services Act 2000; ”. Then the clause moves on to the second category. Subclause (1) states: “(b) secondly pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any amounts of reparation …; and (c) thirdly pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any amounts owed by the accused or the offender under any relevant order made under section 43 …; and (d) fourthly pay any surplus remaining into the account.” 
This is a sinister attempt at the Government being able to recoup some of the money that has been allocated on the premise of human rights for these offenders. The victims actually come off second best. It is a way of putting the Government’s grubby fingers all over the compensation that it is forced to pay out by the courts ahead of the interests of victims everywhere. It is a perversity it is utterly wrong and it is incomprehensible that any Government—or the Greens for that matter who pretend to put the interests of victims first—can support a bill that does exactly the opposite. 
Another interesting fall-out from the bill as one sees if one reads through it are two things that I think are perverse. The first is that prisoners will be able to bargain their proceedings for privileges. One can imagine a situation whereby a bunch of prisoners who state that they have claims for one thing and another will then be able to bargain that off within the prison system in order to gain privileges so that they do not pursue the claims. The reason the Department of Corrections might accept that is that first it does not want the embarrassment and second it does not want the additional costs of the legal proceedings in pursuit of it. So there is a very real danger that we will end up with prisoners being able to bargain away their proceedings for personal privileges within the prison system. 
The second perversity and it is the one that really bothers me is that victims will be rewarded or not rewarded depending on whether their offenders pursue a legal claim. The bill will actually set up two categories of victims: those whose offenders are liable for a compensation claim and those whose offenders are not. The interesting thing is that we heard testimony after testimony through the select committee process that victims do not actually want the money. They do not want to have anything to do with their offender. They want to heal and get on with their lives but they cannot rest or heal their lives knowing that their offender is able to access any compensation at all. So they are forced by necessity into an arrangement to try to get it off them. That is an utter perversity because in pursuit of the so-called human rights of these offenders we are necessarily undermining the human rights of the victims they offended against—and those offenders because of their actions chose to go to prison in the first place. It is an utter perversity but that is what this legislation will do. 
This bill will set up victim against victim. Even if another agency is authorised to go after the compensation such as Victim Support or the Sensible Sentencing Trust they will still have to partake of the process and be part of it. Obviously they will be watching it. They will not sit back and just pretend that it never happened. Unfortunately they will be dragged into it and it will halt the whole process of healing on behalf of victims. I do not know how many members have spent much time with those victims who have to go to parole hearings time and time again to ensure that their offender stays in prison. It breaks them up. It rips those victims apart because they have to relive the crime all over again. This legislation will do the same thing. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This part of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill is the heart of the bill. In simple summary for the benefit of those who are listening to this debate it states that prisoners must exhaust all the internal remedies before they can go to court and bring claims based on human rights law or tort law. It states that if prisoners do get an award it must be held for claims by victims. The bill takes a lot of pages to state that. I think this Parliament should go for a practical test: what does this legislation save? What will it do for this country for prisoners for discipline in prisons and for victims? 
I have gone back to the judgment that prompted this legislation: the judgment of Justice Young in the case of Christopher Taunoa and others as a result of which more than $200000 has been awarded to Taunoa and his mates. That judgment which is only the first of the judgments is 136 pages long. It is 136 pages of a judge at great distance reviewing the case and expressing a view on how prison officers should have dealt with some of New Zealand’s worst prisoners. The judgment is fair-minded and even-handed or it tries to be even-handed. But on a typical page the judge goes through a complaint by Christopher Taunoa that he was unreasonably restrained—the technical term is “confined and restrained”—after he had shouted at prison officers rung the bell for prison officers and gesticulated. The judge having heard all the seemingly endless evidence concluded that it would have been better to leave Mr Taunoa in his cell. That is an example of exactly what this bill should be making irrelevant. 
This bill should simply state that people can bring proceedings—prosecute or foster prosecution—and that there should be a complaints system to prosecute prison officers who have broken the law. This bill should not have Her Majesty’s judges at great length second-guessing about prisoners who have suffered no injury that we can read about—prisoners whose litany of complaints included the lights being left on for too long or being too bright there being too much noise the windows being open or not open at various times and there being a lack of respect for their dignity and who then tried to categorise that as torture. The Government needed to make a simple response. It should have been “Stuff off.” The victims of prisoners have had their remedies eliminated under New Zealand law by the accident compensation scheme. Mr Taunoa and his mates qualify for accident compensation coverage and they are therefore in the same position as their victims in relation to the alleged abuse. We should leave it at that. 
Instead in this bill we have pages of cynical pretence. The bill would be perfectly unobjectionable as it stands if it were not being held up as the solution for victims who will continue to see monetary payouts to those who have hurt them when the victims themselves will not qualify for compensation for far worse hurt. The Government can do nothing to hide that. All it can do is to rush this bill through and hope the issue goes away because the bill does absolutely nothing for victims. It does not respond at all to the victims who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee and said they were not looking for money but were simply looking to make sure that punishment was punishment. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has essentially done more for victims than this Government with all the resources it can command has done in 6 years. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is living off the generosity of a very fine farmer and his wife who decided that something needed to be done and who put their own time and money into it. The money from one of those prisoner claims cases would keep the Sensible Sentencing Trust going for a year. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The speech made by the Hon Rick Barker was probably the most pathetic PC nonsense I have heard in a long time. His message is that the rights of prisoners are more important than the rights of victims. If that Minister had got out of his office more often and come down to the Justice and Electoral Committee and listened to the parents of some of the victims of those lowlifes he could not possibly hold the opinions he holds now. He typifies why there will be a change of Government when we go to the polls on 30 July this year. 
A mother of one of the victims who lost her daughter to one of those lowlifes came to the select committee. She said that a gentleman—although I cannot use that term; a prisoner—by the name of Sam Te Hei had beaten her daughter so severely and so badly that she her own mother could not recognise her. If the Minister in the chair Rick Barker had been at that select committee I daresay that he like everybody else there would have had a tear in his eye because— 
Peter Brown 
: Like John Key. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well anyone in that select committee I believe would have had a tear in his or her eye. The mother said that she could not recognise her own daughter because she was beaten that severely. I say to Mr Barker that her daughter’s “crime” was that she would not have sex with Te Hei a stranger when she was walking by. Mr Barker now proposes that Te Hei get compensation. 
Judith Collins 
: It’s a disgrace! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is a disgrace. That is what the Minister is proposing. Following that mother into the select committee was the mother of the Sanson hotelier in the North Island who had his throat slit from ear to ear by one of the thugs that the Government now wants to give compensation to as well. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That’s disgraceful. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is disgraceful but what is worse is that when the act was perpetrated that thug then tried to blame the victim’s son. The Minister is saying that that family having been dealt those savage blows can then go to court and sue that prisoner for the money should he get it. 
Are people going to get money out of prisoners? Yeah right! Are they going to get money out of those thugs? Yeah right! Does the Government have any regard for the law? Does it have any regard for the human rights of victims? Absolutely not. The only regard for human rights it has now is for those of prisoners. It is suckers like the Hon Rick Barker and his cohorts and the Green Party which says that this is bad law who have come to the House and said that it is bad law but that they will vote for it anyway. 
We in the Opposition parties are not unreasonable people. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Soon to be Government though! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: We are soon to be Government because we are seen as reasonable people. If prisoners do not have their rights or sentences adhered to in a fair and just way then sure there is a problem. But we should fix the problem rather than give compensation to prisoners. We should fix the problem. We should go and talk to the prison authorities and make sure that they conduct themselves in a way that is appropriate. We should deal to those prison authorities and take them before the courts if that is the case. 
 But to stand up as the Minister is now doing and say that prisoners have more rights than the victims against whom they perpetrated the most unthinkable acts is absolute nonsense. The Minister should not look me in the eye; he should hang his head in shame. He is a disgrace to the House and the people across the country who are listening to this know that he and his cohorts will get turfed out on their ear because they have had a gutsful of this type of PC nonsense. 
It gets worse. I will come back to what we are being told about victims. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Is the Minister’s microphone on? If it is he has been interjecting all the way through without regard to the convention that he not do so because he is in the chair and the microphone is on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the point. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking on behalf of New Zealand First on Part 2 I ask first why this bill is before us. It is here because the public have become disgusted with the payouts that have been given to various inmates since Labour has been in Government. I will give an example not in the words of New Zealand First but in the words of a newspaper article. It says: “A notorious Mongrel Mob member who once stabbed a police officer with a screwdriver”—Mr Barker although he is a former union representative who I do not think has worked with his hands for many many years might know what a screwdriver is; it is a tool and a very blunt tool at that—“leaving him partly paralysed has been convicted of assaulting another two officers.” This man Mr Gillies who left a police officer paralysed subsequently received a $40000 payout as a result of a deal done by this Government with him and with a bunch of other inmates like him who supposedly were mistreated and had their “feelings hurt”. Well I ask members to imagine the feelings of the wife of that police officer. I ask them to imagine the feelings of the partners and spouses of those prison officers and to imagine the feelings of Mr Gillies’ own children from whom he stole between $60000 and $80000 after his release from prison and after he had received $40000 in compensatory payment from this Government. 
Let us just think about that. That is taxpayers’ money. This man who stabbed a policeman with a screwdriver and who got $40000 of taxpayers’ money for having his “feelings hurt” when he was insulted by a prison officer within months of his release from jail had stolen from his children out of their education fund—[ 
Interruption 
] He stole $60000 to $80000 and Jill Pettis thinks that that is a joke. Jill Pettis is the woman who has been reported around the country as having said that she would not contemplate a coalition with New Zealand First because its members are so unsophisticated. Jill Pettis the woman who strips the varnish off the walls behind me when she speaks dares to consider Winston Peters and New Zealand First MPs unsophisticated. It is no wonder she has some feeling deep down inside for men who would steal money from their children. 
Jill Pettis 
: When was I reported? 
RON MARK 
: The member should not worry; it is all around the place. Why do we have inmates claiming money for abuse within our prisons? I hold in my hand right now a document almost an inch thick entitled:  
Report for the State Services Commissioner into the Department of Corrections Canterbury Emergency Response Unit (CERU) 
. We waited for this document for 4 years. For 3 years New Zealand First asked for an inquiry into what was going on in prisons and for 3 years this Government refused an inquiry. Then when it became too embarrassing the Government finally conceded and 1 year later we have this report. What does it say? It says that abuses in our prisons have been going on for years sanctioned by senior management at the highest level under this Government. 
Why do we have prisoners claiming compensation? That happens when a lazy Minister who thinks he knows everything and a Government that thinks it knows everything refuse to believe or accept the criticisms and observations coming from New Zealand First the National Party the Greens and United Future. They refuse to listen and the abuses go on. Is it any wonder that inmates are lodging claims and bringing charges? There are a couple of easy solutions to the problem but they do not lie in Part 2 of this bill. They lie firstly in the next election. People need to vote against Labour in every way. They need to get Labour out. Secondly we need a system in which our Department of Corrections is run by good people who respect the law. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I want to put it absolutely on the record that the National Party and the other members of the Opposition—and even United Future which is not in Opposition because it supports this Government—do not support brutish behaviour within prisons. We do not support the abuse of prisoners by people in positions of responsibility and power in prisons. But we do not support the nonsense the Minister has talked today and last night—that we cannot do anything about it because the Court of Appeal said so and that we cannot do anything about it because there is an international convention. Well what about the international convention that says that a woman should be able to walk in the streets of this country without being raped? And what about the international convention that says that victims have rights too so that they can in fact become survivors? What about those conventions? What about a convention for human dignity and a bit of decency? What about a convention that says people cannot abuse their positions of power against little children? What about a convention that says people cannot abuse their positions of power against people who are in their charge? How about that? 
In this country at the moment we have a prison service that is in dire need of reform. In this country we had a model prison. It was run in Auckland and it was a private prison. We had that operating and it was a model prison. What did we get from this Government? It said we could not have the private prison because the idea was not ideologically pure. Where is all the abuse coming from? Did it come from the private prison? No it did not. Where did it come from? It came from the Government-run prison—this core service that had to be run by the New Zealand Public Service Association the trade unionists. That is what we had to have and it came from them. 
When we look back at the abuse that has been carried out in this country by big organisations against little people—such as the abuse at Lake Alice Hospital—and ask where that abuse came from we see that it came from Government-run institutions. When there has been abuse in schools where has it come from? It has come from Government-run schools. Big Government breeds big abuse against little people. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Mark that I will not get into the tennis ball thing. We know that no abuse like that by people in power against children and prisoners is acceptable. That does not however mean that those people should get money. If there is any money it belongs to the taxpayer. The very victims who pay their taxes are now paying for those thugs because the thugs have hurt feelings. That is not right. If there is to be any payment it should go into a victims fund. It should go to the victims so that they become survivors. That is where it should be. 
Marc Alexander made a very good point this morning. He said that the victims the survivors do not actually want money. They want to get on with their lives. They want their dignity restored. They will not get it restored while knowing that the killers and abusers of their children are out there getting paid for it. Do we think that the prisoners who abuse people abuse the system and then are themselves abused by abusers care what happens to their victims? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No way. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: No they do not. If they did they would reform. We know that they are recidivists. Time and time again the same people are committing the same or worse crimes and this Government sits by and says that no matter what it cannot do anything because it might hurt someone’s feelings. I suggest that Government members get out there talk to victims and survivors in this country and tell them that they care more about them than maybe they thought. This Government does not have the courage to do that. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This part is the meat of the bill. There is an awful lot in the part that needs to be discussed and I would hope that the Chair recognises that the debate needs to carry on in order to appreciate the full depth and complexity of this portion of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I ask the Minister in the chair Rick Barker to explain the thinking behind the time limit that this bill is now to have. Supplementary Order Paper 374 will have the practical effect of making the bill expire in a couple of years’ time. That needs explanation because if the bill is a good idea we need to know why it will suddenly cease to be a good idea in 2 years’ time. If it is a good idea for only 2 years we need to know what will change in 2 years’ time. If it has a time limit because it is not really a good idea and the Government wants time to get a better idea we ought to get some explanation from the Minister of just what would be better and just what we as a Committee should be looking out for that ought to be improved. 
If in fact the bill will expire because the Government expects the current proceedings before the Court of Appeal to make it irrelevant we ought to know that. It is very curious that the position the Government seems to be arguing in the Court of Appeal is so different from the position being advanced by the Minister in here. The Minister is saying that we must have rights of financial compensation for prisoners in order to suck up to all those thugs and tyrants in the United Nations. Meanwhile the Government’s own lawyers are telling the Court of Appeal that it does not need to award compensation and that this is not a matter where  
Baigent’s 
 case should have been applied. Which is it and what is the reason for putting a time limit on this procedure? Why is the Government doing this in fact without explanation? The Supplementary Order Paper does not explain why this particular structure will expire in 2 years’ time. 
There is another reason that the Minister should explain it. The Budget says that the Government will spend $534000 on setting up the tribunal that will look after these cases and $379000 on it for each of the 3 years after that. Does that mean the Government actually expects it to continue—that when it expires the Government will simply renew it? The Government has provided in the Budget for it to continue 3 years after this year; in other words it has provided for 4 years of expenditure on this tribunal. I would like to know because I think the Sensible Sentencing Trust which is struggling to stay alive and which has done more to restore pride to victims in the sense that they can be masters of their fate than anything the Government has done would love to have just a tiny fraction of the amount that is going to be wasted on a tribunal that probably will see two or three cases a year. That sum of $500000 is more than the Government has paid out in compensation! Are we going to spend $500000 to supervise the distribution of $200000? Why not just give it to the victims straight off and say: “We’ll match whatever is given to the thugs; we’ll match whatever is given to the criminals.”? How can a Minister who has concern for taxpayers and public money be wanting to spend $534000 and $379000 a year thereafter on a new tribunal to administer payouts to prisoners that in the past have never exceeded $300000 in a year? Has anyone asked why we are doing this? 
Why is there a time limit? If it is a genuine time limit why are we providing in the Budget for the tribunal to carry on after the time it expires? The Greens say they will vote for this time limit. I hope that a Green member in the House will take a call to explain why they want to vote for a time limit. One would have thought that with their sanctimonious principles they would think either it is a good idea and they will vote for it for good or it is a bad idea and they will not vote for it. But they seem to think that something bad is OK if it lasts for only 2 years. 
What is this measure achieving in those 2 years? Why is the Court of Appeal being told that compensation should not be paid while the Government in the House is turning its other face to the members of this House—and of course to the United Nations which it hopes will one day employ the Prime Minister when she has passed her use-by date—and saying: “Of course we’ll hand out money to criminals because that is what the likes of Mr Mugabe tell us should happen.” The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations is a joke. When the officials came before the select committee it was an absolute—and I cannot remember the phrase that describes something that is the exact opposite. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 11 and substitute new clause 11 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
11Court or tribunal must not accept specified claims for filing during restricted period 
No court or tribunal may accept a specified claim for filing during the restricted period. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “To help” and insert the words “To facilitate”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment is in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 11. It is a typescript amendment to omit paragraph (c). It is out of order as it is the same as the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(e)does allow for prisoners to receive some if not all of any compensation payable to them. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
12No compensation to be awarded 
No court or tribunal may in proceedings commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act award any compensation sought by a specified claim. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 13 and substitute new clause 13 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During that vote the senior Labour whip actually voted “two” before the party she was casting the vote for was called. She said “two opposed” but we do not know what party she was voting for because the Clerk did not ask what party it was. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We can ask for clarification on that matter. 
Jill Pettis 
: The two votes were for the Progressives. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would have thought that the Clerk would ask each party the way it wished to vote which is the normal practice and we have followed that for some time. For the senior Labour whip then to call out “two” when we do not know what party she was voting for is out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that in terms of voting they cannot anticipate what will be said by the Clerk. I ask them to reflect on that because it will help the progress of the business through the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) all the words after the words “by a specified claim”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “unless satisfied that—” and paragraphs (a) and (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13(1) be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) the word “reasonable” and substitute the words “full and exhaustive”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) all the words after the word “means” and substitute the words “use that is full and exhaustive”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 14 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to omit clause 14 is out of order because it is the same as an earlier amendment that was defeated. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) all the words after “or tribunal” and substitute the words “must not award any compensation payout to any plaintiff”. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance. Is it not the common practice that when you ask for those in favour and those against the members stating the votes actually desist from making comments until such time as you call for the votes to be heard? The chief Labour whip has been flapping her jaw at the wrong moment. I ask for your guidance. That practice is incredibly irritating and distracts from the process of the vote. It holds things up and that is unacceptable in terms of the process in the Committee. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Sometimes in this place you win and sometimes you lose. The way that we have been responding to votes today has been the same way it has been done since MMP was introduced. There is nothing different happening today that does not happen any other day that we are taking votes in the Committee stage. You do not need to get personal Mr Alexander. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to accuse the member over there of misleading the Committee but I have to say that her performance today lacks the necessary decorum and it has not been as bad as that in the past. A little bit of decorum would not go amiss and a little bit of respect for other people casting their votes would be appreciated. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just about ready to rule but I will hear the member. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I do believe that the whip of the Labour Party actually brought you into disrepute and into the debate by using the word “you” with a clear reference to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that there is such a thing as common courtesy. Members might like to look at Speakers’ rulings 61/2 and also 61/5 which actually mention that no other comment at all is allowed while the vote is being taken. I think it would be orderly to work along the lines of previous Speakers’ rulings being those of Speaker Kidd and Speaker Hunt. If members would wait until they are called it would help facilitate the business of the Committee. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled on this Mr Tisch. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I think this is a serious matter. Mr Alexander has brought up the issue and I reiterate the point we made before about the senior Government whip. She was pre-empting what the party votes would be and you have ruled on that. There is actually nothing different from what has now been happening where the senior Government whip has been pre-empting what the Clerk might call out when we are going for the votes. I find that unacceptable and I think that the ruling you made earlier that the whip cannot pre-empt what the Clerk may be calling out is the proper course of action to follow. If that was your ruling then we can move to a process of decorum in this Chamber which has been lacking this morning since we started at 9 o’clock. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Tisch. The matter has already been dealt with. The situation is that I had put the question on the amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 to omit and substitute words in subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(1A)Notwithstanding any other matters detailed in section 14(2) the rights and views of victims must be paramount. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is an amendment to clause 14 in the name of Marc Alexander. It is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment affecting subclause (2)(b). 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (d) (e) and (g). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (e). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following typescript amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3). 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following typescript amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to the heading to clause 16 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(a)in satisfaction of an assumed right of the compensation by either victim or authorised agent of the victim. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (b) and add to subclause (1) the words “as an out-of-court final settlement of a specified claim.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the words “provided that any monies paid or received in terms of this subsection must also be paid into the victims’ claims trust bank account.”  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (5) the following paragraph: 
(b)And includes a repayment for the costs incurred to the state of all legal fees costs of incarceration and any additional expenditures as a result of the criminal conviction. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (6). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 51; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(3) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(3) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(3) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 51; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 18(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 18(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following subclause: 
(2)No sum may be paid to the accused or the offender. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 18(4) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) the words “the accused or the offender” and substitute the words “the victim”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A further amendment in the name of the honourable Dail Jones to clause 18(5) is now out of order because his amendment to subclause (4) has been defeated; therefore it is inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. Further amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of the honourable Marc Alexander to clauses 18 19 24 30(1)(b) 48 49 50 and 73 concerning victim support also are now out of order because they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 19(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(c)give in the notice general information about how victims authorised agents of victims and/or Victim Support in the absence of the victim or authorised agent of the victim. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 19(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 19(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 20(1) be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (a) the following new subparagraph: 
(iii)Victim Support; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 20 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (4) the following new paragraph: 
(d)Victim Support. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 7 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 8 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 9 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 12 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 16 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 18 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 24 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are a number of amendments in the name of the honourable member Marc Alexander to clause 26. They are out of order but I will go through them one by one. The first to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a) 7 months is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. The next to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a) 8 months is out of order because it is inconsistent with the decision on a clause 21 amendment. The amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause 3(a) 9 months is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. An amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a) 12 months is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. An amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a) 16 months is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. An amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a) 18 months is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. An amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of (3)(a) 24 months is out of order because it is also inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. 
The third amendment to clause 30 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander is to omit words from subclause (2). The first and second amendments to that clause on the Supplementary Order Paper have been ruled out of order. The subclause was numbered (1) in error; it should be subclause (2). 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “withheld from the accused or the offender and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 45(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The additional amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 45(3) is ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 46 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “to the offender”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The two additional amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 46 are ruled out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 48 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)The Secretary must not pay to the offender any amount of money that continues to be held in the account for the offender but surrendered to the victim a recognised authority acting for the victim or Victim Support. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit subpart 2 of Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 50(3) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(c)must pay into the account for the benefit of the relevant victim claimants any interest payable by it on the account and that is not retained under paragraph (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 52 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Dail Jones to omit clause 52 is ruled out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 52(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(b)must be transferred to Victim Support. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit subpart 3 of Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to insert new clause 15A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new clause 15A. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to the amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “1 July 2007” and substitute the words “1 July 2006”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to the amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “1 July 2007” and substitute the words “2 July 2007”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to the amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “1 July 2007” and substitute the words “3 July 2007”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 16(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed paragraph (ab) subparagraph (i). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 16(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed paragraph (ab) subparagraph (ii). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 16(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed paragraph (ab) subparagraph (iii). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendments to other Acts 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw it to your attention that the voting on Part 2 took well over an hour. I know that you were not in the Chair for most of the debate on that part but the debate itself took about an hour and 20 minutes and we took an hour and 10 minutes I think for the voting on it. People are listening to this debate. It is about a contentious issue that is of much concern to New Zealanders and they are not getting a fair go here. Marc Alexander and United Future have had a real road to Damascus experience with regard to this bill. I think Marc Alexander took two calls but he explained very little about the amendments in his name we are going through. There is a huge number of them. We are entitled to hear his explanation of them and so is the public. So I ask you Mr Chairman to be a little more liberal on Part 3 so that we can all have a fair go. I was denied the opportunity to take a call on the previous part and I make the point again that this is a contentious issue. The people out there who are listening to this debate want to know where we stand and why we are doing what we are doing. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. As I am in the Chair at the moment I will take his arguments into consideration when the calls are given. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Before we start to discuss this important part in depth I wonder whether the Minister would look at clause 62(1) which states: “Section 4(1) of the Legal Services Act 2000 is amended by omitting from the definition of  
transition date 
 the expression ‘2001.’ and substituting the expression ‘2001’.” It seems to me rather ridiculous that the expression “2001.” should be taken out only for the same expression to be then substituted. The Minister may take a moment or two to look at that and then come back to us with an answer. I can tell him exactly where to find it. It is on page 54 in subclause (1) of clause 62 “Interpretation”. 
This part reinforces absolutely the relationship that the victim of a serious crime will have to maintain with the perpetrator of that crime for the rest of his or her life. Let us be clear about that. Given that a violent crime is committed in this country every 9 minutes—that number has increased by about 15 percent under the rule of the Labour Government—and that Parliament today in this bill is not worried about the victims but about the perpetrators of those crimes— 
Brian Connell 
: The Government is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My colleague is right; the Government is worried about the perpetrators of crime. The National Party does not have much time for them at all. Here we have a bill about the best interests of the perpetrators of violent acts and now we are able to see in clause 73 that the relationship between the victims and perpetrators of crime is to be formalised and that that link will be there for the rest of their natural days. That has to be a clear indication to the public of this country of how out of touch with them the current Government is in the way it thinks about things. 
As a consequence of this part a change will be made to the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. Victims will now have to supply their information to the secretary—and the Minister may like to tell us who the secretary is—who will put details of their names addresses and other contacts on a file alongside the names of the police commissioner the perpetrator of the crime and a number of other State officials. That information will sit on the file just in case a violent criminal finds his or her human rights offended against whilst in prison. So the victims of crime who are out there fending for themselves without even getting a fair shake out of the Accident Compensation Corporation most of the time and with no other Government agency out there to hold their hands or show deep concern for them have to have their names on the files next to those of offenders just in case offenders’ human rights are violated while they are in prison. 
 If that happens and the prisoner goes to court and gets an award the money is paid into an account and the victim is notified. Then the victim can make a claim on that money. 
Brian Connell 
: Yeah right! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Exactly! What sort of Tui’s advertisement would that make? So the victim is to be notified that the prisoner—who has ruined the victim’s life in many cases—has been awarded a sum by the State for hurt feelings or another transgression of that person’s human rights and that if the victim wants to have a slice of that sum he or she can make an application. The Labour Government very generously in this bill states there will be no filing fees involved in that application. But we know there will be costs because the victim will have to make a case to get a slice of the money. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 We are debating Part 3 which amends the Human Rights Act 1993. I have not had a chance to discuss the part with my colleagues so I apologise to them but I picked up some informal legal advice and I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker will clarify whether I am right or wrong in this respect. I have been told informally that this legislation is one step away from allowing prisoners to sue for accident compensation. We are allowing them to sue for claims against prison officers and the Department of Corrections under the human rights legislation. We have denied them and all New Zealanders the ability to sue under accident compensation legislation and we have denied prisoners the right to be awarded compensation under that legislation. I am suggesting to the Committee as has been suggested to me that this bill is but a fraction of a step away from allowing prisoners to sue for lump-sum compensation in the event that they get injured by some “accident” in prison. 
The Minister in the chair is shaking his head but I suggest he give this some serious thought because huge pressure will be put on prison officers as a result of the bill. There will be a blurring of the line between a genuine accident and what one might call an abuse by a prison officer. The line will be deliberately blurred. I would not want to be a prison officer and I would not advise any of my friends or family members to be prison officers once this legislation comes in. Prison officers are being treated like second-best citizens. They will be prisoners in their own jails—maybe not physically but certainly mentally. Prison officers look after the roughest toughest thugs we have in this country and they will be set up every hour of every day of every week in order to have a claim taken against them and this Minister and this Government will award those prisoners thousands of dollars of compensation. We know that some of it will be stopped and victims will get the right to argue over the claim but we also know that there will be cases where these thugs will become relatively wealthy people and they will leave jail with a lot of money. 
In the House yesterday Keith Locke said that money is no good to a prisoner in jail. Yeah right! I tell him that if these thugs get $40000 or $70000 or whatever the Government will allow them to get they will use that money with evil intent. My colleague Dail Jones put forward a very very good Supplementary Order Paper. It would have stopped money from going to the prisoners in total—no ifs no buts no maybes. It recognised their ability to take legal action but it said that no money will go to a prisoner. That is the way most New Zealanders want it. Indeed they want it tougher. Dail Jones’ amendment was a very good midway position. It recognised the human rights of prisoners and their ability to take legal recourse but it said they will not gain from it. It removed the incentive for prisoners to take a claim against the Department of Corrections. 
We have here a protocol between the Department of Corrections and the Office of the Ombudsmen yet the Minister stood up here earlier today and said we need a review and we need a prison inspectorate. Let us look at the responsibilities of the Office of the Ombudsmen under this protocol. The Minister in the chair is looking as if he has never heard of this. It was signed up to by the Labour Government in 2003 and it gives the department some rights. It states that the Department of Corrections is responsible for the administration of prisons under the Penal Institutions Act 1954. Under the Ombudsmen Act 1975 an ombudsman can investigate decisions made by prison management that a complainant thinks are unlawful unreasonable or wrong. An ombudsman can also initiate own-motion investigations. That protocol was updated upgraded—call it what you will—in 2003. The Minister says the Labour Government is not mollycoddling prisoners. Well I do not know what it would do if it were mollycoddling prisoners. It would give prisoners every right it could think of. It is giving such rights to people like Gillies whom my colleague referred to earlier who virtually paralysed a law-abiding police officer who like all police goes out into the dark of night looking after the public’s interests. Gillies virtually paralysed that police officer with a screwdriver yet he got 40 grand because his feelings were hurt while he was in prison. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to refer briefly to some comments made by the previous speaker. The Greens are supporting the Government on this legislation. The Greens are trying to make themselves relevant just before the election because they have been totally irrelevant for the last 3 years. It is a waste of their time because they will be leaving Parliament. National certainly would not be dealing with the Greens. 
Talking about relevance it is totally irrelevant and obscene that under urgency just weeks before an election this Government should bring into the House this bill which is weighted totally in favour of some of the worst criminals in our jails. As I said earlier if the women on the other side of the House are happy that victims are only second class in this bill when many victims of violent crime as we know are women then good luck to them. But that is exactly why this Labour Government is on its way out of power. National will be sitting on that side after the election and of course the Greens will be nowhere. New Zealanders are sick of this softly softly approach to criminals. 
If we look though this bill we see that Part 3 also sets in concrete the fact that this bill is totally weighted in favour of offenders—including of course some of our worst offenders. On the other hand if one is a victim one may or may not think it is worth going through this awful awful process to try to get some recompense for the hurt and the suffering that one has endured at the hands of some of our worst criminals. 
My colleague Gerry Brownlee made reference to clause 73 which inserts new section 33A. That new section basically sets out that information about victims is to be held somewhere in the office of the Secretary for Justice alongside information about offenders. Why would anybody in his or her right mind have that sort of information sitting there? Although the bill supposedly says that none of that information on victims will ever be put before the offenders before our worst criminals how can we trust that sort of assurance from this Government? This Government does not know what is going on in its ministries. What has happened over the last 4 months has shown that very clearly. It has no control over what is happening in some Government agencies and it will have no control over this issue either. 
The very fact that that provision relating to information on victims is included in this bill shows exactly what the Government thinks about them. If it is right to compensate victims—and National certainly says it is; in fact we would be on the side of the victims not on the side of these criminals—we should not have information about the victims sitting alongside information about the offenders the criminals. Why do that? Why would victims go through the trauma of filing their claims if the criminals are able to see the claims and comment on them? Why would any victim want to go through that process? Well that is why this bill is a hoax. No doubt it raised victims’ expectations throughout the country but I do not know any victim who would put herself or himself through that trauma. 
This Government ought to be ashamed of itself. It will get punished for this bill just as it will get punished for Dr Cullen’s piddly Budget that tells hard-working New Zealanders they are not worth it. On the other hand this bill tells the crims that they are worth the Government’s time and effort. Shame on the Government members! And they know it. They are scrambling. Shame on them that one of the last pieces of legislation they are likely to bring in is being dealt with under urgency! They are being assisted by the Greens who are trying to make themselves relevant. The Greens have been totally irrelevant for 3 years. Nandor Tanczos is no longer regarded as relevant by even his own party. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 One of the things Part 3 does is make some consequential amendments to the Human Rights Act the Legal Services Act and so on but in looking at where we put the emphasis on human rights I think we need to find a balance. If we look at the victimisation rates in New Zealand every year there are about 2300 assaults 4600 grievous assaults 1000 abductions 70000 cases of sexual offences against women not including rape and 95000-plus burglaries. If we look at theft half a billion dollars a year worth of goods walks out of our shops through retail theft; and if members do not know what half a billion dollars looks like it is the equivalent of eight city supermarkets having everything they sell in a year stolen. Alongside all of that the law-abiding are the ones who pay every step of the way. They pay for it through higher prices for the goods they buy to cover the cost of retail theft from shops. 
We pay the police to go after the bad guys. We pay the court system which is inadequate. In fact 35000 cases are waiting to go to court. We pay the corrections system to hold these guys in prison—about $40000 a year if they are in minimum security and up to $76000 if they are in maximum security. In terms of compensation none of the victims of crime including the people who have to pay for all of this—who themselves are victims of crime in that their pockets have been robbed to pay for this—have any access to compensation at all for what has been done to them. But if a person commits a murder a rape or a burglary—something one chooses to do—and goes to prison and then has hurt feelings because of something done by a guard or somebody else the prisoner can make a claim for compensation. The person chose to be in prison by the action of committing a certain crime and then the prison system has to deal with the prisoner one way or another. People like Taunoa have to be put away and segregated to safeguard everyone else but such people can collect compensation. They can be rewarded for their choice to have a life of crime. How the hell is that fair? How is it fair that the law-abiding and the victims are out of the loop in terms of compensation but those who commit crime are up for it? That is an absolute perversity. 
The kind of people we are talking about are Denis Hines who has 80 convictions including one for slashing the throat of a rival gang leader when he tried to fire a gun and of killing another; Gresham Marsh who already had 60 convictions before killing an elderly couple and told the police he just wanted to watch them die; Joseph Thompson who had 129 charges including 46 for rape and had 50 victims the youngest of whom was 10 years old; Jules Mikus who had 60 offences. Then there is Douglas Ronald Corkhill.. He is aged 76. One would think he would slow down! But no. He faced 34 indecent assault charges on 12 October last year involving 11 boys. Eighty-six percent of those people will come out of prison and return to prison within 5 years. Seventy percent of them who go to prison have 10 or more convictions. And here is the kicker: Brian Alan Bolt 48 years of age was convicted on his 636th criminal offence—members heard that right—while on parole and those people can get compensation. 
This Government with the support—up until today—of the irrelevant Greens and their only relevance is to put the agenda of offenders ahead of victims is pushing this law through under urgency. This problem has been around for quite some time. We have had the opportunity to deal with this problem but the Government has decided not to take it up—against probably some of the better judgment of most of its own members. United Future offered a moratorium until a decent solution could be found. But no the Government chose to try to get this out of the public limelight so it will not be tarnished with it during the process of election. The Government will not escape it. The reason why it will not escape it is that we will not let the public forget. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We come now to Part 3 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill and on behalf of National I indicate that throughout the extended debate that is taking place under urgency National has opposed this legislation. We have done that for reasons that we judge to be principled and for reasons that we think reflect substantial community concern about the Government’s policy to compensate prisoners. Part 3 is one of the wrap-up provisions that one often finds in legislation. It makes amendments to a number of Acts including the Human Rights Act the Legal Services Act the Limitation Act the Privacy Act and the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002. 
A most bizarre situation has arisen. Not more than 150 metres away from here—and I am now speaking with reference to clause 61 which is the first clause in Part 3—the Government’s lawyers are arguing that there should be no monetary compensation payable. They are arguing that it is not required to be done as a matter of international law and it is not required to be done as a matter of human rights. Yet here those lawyers retained by this Government are met by a completely contrary argument. It is the argument contained in this bill that prisoners should receive monetary compensation. So 150 metres away from here the Government’s lawyers are saying one thing and in this debating chamber the Government is saying precisely the opposite of that. To add fuel to the flames in that bizarre setting we have the Greens supporting this legislation through one of their members who stood up and said that although this is a bad bill they will vote in favour of it. 
I shall now talk about the Legal Services Act provisions in Part 3. They are all about the provision of legal aid to victims so that they can mount claims to the bounty that prisoners score in jail as a result of successfully receiving a damages award. What we are all about here then is the setting up of a special tribunal that will form judgments on the merit of victims’ claims. We have the situation that compensation after any legal aid charges and unpaid reparation are deducted will be held in trust. Steps will then be taken to identify and notify the prisoners’ victims that money is available. They then have a fixed period of 6 months I understand to file a claim. There will be and this is what this part is about eligibility for legal aid and normal court fees will be waived. So there is the rub. Legal aid is to be provided for those claimants who as victims seek to advance their claims. The claims will be determined by a District Court judge sitting as a victims’ special-claims tribunal but—here is the but—the plan is that claims will be determined on the papers. It will only be the rarest instance what are called “exceptional reasons” that will justify a hearing. So legal aid is given on the one hand and taken away on the other. 
The plan is basically that the tribunal will work from findings of fact in the criminal cases that led to the offenders’ conviction. What is wrong with that process is that it will lead to the re-victimisation of victims. I just throw up some of the challenges that will be presented to the person who is tasked to make the compensation apportionment decisions. We may have the case of living victims—say people who have suffered at the hands of a serial rapist. Let us say that there were five of them. How will the damages be apportioned? Will the damages be awarded to each victim equally? 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall take a very brief call because I cannot tolerate the sanctimony that has been going on around this Committee for much longer without responding for a couple of minutes at least. When the previous National Government was in power for 9 long years it let more people out on parole and it never ever built enough prisons to cope with the number of people who should have been locked up. The difference between the National members and us is— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The honourable member is supposed to be addressing Part 3. Part 3 is concerned with four or five statutory changes. We are nowhere near that issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The previous speaker did indeed stick to the part. I know that the current speaker is just leading into it. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I was just doing a bit of rebuttal. Opposition members should not try to appear too holier-than-thou when their own history is not very long ago. This legislation will provide victims with opportunities for assistance that they have never had before. I remind Opposition members that some people’s memories are a bit longer than theirs and I say they should be aware of the sanctimony of what they are saying. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This part is as has been said the grab bag the loose ends of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill which we are debating. On behalf of the ACT party I want to draw attention to the statements made by Mr Goff when he promised yet again to introduce a bill on this issue. Among the assurances in his press release of 4 October last year was the following statement about the legislation: “Victims will of course be able to bring civil claims for damages not only when the offender receives state compensation but also for any other windfall gains such as inheritances the proceeds of any book written or even winning lotto.” 
I did not see anything about windfall gains of those kinds in the earlier parts of this bill so I have looked carefully to see whether as grab-bag matters they are somewhere in Part 3. Part 3 does not seem to deal with Lotto winnings income from books or windfall gains. It deals with the Human Rights Act the Legal Services Act which provides for legal aid the Limitation Act the Privacy Act and the Victims’ Rights Act. But I see nothing there to state that windfall gains will have to be put into trust when prisoners get them or to facilitate people who have had their reparation claims ignored to get access to those windfall gains. Indeed the bill is very very strict about what a specified claim is; that is in a provision in an earlier part. The Government rejected my amendment to help to extend it so we cannot deal with that. 
The grab bag in Part 3 is actually very small. There is another Act that this part does not refer to. I think members will be stunned given that they have heard all the assurances that the key thing is to make sure the complaints do not arise in the first place—that prisons must be made into places where there is no cause for a compensation claim—to realise that the Corrections Act does not seem to be touched by this bill. The bill is about reacting to the mistreatment of prisoners yet the Government has not even bothered to do anything in it about the Corrections Act. I have an amendment to this part. In that amendment I reinstate some provisions that this Government left out of the prisons legislation or changed when it passed its new Corrections Act. 
I believe the first thing this Government should have done was to ensure the independence of visiting justices. The term “visiting justice” meant just that until last year. It meant a judge who would go into a prison and be an independent person armed with all the clout and authority of the judicial office and give us all an assurance that our prisons were not like Turkish prisons—that people were not being beaten up and brutalised and were not being made too frightened to report it. I thought that the visiting justices were independent experts who were not beholden to anyone and who were assured that they would not get sacked or victimised by the Government because they were judges. Well the Government has kept the label but under the Corrections Act a visiting justice is now simply an appointed employee of the Department of Corrections. The label “visiting justice” has been used but the authority has been stolen—the brand that has been built up by judges in our system over generations. A visiting justice now just has to be a lawyer of 7 years’ practice. He or she can be a full-time departmental employee who goes around using the label of visiting justice and pretends to be independent. 
My amendment would reinstate the requirement for the genuine independence of visiting justices. I think that if the Government really meant what it was saying—if it really wanted to make sure that the causes of the payouts to prisoners would be removed—it would have included provisions to make the disciplinary system more robust. Then we would not have judges deciding to take it on themselves to invent remedies and to punish the department by ordering that it pay $358000 in legal fees and $55000 to one of New Zealand’s worst scumbags Christopher Taunoa and thousands of dollars to his mates—over $500000. If the Government meant what it said it would not have responded to that situation with cosmetic legislation. And it would feel ashamed to see the Sensible Sentencing Trust— 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 3 is a consequential part. It amends the legal services provisions to ensure that people have access to legal services and it puts caps on them. The second important aspect and this was raised in part by Stephen Franks is that it alters the statute of limitations and suspends it so there is a much longer period in which people can make a civil claim. 
Brian Connell 
: Yeah right! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: If Mr Connell reads it he will see that it does exactly that. And it does that for a number of reasons. It will strengthen the rights of victims to sue which will be a very valuable tool in the future. Mr Franks says that in terms of claims the bill does not cover windfall gains that a person might get by virtue of Lotto or writing a book. We do not have to mention that. The statute of limitations is extended so if a prisoner at the end of a 20-year sentence for example writes a book and gets a substantial amount of money for it then the way is still open for the victim to sue for compensation as a civil matter. If victims wish to do that they will be able to do so. Without this amendment they would not be able to sue because there is a limitation on the time in which to sue. If Mr Connell was on the side of victims he would support this extension because it improves their powers. [ 
Interruption 
] But as someone on this side of the Chamber has said he is not quite that bright. 
The second thing the bill does is amend the Victims’ Rights Act to ensure that the secretary is able to identify the victims. Gerry Brownlee asked who the secretary was. It is the Secretary for Justice; it is defined in the legislation. The hard-working deputy leader of the National Party has spotted that in clause 62 we are deleting “2001” and substituting “2001”. On the surface that seemed a very good argument that the amendment was foolish but in fact the amendment is very pertinent. That member has missed a full stop. We are taking out “2001.” and inserting “2001” without a full stop. Without this grammatical change the clause would make no sense. It is a very important grammatical change. As I am sure Mr Dail Jones would say it needs to be done. The grammar has to be correct does it not? 
Mr Peter Brown raised the prospect as Opposition parties do—they try to raise all sorts of dire prospects of doom and gloom—that we would open the way to suing for accident compensation payments. The second thing Peter Brown said is that the Government gives prisoners money. The court gives them that money. Peter Brown knows very well that it is an order of the court not a Government decision. I come back to the point that the reason the court can do this is that in 1994—when Tony Ryall who has not taken a call in this debate was in Government—we had the  
Baigent 
 decision in which a person who sued the Crown for a breach of human rights was awarded compensation. The then National Government decided that that was OK; it had no objection to that at all. I notice that Mr Tony Ryall has not stood up in this debate and denied it. The National Party did nothing about that ruling. Nor did New Zealand First when it was in power with the National Party. 
I want to make a further point concerning the claim that has been made in this debate about compensation. Under the regime endorsed by the previous National Government a prisoner who claimed that he or she had suffered some breach of human rights could hold the matter over and do nothing about it at the time and could sue for compensation some time later—go all round the board land on “Go” and try to get $200. This legislation will stop that because it will require the prisoner to have exhausted all remedies and avenues before filing for compensation or going to court. 
The second thing that will happen as we have made very clear is that the Government will establish an independent prison complaints authority. This is quite different from the issue raised by Peter Brown about the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman does not have the sort of investigative powers that we would like a prison complaints authority to have. We want an independent prison complaints authority—one that has strength and teeth so that if someone feels aggrieved he or she can write to the authority directly and have the matter resolved at that point. If processes are not working well we want them fixed at the point at which they occur. This Government is committed to fixing the problem where it starts. Unlike the previous National Government which did nothing to fix this problem from 1994 onwards we will fix it. We will have an independent complaints authority to inspect prisons to make sure that such problems do not occur. 
I want to come back to Marc Alexander who talks about a moratorium. Even if this Committee agreed with his proposal about a moratorium as he has written it the people who currently have an award for compensation by the court would not be captured by it. If the Court of Appeal upheld the decision the money would have to be paid out. So the objective of that member—to stop the compensation being awarded to Mr Taunoa and others—would not be achieved. This legislation will ensure that if the court decides to uphold the award of compensation then the money will go into this process and will be available to victims. I would have thought that Mr Alexander would support that. So this bill is in fact a more effective vehicle although it does not have the simplicity Mr Alexander claims his proposal has. 
I finish by saying that this bill does strengthen victims’ rights despite the comments of the Opposition. It strengthens victims’ rights and ensures that we can hold our heads up in any forum and say that we have done the right thing. Firstly we will do so by having a stronger prisons inspectorate. More important this Government has made a commitment to undertake an inquiry to see how we can better support victims—how we can provide them with the necessary support and so on that one would expect for them. This will be a very complex issue. There is no simple easy answer. But I want to say that no previous Government has ever attempted to do find one. This Government is prepared to do it. We will do the job very well and we will be here after the election to make sure it happens. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 That Minister has taken two calls of the most sanctimonious politically correct nonsense I think I have heard since I have been in Parliament. What absolute drivel that was in self-justification! I tell the Minister that there is a very simple answer: prisoners simply do not get compensation. Throughout this debate the hitherto irrelevant Green Party has been voting in favour of this legislation despite the much-heralded Trotskyite Keith Locke coming down to the House last night and saying that this was bad law. He said that it was bad law but that the Greens would vote for it anyway. I am reminded of Groucho Marx saying: “Those are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others.” 
The Minister talked also about international conventions as a means of justification. What about the convention that one shall not kill? The Minister just conveniently forgets about that. When the mother of the victim of Sam Te Hei came to the select committee who is one of the most courageous people I have ever seen—I am coming to Part 3 because this is an important component of going to the heart of damages—she looked us in the eye and said: “What about justice for my little girl?”. We are not here for money—we do not want compensation. We simply want justice. What about her human rights? I found that an extremely compelling argument. 
The Government tells us that it will change the statute by means of clauses 63 and 64 so that it can put into play a situation whereby the victims of heinous crime will now have to go through this nightmare time and time again because they can sue for compensation. As I have already said they do not want compensation. What has happened to this society so that we have got ourselves into a situation like that? Whoever would have thought that 5 years ago—let alone now—we would have said that those who commit vicious crimes against humanity will be compensated? It is happening under a Labour Government. 
Let us have a look at what takes place. The scenario is that a victim goes after one of the perpetrators who has now got some money by virtue of the State. Having incurred substantial costs through the legal system to win it that is now what will happen. In terms of deductions from the quantum clause 17(1) states that the Secretary for Justice must “(a) first pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any relevant charge—(i) in favour of the Legal Services Agency; and … (b) secondly pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any amount of reparation owed by the accused or the offender;”. What the bill is saying is that the victims are third in the pecking order. Having gone through the battle to get compensation and having incurred their own personal expenses offenders’ victims will now have legal aid in favour of the State and any other order payable against the offender deducted from the quantum before they get a look at the money That is not only disgraceful it is inhumane. The bill is badly named. It should be called the “Prisoners Compensation Bill” and I can hardly wait for the title debate just to express that view. 
Whatever happened to this country whereby victims’ rights have become secondary to those who commit heinous crime? Why should we ever consider that that is fair relevant and just? Who thinks that it is fair relevant and just? Clearly only the members of the current Government do supported by the Green Party. It is not fair and we strongly oppose it. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Having listened to the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker give his excuse for Part 3 of this bill— 
Brian Connell 
: It was an excuse. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: —and it was an excuse—there are a few matters I wish to take up. He told us that we could not have retrospective legislation to deal with those dreadful criminals and the payments for their hurt feelings. Time and time again in this House we get retrospective legislation from this Government. Time and time again in this House we get told that something will be retrospective. There is always retrospective legislation when it concerns the Government taking money from hard-working taxpayers. Funnily enough the one time the Government gets all squeamish about retrospective legislation is when money is going to criminals because of their hurt feelings. We in this House are supposed to sit here and swallow that one. Well that is just too much of a dead rat and frankly we are not swallowing it. 
Obviously retrospective legislation is never ideal but there is a time and a place for everything. This is the time and this is the place for some retrospective legislation to sort out the nonsense of hurt feelings for people who have not shown one scrap of feeling for their victims and their victims’ families. Those people have been brought up—or dragged up—to believe that only they have rights. They do not have one responsibility other than to themselves and they care nothing about anything other than getting some money in damages off the taxpayer under Part 3 of the bill. They can say: “Aren’t we lucky! It’s better than robbing the bank.”—and that is exactly what they are doing. 
Then we heard from Mr Barker the pathetic excuse as to why Part 3 is in the bill. He said that the victims can sue the criminals. Now we all know that Mr Barker is a very simple man but at no stage did I think he was that naive. What planet is that man from? [ 
Interruption 
] Is he from the same planet as Lynne Pillay? Perhaps he is. If he thinks those victims and their families wish to go back into a courtroom and sue the scum that has destroyed their lives then all I can say is: what planet is he on? Of course they do not! Then he talked about how those criminals could write books. My goodness I do not think they are writing books! He said they could write books and make money out of that which would mean there would be money for the victims. Rubbish! All he needs to do is to think a little bit and get some advice. If he got some advice he would be told that the book could be written by someone else—in someone else’s name—who could then give the money to the criminal. In fact the victims Mr Barker talks about will never get a cent. Criminals can write under ghost names and through books owned by companies. They will do anything so that not one cent goes to those victims. We on this side of the Chamber know that will happen because we have thought this thing through. But Mr Barker thinks that those criminals will suddenly get a conscience and want to give money— 
Stephen Franks 
: Mr Goff. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh Mr Goff will too. Mr Goff—who is very silent on the bill today I notice—wants to allow those vicious criminals to benefit from their crimes but he says they will not be able to because somehow the victims will get the money. Well I suggest he wakes up and smells the roses because that will not happen under this bill and certainly not under Part 3. Those victims have never asked for money. How much do we put on a life? What is the price of a life? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Not much according to this Government. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Georgina te Heuheu has said it—not much according to this Government. Actually no amount of money will ever compensate a parent for losing a child. No amount of money will ever bring back the innocence and freedom a young girl had before she was raped—no amount of money. This Government does us no credit in this Chamber when it tells victims it will get them some money. The Government is taking the money off the victims who pay taxes. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 3 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill should have been the part wherein the Government grasped a nettle that the National Government was too afraid to grasp. When  
Baigent’s 
 case introduced into the scheme of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act a right that judges had been developing all on their own—a right for financial compensation for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—we had judicial lawmaking at its most naked. That remedy had in fact been considered by Parliament and discarded. When the Law Commission was asked to comment it was predictable that the commission—part of that same cosy establishment part of the “anointed” in the justice establishment—would decide that it was a good idea to let judges run free. Now we are seeing part of the price. It is not that judges are not well meaning it is not that they do not see a need but there should have been a legislative response that said to them that when that kind of invention occurs and when Parliament had clearly not intended it Parliament should act. 
Part 3 is the place that should see a reversal of the decision in  
Baigent’s 
 case. If there is not enough courage on the part of the Government to reverse it completely it should at the least have reversed it in relation to prisoners’ claims. What we would have had was what I have moved in my amendment to this part: a simple statement that in relation to proceedings to do with prisoners’ treatment the Employment Relations Act the Harassment Act the Human Rights Act the Privacy Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will not give rise to orders for compensation or damages. That is very straightforward and it is consistent with our constitutional theory. Our constitution assumes that if Parliament does not like what judges are doing it changes it. But instead this Government and the last Government were too afraid to take it on. They were too afraid to assert that the people who make the law should be subject to being sacked by the people—that legislators should make the law not judges. So we will see $500000 spent in this Budget year and $379000 at least in each of the next 3 years on a tribunal that will be presiding over next to nothing. 
I was glad that the Associate Minister took a call to explain where the assurance was that victims would have access to the proceeds of book sales Lotto wins and inheritances. He said it is because the limitation period is being expanded—that is the limitations will not run while prisoners are in jail. But that is only a small part of the problem for prisoners. They will not have access to those windfalls unless we also suspend or change the rules that prevent suing under the accident compensation scheme; or unless we make sure that when a windfall comes to a prisoner or ex-prisoner someone knows about it; or unless we make sure that those prisoners cannot divert their entitlements. For example as Judith Collins mentioned we could have had some anti-avoidance provisions. None of that work has been done. 
In this bill we see only enough to pass muster as a smokescreen of apparent action. There is no real commitment to prisoners’ interests. There is not the beefing-up of the role of Victim Support that the Minister of Justice foreshadowed on 4 October when it was contemplated that there might be a role for such organisations as advocates. No victims will be left to look at litigation against those people who have wounded them and they will have to do that on their own resources with all the current fears of throwing good money after bad. 
There is a little bit of a relaxation of entitlement under legal aid. From what has been set out in this legislation I cannot tell whether it will mean anything to any people other than those who are too poor to qualify at present. But whether it reaches back into what people call the middle classes—those who currently cannot afford litigation because only the poor and the rich can afford litigation—we cannot tell. 
So I urge members to vote for the amendment I have put forward which includes a new section 179A of the Corrections Act. It will be the only change to that Act in this bill. We might have thought this bill would be a substantial rethink of what the Government has done but instead it has had its entire attention focused on getting rid of private involvement in the Auckland Central Remand Prison. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I want to carry on from my most able colleagues in their attention to Part 3 and in their overall attention to this bill. They have done a magnificent job. Part 3 amends the Human Rights Act. Clause 61 “Damages” states: “Section 92M(2) of the Human Rights Act 1993 is consequentially amended by inserting after the expression ‘920’ the words ‘of this Act and to subpart 1 of Part 2 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2004’. ” 
 Subpart 1 of Part 2 is quite a substantial inclusion within the bill. It is interesting to note that the provisions always refer to prisoners and victims. That shows the intent—that the prisoner always comes first and the victim second. The New Zealand public made an overwhelming statement that they did not want prisoners to receive compensation. Not only has this Government provided a bill that gives prisoners an enshrined right with regard to suing for compensation but also Part 3 amends the Human Rights Act to enshrine that right. I think that goes much further than what we anticipated when we started to debate this bill. I find that extraordinary in the extreme. That provision in clause 61 places emphasis on the fact that prisoners have a right to compensation. Instead of saying that prisoners do not have a right and instead of curtailing that right in the way the New Zealand public has demanded the Government has gone completely to the other extreme and instead is enshrining it in the Human Rights Act. I find that extraordinary. Perhaps the Minister will take a call and explain. 
It is particularly extraordinary in light of the comments made by my learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. Some interesting comments have been made in the House regarding international law. Dr Mapp said quite clearly that international law does not state that we have to provide monetary compensation if any matters need to be addressed with regard to prisoners. If prisoners need some right to justice then monetary compensation does not have to be a part of that. There can be other remedies. I am just so glad that National is opposing this legislation. It sensibly recommended having an inspectorate of prisons and I think that is absolutely the way to go. Let us face it it is far more fiscally responsible than what is being promoted through this bill. 
Brian Connell 
: And morally responsible. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes and morally responsible. Victims in no way get any support from this bill. It is all about prisoners and what they can do; it is all about setting up prisoners to take advantage of and indulge in a huge number of rorts in relation to what is being provided for them. 
Clause 63 relates to proceedings for which legal aid may be granted. Is it not extraordinary that victims have to go through the legal aid process and establish whether they are entitled to legal aid just to be a part of proceedings? I find that extraordinary in the extreme. Victims do not have first crack at any compensation that may have been granted. But I do not want to go there because National totally opposes prisoners getting any form of compensation. Clause 63 is about the granting of legal aid. It raises the other matter that was commented on by my learned colleague Dr Richard Worth relating to the manner in which the tribunal will decide on how compensation is allocated. It will decide on the facts of the original case. How will the tribunal reflect on take into account or consider in any way shape or form the ongoing effects on the victims if it is dealing only with the immediate act of the offence and consequence of that offence and not necessarily with the impact on victims? I raise questions around that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put.  
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit Part 3 is ruled out of order because it is a direct negation of the question. The proper course of action is to vote against the part. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 68 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 113(1) of the Legal Services Act 2000 new paragraph (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to add new clause 74 is out of order. It is outside the scope of the bill in that it amends an Act not being amended by the bill in a manner that is not consequential. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I was interested to see that the Minister the Hon Rick Barker was quite diligent in getting to his feet. I invite him to take another call to explain why he is wasting Parliament’s time in forcing through this legislation under urgency while at the same time the Crown lawyer Terence Arnold QC is arguing in the court that a court declaration and not compensation is the proper response if a breach is held to have occurred. So I invite the Minister to take a call. How does he expect the court to rule in favour of the Crown when it realises that Parliament is taking urgency to award and confirm rights through this legislation which is probably more appropriately as my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp says the “Prisoners’ Compensation Bill”? 
I found it outrageous just now when the Minister who was on his feet actually made it sound as though the victims should be grateful that in Part 3 the Minister and the Labour Government allow them to take action when a prisoner gets compensation. Speaker after speaker has stood up and made it quite clear that the victims did not actually want to have a share in any compensation. They just want to get on with their lives. But once again this PC Labour-minority Government has been backed up by the Greens—the “party of principle” which is how the Greens label themselves. The Greens say they will support this bad legislation for 2 years; they think it will be harmless to support it for 2 years. I tell the Green Party that I am looking forward to campaigning against them during the election—which will be announced to take place on 30 July—to tell the people that that party of principle went to Parliament to support bad legislation. 
What has saddened the public today is that we are debating legislation that sets out the whole procedure of how prisoners can claim compensation. It is an endorsement. I want the Minister to stand and take a call and tell us how much is provided in the Budget for him to conduct workshops and education seminars in prisons for the prisoners to understand their rights and to provide copies of this legislation to enable them to complain. 
The Minister did not even take note of what its own defence counsel who tried to appeal this prisoners’ compensation said: “The inadequate daylight for prisoners on the slated behaviour management regime was more than many Wellington houses receive.” The Crown was arguing in court that the condition of the prison that was complained about by the prisoners was better than in the houses of some Wellingtonians. 
I think the Labour Government has a lot to answer for. What happened to the Government’s so-called promises to provide State houses? We have the Government’s own lawyers saying that ordinary Wellingtonians are not receiving better treatment than prisoners. This Minister and the Labour-minority Government keep us here from more important business by debating a bill that would confirm prisoners’ rights to compensation. 
Has the Government got its priorities right? It never gets its priorities right as I pointed out in the Budget debate earlier. The nation is crying out for safety and protection and for more police. The police got $41 million in the Budget. The Government provided $33 million for tax collectors and a mere $41 million for the police. It is outrageous. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In debating clause 1 and clause 2 the title and the commencement clauses it actually causes one to reflect back on the content of this debate as to what one may appropriately title this bill which is soon to become an Act. A couple of thoughts spring to mind. One of them based on the evidence that has been produced by the Opposition parties is that we could name this legislation the “Prisoners’ Rights Bill”. The reason is that this legislation gives prisoners convicts and inmates the right to access money—taxpayers’ money. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: They get that right now. 
RON MARK 
: I tell the Minister that we could solve the problem by removing that right in its entirety if we followed the recommendations of New Zealand First. The Minister interjected and said that prisoners have the right to taxpayers’ money now. I tell him that that is precisely the problem and that this bill does not change that right. 
It would have been very easy to resolve that issue. This Government had it listened to New Zealand First could have produced a bill that simply stated that inmates who are abused by prison officers—by the Department of Corrections—have the right to have charges laid and heard. Inmates should have the right to see the officer who abused them prosecuted convicted and jailed alongside them in the same cell but that does not give them the right to receive compensatory payouts. The rationale is quite simple from where New Zealand First sits. If the original victim of the crime that saw the inmate put in jail is not entitled to compensation why the hell should the inmate be entitled to compensation when he or she is offended against? It is a simple case of basic logic a logic that seems not to exist in the Government ranks. Yes it is wrong to beat and bash an inmate. The report into the “goon squad” a report that the Government fought so long not to have highlights many examples of inmates being abused by the Government’s own Department of Corrections and abused in the knowledge that that was going on. It is not appropriate for inmates to be so abused in a civilised society but it is appropriate to charge the people who do that—and it is appropriate to convict those people and to imprison them. That is where the matter should end. We do not need to have a prisoners’ rights Act that guarantees prisoners will get their money. 
Maybe the title of the bill could be the “Victims’ Wrongs Act” because the greatest wrong here is that victims nationwide will not get all the money. Again that is what New Zealand First said should occur. Well if the Government is to still pay out the money and make some of it available to the victims of the original crime why not go to the next step and put all the money in trust give the inmate nothing—not one red cent—and make all that money available to all victims? But no the Government does not want to listen; it knows better than us. 
Maybe we could call this bill the “Wake Up and Smell the Coffee United Party Bill” because United Future has only just realised how it can be used and abused by this Government. I commend Marc Alexander because it is his work that has got United Future finally to say no to this bill. But I say to Marc Alexander that in the absence of a solid coalition agreement the Government can do to him exactly what it has just done. It is saying to him: “Thank you very much for voting for supply and confidence yesterday. Thank you for keeping us all in our Cabinet chairs with our big fat salaries and thank you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: I am saying to Marc Alexander that the Government is saying to him: “Thank you for that but now we’re going to go to the Greens and do precisely what you Marc Alexander do not want us the Government to do.” 
The bottom line is that United Future has been done over like a dog’s dinner. If it survives and comes back to Parliament after the election I would hope that it will not only have a new leader but seriously be very much wiser. Regrettably Marc Alexander will not be here yet he is the member who has done the most work for United Future. The “Wake Up and Smell the Coffee United Party Bill” would be an apt description right now. But sadly this bill will probably go down as the “Slap in the Face for the Taxpayer Bill”. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker for his contribution and I ask him whether he thinks I should make my valedictory speech now or wait for New Zealanders to vote in a common-sense way and return United Future in the much more powerful position of being kingmaker after the next election—a position that New Zealand First squandered when it had its opportunity thereby putting National out of contention for two or possibly three elections. Nobody will reward New Zealand First for that. 
Before I discuss the main part of the topic which is what we should name this bill I would like to point out something that is quite curious and interesting: we are talking about victims’ rights. The primary reason the bill is before us is so we can deal with the issues of victims and their sense of injustice. That is what this bill proposes to do. The problem that this bill attempts woefully to try to address is that of ensuring that victims are not left out of the loop—that they are not marginalised or put at the outer fringes of our criminal justice system. But this bill actually enshrines that. It actually makes matters more difficult for the victims of crime. 
Interestingly enough not long ago I had a conversation with a Labour member whom I will not name who basically accused me of being sanctimonious when I pointed out that she should spend a bit more time with victims to find out how they feel about things. It is interesting that she thought spending time with victims and advocating on their behalf would qualify one to be regarded as sanctimonious. So I guess the reverse is true: someone who does not spend any time with victims will have a much better perspective of them. That is the perspective of the Government and of the Greens and it is wrong—it is utterly wrong. If one wants to understand what victims are about one should spend time with them to understand why their victimhood chases them and casts a long shadow right throughout their lives. If people did that and understood where victims were coming from they could never support a bill such as this because this bill does one thing if nothing else: it enshrine offenders’ rights above and beyond victims’ rights. It is an appalling bill because of that. 
It is true that United Future supported the bill through its early stage and supported its referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee the main point being that something had to be done. We thought—wrongly as it turned out—that something could be done to make this bill place the interests of victims first. Unfortunately the bill does not do that and that is why we cannot support it. But we gave the Government an out: we offered it the opportunity to put a moratorium in place so that no more prisoners’ claims could be put forward. The Government for its own reasons chose to walk away from that offer. It probably thought the bill would put the issue to rest. Well it will not. 
What can one say about the Greens’ complicity in being the only other party apart from Labour to support this bill? The Greens are supposed to belong to a party of principle but they walked away from their principles regarding GE and they walked away from Nandor Tanczos’ bill thinking the marijuana issue may blight their chances at the election. The only Green member who is worth talking to and worth having a comprehensible conversation with is Ian Ewen-Street. But he has decided that enough is enough. He is going off into the sunset and leaving the Greens and I do not blame him. I would too if I were him. Ian Ewen-Street should be commended for voting with his feet. It is something that the people of this country should take into consideration when they go into the polling booth and see the word “Green”. That party name should be taken off the ballot because the Greens have no pride of place in this Chamber when it comes to advocating for the right sort of human rights—that is victims’ rights above the rights of prisoners. This bill is a disgrace. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Ordinarily at this phase of a Committee stage consideration of a bill I like to sum up the key tensions the key policy issues and try to avoid what can be interpreted as or is in fact party point-scoring. But there is a lovely temptation in this case that I can do both at the same time. 
I will quote from the minority report of United Future. United Future has been rescued by Marc Alexander in this case. United Future has been rescued by a man who as he says has had contact with victims. It is very interesting that when we sit in this Chamber the depth to which the committee members were moved when we saw the victims in front of us—how hard it was for us to fight back tears as they pleaded for this bill not to proceed in a way that would leave them facing the prospect of watching the people who have hurt them get money for trifling ludicrous claims while they themselves cannot claim—falls away. The bill changes nothing in that respect. The chance that this bill will reduce the amounts received by prisoners is the same as the chance of one of the victims winning a lottery because the number of cases where people are entitled to exemplary damages then find that their particular villain has not 
managed to go through the human rights route and jump or sidestep all the constraints on suing—the coincidence of that happening—will be the equivalent of a Lotto win of getting the bonus. 
The Government knows that. It was told that by the Law Society. It was told that by nearly every victim who came along. It was told that the victims did not want to have to go through their wounds again. They did not want the system that the Government forces them into whereby the only role they have in the justice system is as losers—complaining and emphasising the damage. They want a role of seeing that justice is done and that will suffice. 
The whole problem about the bill is that it does not acknowledge that prison is about punishment. The whole idea of punishment is utterly undermined when windfall gains are handed out not because of anything that the prisoners have done to deserve them but because that is the only way the judges can find to punish the Department of Corrections. Instead of being able to force the department to operate a disciplinary structure that tells prison officers not to breach prisoners’ rights the courts say they will punish it by handing windfalls to the prisoners. This bill does not change that. 
The Chairperson ruled out my amendment to the Corrections Act. Here we have a bill that is said to be about—and there are all sorts of pious words at the beginning—fixing up and removing the causes of these claims yet it does not even touch the Corrections Act so my amendment was ruled out because it was outside the scope of the bill. What an emphasis of the travesty that this bill is! It is a piece of classic Phil Goff cosmetics. And the Government is to spend $534000 this year on setting up a tribunal that might get one or two cases; a tribunal that is going to administer if history is any guide no more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year at most. And the Government has put in the Budget that $379000 a year will be spent running this tribunal when it might get to consider dispensing a third of that amount. The bill is a very expensive travesty. 
I am glad that Marc Alexander brought United Future to its senses. That party was part of the majority that recommended this bill proceed. He has turned that round. I say “Good on him!” but it is a great shame that we have had the agony that these people went through the furore in September and October last year when people realised just what was happening. The Prime Minister 4 years ago said to the Hon Margaret Wilson that she did not agree with giving prisoners payouts; that they should be forced to go through the court. The Prime Minister said publicly that she did not agree with it. The Government has had all this time to fix it but it is too scared of what might happen when its members next go to New York and suck up to the representatives of Mugabe the representatives of the Sudan—countries that truly torture their people. They are not prepared to say to them that we will not pay our prisoners. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill which ultimately puts money in the hands of the scum of our society. The Labour Party is pushing this bill and United Future wanted to have nothing to do with it finally. But who came along to help the Labour Party? The Greens did. The Greens cannot wait to jump into bed with the Labour Party. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
DAIL JONES 
: As you have said Madam Chair we have before us the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. This bill has come about because a group of hardened criminals who are in prison for some of the most vicious crimes against society have been able to exercise their common-law rights and other rights and to sue prison guards and the corrections service in particular. That was because the prison guards and the corrections service responded to the disgraceful behaviour of the prisoners while in prison and because a judge decided that the poor darling prisoners who had murdered beaten and raped and who had destroyed people’s lives were entitled to some recompense for having the lights on for too long for being locked up for too long and for being restrained when shouting out screaming and making everyone’s life a misery. The judicial system has decided that prisoners like those were entitled to up to $140000 by way of damages. 
New Zealand First says that the first people and the only people who should share in those damages are the victims of those disgraceful criminals who are really the scum of New Zealand society. New Zealand First says that any funds received by criminals as a result of a successful claim should be paid first to the victims of the criminals receiving the compensation and second the balance should be paid into a victims’ claims rehabilitation account. The difference between our view and that of the Government and the Greens—who have only recently decided to help the Government on this issue—is that the Government wants any balance to go to the criminals. New Zealand First does not want any balance to go to the criminals. New Zealand First wants that balance to go into a victims’ claims rehabilitation account and to be shared by victims generally to help them with the money outstanding to them. We were told in the Justice and Electoral Committee that victims are currently owed about $51 million in reparation by the criminals in New Zealand society. 
Of course there should be redress for prisoners and the Government should take appropriate action against prison officers and any other persons employed by the Department of Corrections who have created a situation in which prisoners are entitled to make a claim. Remedies such as dismissal from the Department of Corrections and prosecution should be utilised by the Government to ensure that any situations that would give rise to claims by criminals are not repeated. Even as we speak a case is taking place in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand just down the road about this matter. That judgment was given by a judge a short time ago so there is a judgment in effect that states that those criminals are entitled to that money. New Zealand First has therefore put forward an amendment stating that this Act of Parliament should come into effect from 1 January 2005. We say it should be retrospective and our amendment states: “and applies to all actions currently before the courts including any actions commenced before the 1 January 2005 which have not yet been concluded and further applies to any such actions which are currently the subject of an appeal before any court.” We want to make sure that any possible claim that is still current before the courts even by way of an appeal to the Court of Appeal is caught by legislation that makes sure that criminals do not get the money. 
But the Government disagrees with us. Labour and the Greens say that those vicious murderers those people who have beaten children to such an extent that their mothers cannot recognise them should be entitled to money. We say that this law will encourage criminals to misbehave in prison and make the lives of prison officers an absolute misery and will encourage more and more of those crimes and that misbehaviour in prisons. We are not dealing with people who having embezzled some money go to prison do their time and come out. This legislation is concerned with really vicious criminals and thugs and we in New Zealand First say that they should not get a brass razoo. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Minister has made much play of the fact indeed it is part of the Government’s rationale for this bill that the Government believes that the  
Baigent 
 case— 
Simpson 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 [1994] 3 NZLR 667—requires monetary compensation for prisoners. That is the essence of the Government’s argument. It even stated it in the commentary on the bill: “New Zealand jurisprudence supports the view that the availability of compensation for breaches of domestic human rights law is part of compliance with the covenant.” 
Let us look at the facts of the  
Baigent 
 case because it is radically different from the circumstances we are faced with in this bill. The only commonality is that the case refers to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and proceedings therein. In  
Baigent’s 
 case what actually happened was that police officers obtained a warrant for search. There was some confusion as to the appropriate street address on that warrant and they went to a person’s place to search for drugs as the warrant authorised. They found out at the premises they had gone to the wrong premises. That is the bizarre thing but the officer in charge said to the occupant of the house Mrs Baigent: “We often get it wrong but whilst we’re here we’ll have a look around anyway.” Bear in mind that she was a completely innocent citizen living at home minding her own business when the police arrived and said they had a warrant. The police more or less said: “We’ve got a warrant it doesn’t actually talk about you but nevertheless we’re here so we may as well search anyway.” It is hardly surprising in that particular set of circumstances that the court would find that a perfectly innocent citizen had had her rights violated and given the only conceivable remedy in that case was damages that damages would be awarded. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker has made much play that National did not pass special legislation to reverse that decision. Why would we? Why would anyone take a right away from a perfectly innocent citizen sitting at home minding her own business being subject to a search that had no legal authorisation? In fact one would expect there to be a remedy in such a circumstance. What I would like to know from the Government is how it draws from that case the right for a prisoner a person convicted of an offence in a prison and subject to the behaviour management regime to receive compensation. One might ask what is meant by “subject to the behaviour management regime”. It means a regime for the worst prisoners in our jail system. It is the category of prisoners who taunt the guards get into fights cause trouble attack guards burn materials in their cells. It is the really difficult prisoners. In fact one of the people involved in the case before the courts at the moment is noted to be literally the worst prisoner in the country. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: The worst? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He is the worst in terms of his behaviour in the cells. That is why he was subject to the behaviour management regime. It largely keeps such a person in solitary confinement for the protection of other prisoners the protection of prison guards and to try to change the person’s behaviour. As has been said today in the Court of Appeal the regime is quite reasonable. Those prisoners have proper meals proper exercise a decent-sized cell. As the Solicitor-General said it may not be the Hilton but it is after all a prison. 
Now finally the Crown is defending the behaviour management regime but it is passing a statutory code for that kind of person. I say to the Minister let us be honest and call it a prisoner compensation code; a code that will allow such a person to continue to sue for damages. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act” and substitute the words “Inmate Detainee and Person Under Supervision Compensation and Claims Act”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act” and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Compensation and Claims Act”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005” and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Pecuniary Interest and Claims Act 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005” and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Privileges Rights and Claims Act 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005” and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Legal Entitlements and Claims Act 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims” Claims Act 2005 and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Financial Windfall Act 2005” is ruled out of order as it is not an objective description of the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “from 1 January 2005 and applies to all actions currently before the courts including any actions commenced before the 1 January 2005 which have not yet been concluded and further applies to any such actions which are currently the subject of an appeal before any court”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after the words “into force on” and substitute the words “1 July 2006”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Procedure 
The bill was reported with amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill be now read a third time 
. The House has listened for several hours now to a raft of ludicrous and false claims from the Opposition about this bill. We have heard claims that it will compensate vicious prisoners that it will give prisoners new rights and that it will extinguish the rights of victims etc. All of those claims are of course absolute nonsense and the members making them know it. 
I want to recap on what this bill actually does. In August 2004 a group of Auckland prison inmates were awarded a total of $130000 after the High Court found aspects of the behaviour management regime that operated at Paremoremo unlawful. The reason they were able to claim compensation was that the National Government during the 1990s of which Tony Ryall was a member did not legislate to overturn the landmark decision made in the  
Baigent 
 case that monetary compensation was available for breaches of human rights. I repeat that the  
Baigent 
 case made it clear that monetary compensation was available for breaches of human rights and the National Government did nothing whatsoever to change that. This bill does not give prisoners the right to claim compensation for breaches of their rights. National had already ensured that they would have that right. They have had it for 10 years. 
The bill being passed today by the Labour-Progressive Government with the support of the Green Party for the first time establishes guidelines that restrict the circumstances in which courts may award compensation in the most serious cases of prisoner abuse. The prisoners will have to demonstrate that they have tried to use the prison complaints system to have their grievances resolved at the earliest opportunity before the matter escalates. The court will have to be satisfied that a non-monetary remedy would not be sufficient to address the claim. This bill does not extend prisoners’ rights to compensation—the rights the National Government let them have. It limits those rights. 
Of course the Opposition claims in a fit of outrage—which it apparently did not feel 10 years ago and in its time in Government since then—that we should go further and rule out all possibility of compensation no matter how grievously a prisoner might be abused. Doing that now would put us clearly in breach of international human rights law. This Government has made it clear from day one that we will not breach our international obligations in addressing this problem. To do so would seriously undermine our international credibility. No other country with which we would like to be compared—the United Kingdom Australia Canada the United States and the European nations—rules out the possibility of monetary compensation as a remedy for the worst breaches of prisoners’ human rights. None of those countries does that. 
This bill does not limit or reduce victims’ rights as is claimed by the Opposition. In fact it greatly enhances victims’ rights to pursue civil damages claims against an offender. It does this in two ways. Firstly it suspends the limitation period that applies to all civil claims while an offender is in prison. Offenders in prison cannot earn money which means that making civil claims for damages against them is a waste of time. Suspending the limitation period means that the victim will have more time after the prisoner is released in which to pursue a claim if for example a prisoner comes into a windfall payment from an inheritance or a lottery win or makes money from a successful business venture as may be the case with white-collar criminals. 
Secondly if a prisoner is awarded compensation despite the new guidelines strictly limiting such payouts the compensation will now be held in trust rather than released to the prisoner. Victims of the offender will be contacted and assisted in making a civil claim for damages against that sum. Making such a claim will not re-victimise the victim. The facts of the offence will not need to be re-proven. Claims will be determined on the papers. The victim will not have to confront the offender or even fill out the forms. Other persons or organisations may fill out the forms on the victim’s behalf. Not one cent of compensation payment will be turned over to the prisoner until all civil claims from victims as well as outstanding reparation payments and outstanding legal aid charges are satisfied. 
These are new rights and this bill extends new assistance to victims. This bill ensures that all the cases causing concern to the public are captured. The Taunoa payment if it is upheld on appeal will be subject to the new trust procedure and victims will be assisted in making claims against it. The 200 new cases that Mr Taunoa’s lawyer has indicated he intends to bring will also be subject to the new guidelines restricting compensation. In the event that any of these cases result in a compensation award despite the new restrictions those funds will be held in trust. 
Of course the best way to avoid having to make future payouts to prisoners is to prevent the grounds from which such claims first arise. For that reason the Government has agreed to a very constructive suggestion by the Greens that we follow the passage of this bill with legislation to establish a new independent prison complaints body. Such a body will help to ensure that complaints and problems in prisons are dealt with early before they escalate to the point where grounds for damages claims might arise. Legislation establishing the new body will be passed by the end of 2006. 
With a new complaints body in place the likelihood of future payouts being ordered is expected to fall dramatically. For that reason the bill contains a sunset clause that will effectively wind down the special claims procedure in a period after the new complaints body is established. The procedure will apply only to claims lodged by prisoners prior to 1 July 2007. A second sunset clause ensures that the guidelines restricting the circumstances in which compensation payments may be made will be reviewed before the same date. The Government has agreed with the Greens that the guidelines will benefit from a future review in the light of experience before being amended or renewed. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended that there be an inquiry into support available for victims of serious crimes and the place of victims in the justice system. The Greens also have expressed a strong desire for such an inquiry. The Government has agreed that such an inquiry will take place. Most New Zealanders find it abhorrent when prisoners are awarded compensation payments for wrongs they have suffered in prison while prisoners have never paid any compensation at all for the harm they have inflicted on their victims. This bill tackles the problem by greatly restricting prisoners’ ability to claim such payments and greatly enhancing victims’ rights to take their own civil damages cases against the offenders who have wronged them. 
The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill deals effectively with the current cases causing concern and with cases that are foreshadowed. The new independent complaints body will reduce the likelihood of future cases arising. This new law strikes a far better balance in favour of victims than the law as the previous National Government left it which gave prisoners unfettered access to compensation. It is National’s law that has led to the current round of cases and it is that law that the Labour-Progressive Government is fixing today with the support of the Greens. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 In the world of spin and super-spin the Associate Minister of Justice has no equal. He has made a number of extravagant and completely wrong statements. We know only too well that this bill would not have got as far as it has—and it may yet falter—but for the assistance of the Greens. 
 I wonder what Labour members opposite made last night of the comment of the Green MP Mr Locke who disarmingly said and I paraphrase: “This is a bad bill but we will vote for it.” So Labour and Green have coalesced for present purposes in order to see the passage of this legislation which National on no basis will support. We have been opposed to this bill for a number of reasons right from the very beginning. Although we accept that where the State is a jailer—where it has a responsibility for prisons—it has an obligation to protect prisoners and ensure their safe and reasonable treatment but it is quite another thing to provide a statutory regime for prisoners to sue. 
In the course of this debate I have drawn attention to something I think is truly bizarre. Just across the way in the Court of Appeal the Government’s lawyers are saying that there should be no right to compensation. It is wrong that there should be compensation. It is sufficient when breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act occur that there should be a declaration. Yet here in Parliament the Minister has said with repeated fervour that there should be compensation rights. 
We have been treated to statements about our international law obligations that are plainly wrong. The Justice and Electoral Committee was properly apprised of the position but the Minister has sadly misunderstood the legal situation. We are party to a number of international treaties. One of those treaties is the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is known in the trade as the “CAT” convention. It was signed by New Zealand on 14 January 1986 and it was ratified by New Zealand on 10 December 1989. We are a party to that treaty arrangement. But we entered a specific reservation consistent with our international obligations to that treaty with reference to article 14 of the convention to provide that we were prepared to provide compensation only at the discretion of the Attorney-General. We entered a reservation to that treaty that there would be occasional cases—hopefully occasional—of abuse where there would be ex gratia payments. This Government has gone way way beyond that for no good reason. 
There will be a lot of problems with the legislation. Let me explain quickly why that will be so. The regime proposes that where a prisoner sues and gets a chunk of money the damages will be awarded to the victims of that offender. I would like to take two illustrations to show what sort of problems will arise. 
First there is the situation of living victims. How will the damages be apportioned? I take the case of the serial rapist offender—a male who has raped say five women. How will the damages be awarded to each victim? Will they be awarded equally? Will the victim who suffered the most horrendous event receive more money? Will the victim for whom the scarring of the particular event was the most traumatic receive more money? That as the Minister has said is all to be decided by a new tribunal on the papers. How will those judgments be made? The regime is ludicrous. That is the case when there are living victims. 
What about the second case when the victims are unknown or comprise a very large class? How will the damages be apportioned? I take the case of the drug dealer who sold drugs through a middleman to scores of people. How will that class of victim be established? If the class of victim cannot be established is it appropriate that the offender retain the damages awarded? That is what this regime provides for. 
I was interested to see that the Minister was prepared to credit the Green Party with the case that National has determinedly argued for: an independent prison inspector to comprehensively inspect and report on the state of our prisons. That was not a Green proposal. That is actually a National Party proposal. It is referred to in the commentary on the bill. A really good illustration of what can be done is Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales. That was established in 1981. It adopted a World Health Organization model of healthy prisons as a basis for inspections. 
We can never completely rule out that claims for monetary compensation will not occur. But where they do occur I would argue that those claims should be made on an ex gratia basis outside the legal system. In other words they should be made in accordance with the international treaty obligations that we have taken up. 
I also say that where prison abuse does occur prisoners’ complaints should be dealt with by an effective complaints process and disciplinary action against the jailers who violated the human rights of the prisoner. That may mean—as has happened in the past—that jailers are dismissed. It may mean that jailers face a disciplinary process that may have monetary consequences for them. What the Government has done is short-sighted foolish and driven by panic. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 It is with satisfaction that I rise to support the third reading of this legislation. In doing that I would like to tell two stories. The first is an historic story which begins with Labour’s inheritance when we came to Government in 1999. There are two particularly relevant parts of that inheritance. Firstly we inherited human rights law that allowed for monetary compensation to be paid to people whose human rights had been breached. That law was tolerated by the previous National Government throughout the 1990s including during the time when New Zealand First was in coalition with National. Secondly Labour’s inheritance was a particularly weak law on victims’ rights. Victims had no statutory rights to have a say in the processes of the law. Labour did two key things. The first was to establish the Victims’ Rights Act legislation that I seem to remember was actually opposed by National and ACT because they thought it went too far in giving victims statutory rights. That legislation gives victims a voice in the court and in the parole system and we absolutely accepted at the time that that was the first stage in the development of a victims’ rights’ agenda which will develop from there. 
But a parallel development was the doubling of our prison population over the last 12 years a process that has happened for a variety of reasons. The doubling of the prison population has led to massive pressures on the prison system. At the end of the day prisoners are people who are in the care of the State. As we well know the concept of human rights at its heart is about the relationship between Government and the governed. Prison inmates people living in prison are completely in the control of the State. They are in one sense the ultimately governed people in our nation and they are in a situation that will always be open to abuse. That is why we have debates and why we have institutions concerned with prisoners’ rights. No Western State denies prisoners’ human rights. No Western State fails to pay compensation to make amends for extreme breaches of the rights of prison inmates. In the last few years we have experienced situations where New Zealand’s legal system has found that prison inmates have had their human rights abused and that those inmates were entitled to compensation. So firstly we have stronger victims’ rights law but secondly a situation whereby prisoners have had their human rights abused. It was the award of monetary payments for that that really began the key debate on this issue back in September last year. 
I will quote from an editorial in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 5 September 2004 but first I will say that the words are from a lawyer who has done a lot to promote the issue of prisoners’ compensation Tony Ellis. He said: “What one forgets is that these prisoners have been victims too and two wrongs don’t make a right. The crimes that the men committed are contemptible and grave and the men deserve to lose their liberty for them. But the abuses committed by the prison system are also serious. Those who say the men deserve nothing overlook this. What they are saying in effect is that in this case wrongdoing should be winked at.” The  
Sunday Star-Times  
editorial then went on to state and this is important: “If nobody guards the guards we are headed down the path that leads to Abu Ghraib. Prisons are too often closed worlds where the power of the jailers goes unchecked. Abuses must be punished. If they are not the state is reduced”—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Mapp—“to the level of the criminal who goes scot-free.” The editorial concluded: “Politicians will always play to the gallery on these issues and the outbursts by Ryall and Goff are drearily predictable. In fact there may be a middle way here. Few would object if once the criminals had received their compensation they were then required to hand a fair chunk of it to their victims. That way their complaint has been upheld and the principle of deterrence has been served.” 
That is exactly what this legislation actually does. That is the second story we have to tell: the reaction of the Government and Parliament to the reality of the compensation awards last year. The legislation was developed in that context and it is very tricky legislation because it tries to deal both with the very real and powerful needs of victims and also with the situation where the vast majority of the public was offended at the level of compensation awarded to prison inmates. As the Minister has described a solution has been developed whereby victims will have an extra right inserted in order to be able to claim back compensation through the system. 
I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with the legislation and oddly enough I commend both Tony Ellis and the Sensible Sentencing Trust for managing to agree on an awful lot in the advice they gave to our committee. Both said that they did not want ideally a situation of compensation going to prison inmates but also that they did not want there to be an abusive prison system. Unfortunately the solution that has been constantly called for by the Opposition in Parliament in this debate over the last day is one that can be described as an abusive system. Those members are advocating a system where there is no incentive not to abuse prison inmates. The select committee went through an exhaustive process which took longer I think than the Minister was entirely relaxed with in trying to develop other options. We looked at the removal or restriction of monetary compensation but that was clearly a significant breach of international law. We looked at the diversion of the money into a trust but again that was a breach of international law. We looked at deducting legal aid costs but that would not have actually dealt with the cases currently before the courts. We looked at monetary limits to damages but again that would have been a breach of international law. We looked at a fines system where someone who already had fines owing would have had to pay those fines off as well. We were told again that that was a breach of international law. We looked at introducing a concept of victims’ orders as some kind of damages system separate to reparations. We went further with that one than with the others and I think that it may well be an issue we will go back to when we look at the broader issue of victims’ rights. 
At the end of it all we concluded that the legislation had the right balance but we used the very necessary power of a select committee to make two key recommendations. Firstly we recommended the establishment of an independent prison inspectorate. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: We said we should establish an independent inspectorate. 
TIM BARNETT 
: That was not the National Party’s idea but one I think that emerged particularly from the Labour and Green members on the committee and it is something that is absolutely essential in my view. The establishment of a standards-based independent prison inspectorate was unanimously supported by the select committee. Secondly we resolved to establish an inquiry to look at the next stage of the agenda in relation to victims’ rights having heard searing stories particularly from people whose family members had been murdered. They talked about the impact of that on them and about their support needs that were not being met. We were quite clear that there is another stage to go on the victims’ rights agenda and we have agreed to establish an inquiry to look into that. 
 What was fascinating when watching the Opposition during the debate was to see that when Mr Worth was in the Chamber he advocated the establishment of the independent inspectorate and that as soon as he was not around his colleagues started to screech that that would require yet more money to be spent. There is no consistency at all in the position the Opposition is taking. We heard Wayne Mapp talk about his sister having received compensation in New South Wales. If he wants to adopt that kind of system then I can assure him another few million dollars will need to be spent on that. Only 10 minutes later when we were talking about the need to develop better victims’ rights Sandra Goudie was screeching that that would cost yet more money. There is no consistency in the Opposition’s position; it is absolutely playing to the gallery. 
The mark of a great Government in the MMP environment is that it finds workable solutions to problems and works generously and positively with other parties that have similar values. I thank the Greens for their cooperation on this legislation which I commend to the House. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I was speaking only 45 minutes ago on the reason why this bill is before the House. I am pleased that the Hon Rick Barker the Minister in charge of the bill confirmed what I said about the reasons for the bill coming into the House. 
Where New Zealand First disagrees with Labour is quite simple: we believe that all the money obtained by prisoners for breaches of their rights should go into a victims’ claims trust account and that all of it should be paid to victims. None of it should go to criminals. We do not want to support criminals. Labour wants to support criminals. The Green Party wants to support criminals. Labour and the Greens want to support some of the most vicious criminals that exist in New Zealand today. If I take Mr Barnett’s last few words—that the mark of a great MMP party is that it finds parties of a like mind—and if the like mind is a party that supports Labour wanting to make payments to some of the most vicious criminals in society which the Greens support I ask what sort of like mind that is. Some might say it is a very twisted mind—but I am sure the public will decide. 
This bill is all about prisoners abusing the prison system. It is all about increasing the abuse of the prison system by prisoners. It is very simple: in prison are the worst people in our society; in prison are the greatest thugs—the most brutal people—in our society. Those people do not have any regard for human rights—that is why they committed some of their crimes. Those poor darling prisoners will work out for themselves that if they make life very hard for the prison guards who ultimately will retaliate they will get some compensation because their human rights have been breached. That knowledge will be just about handed to them by the bush lawyers in prison who will say to them that while they are in there the best way to make some money is not by being on prison detail or whatever but just by making life as difficult as possible for their guards—making the guards attack them or leave the light on for too long or leave them locked up for too long or not hear them when they are crying out for help. They will make money that way. 
I have been into just about all our prisons at one stage or another in my capacities as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament. These people are not nice. They will come up with these ideas and these ideas will be in the prisoners’ handbook that is handed down from one prisoner to another. This Government is asking for trouble. This Government and the Greens want to make sure that more and more of the public purse is spent on at the end of the day prisoners who will take the balance of whatever might be in the trust account. 
The worst prisoners in our society will not make any payments to victims. I refer to drug dealers. Drug dealers whose victims probably number hundreds of thousands by now have faceless victims. Compensation resulting from any actions that drug dealers take in prison will not be shared with anybody. None of their money will ever go to a single victim despite the fact that some of their victims have even died as a result of drug overdoses and suchlike. We could say that those people should not have taken drugs and should not have had drug overdoses or whatever and that is a point but the drug dealers will keep all the compensation they get for their actions. The worst type of criminal will get all the money. New Zealand First says that is just not on. 
The way in which we can cut down on the misbehaviour of guards and other staff in prisons is to commence court actions against them—to prosecute them. If necessary if they are convicted they might end up in prison. That would be their punishment. That would be the redress. We do not want to say to prisoners that they should be entitled to extra money as a result of their stay in prison. 
Some of the arguments that have been put forward are on the windfall argument. The Minister may say that if a prisoner has a windfall he or she has to pay it out but we are talking about prisoners who have defrauded the Inland Revenue Department and who are some of the most smart white collar criminals about. They have run the biggest drug businesses which have been going for a long time very successfully in the criminal underworld. Yet the Minister is trying to tell the House that somehow or other if those people get a windfall they will let everybody know and share that windfall with their victims. What a laugh! Those people will know that the first thing to do when they get a windfall is to put the money in a trust account in somebody else’s name or even more simple just in an account in another person’s name. They will never ever say that they have written a great book and made millions of dollars and will share the money with all their victims. They are just not those sorts of people. So the windfall argument does not hold up at all. 
United Future finally decided thanks to Marc Alexander that it would not support the bill which is going through the House only because the Greens have come through and given their support. It is really ironic that of the members of United Future a party that boasts so many Christians it was an atheist—or a non-believer—who stood up to be counted. He said that he would not support the legislation and that he would take the Christians with him. Where were the Christians in United Future? They should have been the ones opposing this bill. But no they were the ones supporting it. We have to congratulate the non-Christian in United Future Marc Alexander on standing up. It has not been a road to Damascus experience for him—he has always believed in this; he has always been strong on law and order. I sensed when I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee with him that he was very very upset with this legislation and with United Future’s seeming support for it. So I say congratulations to Marc Alexander and a black mark to those so-called Christians in United Future who were prepared to support this bill and who were dragged kicking and screaming by Marc Alexander into opposing it—and a great job he has done. 
But what credit has Marc Alexander got from United Future as a result of this? 
Pita Paraone 
: Down on the list. 
DAIL JONES 
: He is so far down on the list that as things stand he will not be back. But of course the Christians are looking after themselves and they intend to be back even though they were prepared to see at one stage vicious criminals making money out of imprisonment. 
As far as the Greens are concerned—well they never do anything without something in return. The Greens say that they are supporting this bill because of this new authority that will be established. They say that there should be an independent prison inspector to examine the situation. Well that was the unanimous view of the Justice and Electoral Committee from what I can read. Everyone in the select committee seemed to agree with that view as stated on page 9 of the report. It was not a new idea. Everyone agreed on it. For the Greens to say suddenly “That was our idea.” well— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: We just delivered it! 
DAIL JONES 
: The Greens have not delivered anything because it is supposed to be done next year. Will the Greens be here even to know about it if it ever happens? So what a stupid argument from the Greens! 
One must make the point that it was the National Party that was more specific in its minority view on page 10 of the report. It stated that there was a clear case for an independent prison inspector. When one looks at the Greens’ minority view one sees there is barely a mention of it. The Green member’s view states: “While he supports the committee’s recommendations for an independent prison inspectorate serious concerns remain about the current ability of the Department of Corrections to impartially and adequately investigate claims of abuse by staff.” Well he was not really terribly enthusiastic about it at the time. 
What is the real reason the Greens are supporting this? I believe they have done a secret deal with Labour; that Labour has done a deal with the Greens spokesman—and we know who that is; it is Nandor Tanczos and we know what Nandor Tanczos stands for and that is legalised marijuana—that if the Greens come back in the next term as members of a minority Labour Government marijuana will be legalised. That is what I see as being the situation. That is what one would get with a Green Party and Labour Party Government. [ 
Interruption 
] It is no use Mr Mallard shouting his head off; we know that that would be the deal. Because what other deal would Nandor Tanczos want? After all everyone has agreed with the need for an independent prison authority. That is nothing new. We all agree on it. The extra icing on the cake—the extra little bit of marijuana in Nandor Tanczos’ birthday cake—is a deal with Labour to legalise marijuana. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The interesting thing about sitting through the submissions from the victims was how few of them—in fact I do not think any of them did—spoke in terms as strongly as has been expressed in Parliament today about prisoners; those who had hurt them. In fact nearly all of them said they wanted prisoners to be protected from abuse or harm in prison. They wanted prisoners to have a means of remedy when they in turn were hurt. They did not want to see prisoners suffering abuse. But at the same time the victims made it absolutely clear—not that they had needs that ought to be met or as Mr Barnett has just implied would be met by more Government money—they simply wanted to see that justice was not undermined. 
In that sense the fury that we are hearing from the Opposition members today who are opposed to this bill is entirely justified. It is not overstated. Because what the victims were saying to us was: “Step back from the technicalities step back from the lawyers’ opinions step back from the 136-page judgment of Justice Young and just look at it as we see it. Who is ending up with society’s help out of this? We are left to deal with the injury inflicted by these beasts on us to cope as best we can—paying our own parking fines to get to court and having to buy the suits to bury our dead. Meanwhile the State is taking this tender care of prisoners.” 
That is what they were concerned about. They were simply saying: “Look at how it looks to us with what we already think to be derisory inadequate penalties.” The parole system tells prisoners that the punishment—the price—means nothing as long as they can pretend not to be a danger to the community when they are one-third of the way through the sentence. Then on top of that when those people have the lights left on too long or are not given a clean laundry bag or they have a window left open in winter when it should have been closed— 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh don’t be ridiculous. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mrs Pettis says “ridiculous”. Has she read Justice Young’s judgment? Has she seen the list of complaints that resulted in each of those complainants getting $500 a week—$2500 a month for the time they were on their behaviour modification regime? Many of them would not have been able to earn that in honest toil. That would have been the best money tax-free they had ever made—for being in prison! What was upsetting the victims was that they were facing a select committee that knew that what was being proposed was wrong. They could tell from our body language—and I say “our” because it included the Labour members who did a good job on this—that we too agreed that there was something deeply wrong with this. They expected the outcome to be respect for their position. That is why the Sensible Sentencing Trust came back when it saw what the select committee had done or what the Government—the Minister—had forced on the select committee and what Mr Goff’s officials had bulldozed through with the help of the Greens and Labour. That is why they said: “victim bashing; political arrogance; Government hypocrisy”. This was a bill that Mr Goff said was there to help victims and that is how the most active representatives of victims judged it. 
Garth McVicar said that the select committee process was an utter sham and the most blatant example of our democratic system being trashed that he had ever witnessed. That is because those representatives took it seriously. They thought there was a chance of getting this bill to reflect what victims really want: a system that does not insult them. They were not there to be vindictive; they simply did not want to see the cruel irony of prisoners being paid for trivial abuse while the law in New Zealand states that real crime victims can get nothing. That is the problem. The accident compensation scheme states that generally even if the other party had the money one cannot sue for the kinds of injuries inflicted by crime. Yet this Government now claims absolutely falsely that we are obliged by the United Nations Human Rights Committee the members of which are appointed by some of the most disgusting vile and cruel dictators on this earth. Mr Mugabe has a nominee on the United Nations Human Rights Committee as does the Sudan—a country that is arresting people who are reporting mass rape—and this Government says we kowtow in this country to the United Nations Human Rights Committee! 
Is it any wonder that Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust thinks that this Government is an utter disgrace? Representatives came here in good faith and tried earnestly with Tony Ellis—who of course they were suspicious of; he is the representative who is claiming over $3.5 million from the Government in compensation for 200 criminals—they sat down to try to sort out something that would suit the interests of all New Zealanders having prisons that kept prisoners safe and something whereby victims would be protected from the further outrage that this legislation now countenances. In the end the shutters came down. After all the work that one can see in the select committee’s report no substantial changes were made. 
What are we talking about? The Government has grudgingly released under question that in 2000 the then Attorney-General authorised the payment of around $325000 to four Mongrel Mob members. Other payments that have never been identified bring the total up to $566000 over 6 years. Then we got to 2004. Justice Young told the Government in April 2004 that he had decided to uphold the claims of Taunoa and his mates. In August 2004 the Human Rights Review Tribunal awarded to MacMillan $1200 for injury to his feelings loss of dignity and humiliation because the father of one of his victims had seen a letter that he had not seen. Do members recall the Christchurch case? MacMillan scumbag of the worst sort committed some of the most disgusting crimes that could be committed. The father of a teenage girl had written a letter describing what he believed MacMillan had done to his daughter and this scum was awarded damages by the Human Rights Review Tribunal for injury to his feelings! 
Victims do not get awarded any damages for injury to their feelings. It is just not there. So we are told by the United Nations Human Rights Committee that we have to continue paying $1200 for injury to feelings loss of dignity and humiliation to some of the worst criminals in this country and the Government will not stand up to it. It simply will not do anything. It has come to the House with a bill that Mr Goff trumpeted three times: first over the outrage with the MacMillan award; secondly when the Young decision came in September; and thirdly in October when he still did not have his bill ready. Finally when his bill was released it was a damp squib. 
Why did it not simply end judges’ powers to make these awards? What is left of New Zealand sovereignty with these so-called human-rights abuses? Financial compensation for them was never voted on by this Parliament. It was expressly excluded from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and it was invented by the judges in 1994. There was absolutely no constitutional reason why this Parliament could not simply have said either that the  
Baigent 
 decision was overreaching and should not stand or at least in respect of prisoners it should not stand. Instead what did we get from a Government that promised that victims and their families would get compensation that they would have Government assistance to claw back windfalls or inheritances or even Lotto or the proceeds of a book sale? We got what the prisoners and the lawyers described as illusion. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Members of the public can be excused for being confused about the content of the bill because it is clear that a number of members of this House are themselves confused judging by their contributions to the debate. The interesting thing is that many of the things that members who are opposing the bill are calling for are the very things that the Green Party has secured through our support for the bill. 
Wayne Mapp for example talked about the need for an independent prison inspectorate. That is something that the Green Party has supported—in fact the whole Justice and Electoral Committee supported it. The Greens have been supporting it for quite a deal longer. We tried to get it during the passing of the Corrections Bill and failed. I have raised the matter with the Prime Minister during question time in this House but perhaps members like Dail Jones were asleep when that was going on. Clearly the National Party did not come up with the idea. That party may support it but it has done nothing about it. It is exactly what the Greens have secured—a written commitment to establish an independent prison complaints authority by the end of 2006. 
Mr Mapp talked about the victim compensation scheme in Australia. Actually last week the Justice and Electoral Committee was in Australia and visited victim support services. The Greens are very supportive of the victim compensation scheme available in Australia. The idea that some victims can get accident compensation on the same basis as people who had an accident at work is offensive to the victims of crime. That is why we think there needs to be a review and specifically we have a written commitment to look at support available for victims and the role of victims in the criminal justice system. I agree with Mr Franks that the rights of victims are not being met under the current system and the Greens are pleased that we have been able to negotiate something that will advance the rights of victims. 
Peter Brown suggested that the bill would lead to a situation where two inmates who fight in prison would both sue the Department of Corrections under accident compensation. Firstly the member seems to have forgotten that accident compensation is specifically designed to stop people suing and in fact it is not a regime that relies on suit; and secondly the member is so far away from the reality of what the bill actually does that one has to wonder who he gets his advice from. 
But then of course one remembers that it is Mr Dail Jones. That member had so little to say about the bill he knew so little about the bill that he had to spend most of his speech talking about cannabis because that is all he could think about. Also the select committee staff as far as I understand no longer take that member’s nameplate to the Justice and Electoral Committee because he does not bother to turn up any more. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is out of order to refer to the absence of a member whether it is in the House or at a select committee. Members have other duties as well. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: My apologies. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As members of the Law and Order Committee will know I am trying to attend that committee on the Criminal Procedure Bill which has a lot of legal information in it rather than going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Jones. That was not a point of order and I had already referred to that matter. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: What the bill does in essence is three simple things. Firstly it provides guidelines for judges when determining whether to provide financial compensation for people who have been abused while in the State’s custody and it makes it harder to get. Secondly if compensation is made it freezes the compensation while the victims of that person are informed and provision is made for them to sue for that money. Thirdly it suspends and extends the statute of limitations relating to victims of crime. It is very very simple. 
The Greens did not originally support the bill because we were not convinced either that it was the best way to deal with the situation or that it did not have the potential to breach international conventions. In fact we were given very strong evidence in the Justice and Electoral Committee that the bill did potentially breach international conventions although officials also gave us advice that in their view it did not and clearly it is a borderline case. However the Green Party was persuaded to support the bill for four very good reasons. 
Firstly if the Government had to rely on United Future for support the amendment that United Future required would have removed all rights of redress for breaches of people’s human rights while in the State’s custody. That is a clear flagrant unashamed breach of international conventions and as I have said before the Green Party is a party that believes that New Zealand does need to adhere to its international conventions and agreements and to the word we have given the international community. Such an amendment would have left the door wide open to continued abuse in the prison system. I note that Mr Marc Alexander is confused on this issue because sometimes he says that abuse should not happen in the prison system and sometimes he says that prisoners deserve whatever they get. Clearly his commitment to stopping abuse in the prisons is not as solid as his position on other things. 
Secondly the Greens are supporting the bill because we negotiated a sunset clause to limit the bill to claims made before mid-2007 and that applies to all parts of the bill except the bit relating to the statute of limitations provisions which we do support as I indicated in my first reading speech. 
Thirdly we got a written commitment to an inquiry into support for victims and the role of victims in the criminal justice system as I have already mentioned. We heard clearly in the Justice and Electoral Committee that victims’ rights are not met by this bill and the Greens hope to see a victim compensation scheme similar to the one in Australia introduced in the House. I have already talked about that. We believe that the rights of victims do need to be advanced in this country. I make the point also that we have spoken about this consistently and continuously since we came into Parliament as an independent Green Party and have consistently made the point that the rights of victims will never be properly met while we rely on a primarily adversarial court system. 
Fourthly we got a written commitment to establish an independent prison complaints authority by the end of next year and its function will be both to investigate complaints and to do institutional inspections. We believe that it needs to have both those functions to work properly. We believe that the best protection from compensation claims and the political difficulties that arise out of them is prompt and effective investigation of complaints within the prison system so those complaints do not then go on to become significant problems that need significant redress. 
The last thing I would like to touch on is the issue of retrospectivity which has been an issue of some interest in the media this morning and has been the subject of comment by Mr Tony Ellis—a lawyer who like Mr Franks I deeply respect for his very strong clear and consistent commitment to defending some of the most marginalised people and advancing the causes of human rights in this country. The bill as I understand it applies to claims where the final determination has been made after the enactment of the bill. Clearly that is why the Government is seeking to pass the bill this week—because of the cases before the Court of Appeal. Appeals that require leave are not included in the definition of a final determination so it does not include appeals to the Supreme Court. So my understanding is that the bill is not retrospective in the sense that it does not go backwards in time. What it does is provide a broad enough net that it captures cases still current. In that sense it will actually affect the cases before the Court of Appeal this week. I think it is useful to make that point clear. 
So the Greens do remain concerned about the bill. We remain concerned that it is a bill passed in haste to address a specific court case. But we believe that in the current circumstances we have negotiated the best possible outcome—one that balances the rights of victims with the need to protect against abuse within the correctional system and maintains our commitment to international conventions. 
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. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 At a time when New Zealand has the leading figures for unemployment throughout the world and a crime rate that is going down to a level that has not been seen for over 20 years it is extraordinary to listen to a speech such as that. The reality is that there is not one single answer to crime in this country. But I tell members that we as a Government have built or are about to build an extra set of prisons that I do not think this country should have to spend its money on. We have also made sure that a significant number of New Zealanders now have a reason to get out of bed in the morning—they have a job. For Mr Alexander not to understand that means that he lives in a completely different world from me. 
I live in south Auckland. I was born there I grew up there and I still live there. People sometimes point to that community and ask who would want to come from that place and who would want to live there. I am proud to say that I come from that place. I was proud to read in the local newspaper recently of a dairy owner in Mangere who said that in the past he had to keep his eye on young guys who came into his shop in the morning; that they would usually nick something when they came in because they had nothing else to do. Now they are coming in to buy their lunch because they are off to work. That is the real answer—not this crap about victims about every New Zealander being a victim. What a bizarre thought—that all New Zealanders are victims! That is absolute nonsense. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the past you have ruled that type of language out of order. I am wondering why you have not on this occasion. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has been tested now. The member has withdrawn and apologised. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: For Mr Alexander to claim that every New Zealander is a victim is extraordinary. It is just not true. This bill seeks to deal with a situation where a person has been imprisoned and the system has not treated that person as it should—in the normal humane way that any decent human being would expect to be treated or would expect a member of his or her family to be treated if he or she were in prison anywhere in the world. If we fall foul of those standards those people should have some legal redress. This bill seeks to ensure that the victims whom that person in prison offended against now have the opportunity to say: “I’m not prepared to let that person get the money while I stand here and get nothing.” and we have made it very simple for them to do so. 
Most New Zealanders would understand this bill to be sensible legislation. But that lot down there who spend their lives obsessing about the problems rather than the solutions are ignoring the fundamental fact that we in this country do not want to go down to the lowest common denominator and ignore human rights no matter who sets them—and we set our own human rights legislation in this land. I want to be part of a Parliament that says we have standards that apply even to people we imprison people whose rights and liberty we take away and we should live by them. That is what we as a Government want to do and that is what we are doing with this bill. 
I am happy to support the bill. But I remind people out there that the real answer is not to pass law after law that deals with the punishment side of things. This Government has a very strong record on that by the way. We have had to build prisons and increase the numbers of police staff prison officers probation service staff and social workers because we are cleaning up after 15 years of neglect 15 years of new-right politics in this country that ignored the human values that this Government stands for. That is why we need this legislation. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 What an extraordinary speech that was! It was absolutely contemptuous of victims of crime in New Zealand. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member wasn’t listening. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I was listening. We witnessed the new love affair between Labour and the Green Party—the party that loves the dope. I guess United Future has been spurned by Labour. After one little rebellion by United Future it has been spurned in a most contemptuous way. It has been absolutely amazing. 
Today the Government is codifying into the law into statute the right of prisoners to sue for compensation. The reality is that it is putting that into statute law. Previously that right to the extent that it existed at all rested on a High Court decision only. What has the Government done? It has taken that decision of the High Court and put it into the supreme law of this land—the laws of this Parliament. The Minister for Courts the Associate Minister of Justice has completely misinterpreted  
Baigent’s 
 case. That case concerned an entirely innocent citizen whose home was invaded by the police. The police recognised their error at the time they did that. They said: “Oh we’re here now so we might as well execute the search warrant even though it’s not for you.” It was on that basis that that innocent family sued and it got compensation. Who on earth could be surprised by that? Was it extraordinary that National did not repeal that decision in those circumstances? Obviously we would not do that. Who would possibly think an innocent citizen should not have some remedy? Instead what this Government has done is accept a High Court decision enshrine it into the law of this Parliament under urgency and ride roughshod over the rights of victims. It is lamentable. 
The Deputy Prime Minister was in the House earlier. He was part of a Government that in 1989 put a specific reservation into the relevant international convention that stated that prisoners would not be able to sue for compensation. Apparently that means nothing. Talk about respect for international law! Clearly the Government does not even understand its own previous practices. 
There was another way. I spoke of my sister who received compensation for a violent assault in New South Wales. She received it from a proper victims’ fund. I am pleased to hear that members across this Parliament recognise that that is a good system. The Government has had a whole year since the decision of the High Court to do something about it. This bill took months to be introduced—in December last year. We are now in June and it is being reported back after submissions. The Government could have established a victims’ code. What we should be dealing with today in this House if we have to pass legislation under urgency is legislation entitled the “Victims’ Compensation Bill” not a bill that gives statutory codified rules for prisoners’ compensation. Those were the real options. Now the Government says: “Ah well we could do that. We could hold an inquiry.” It is after all something it thinks it might be able to do. Well it has had a whole year to do it. 
I want to make this point in relation to the cost of victims’ compensation. Clearly some money is involved. Australia is able to do it. It is really an issue of choice. We could spend $250 million on a wananga for instance and get whatever value we think we might get out of that $250 million—a quarter of a billion dollars—or we could spend some money on victims. Those are the kinds of real choices that confront Governments. This Government has had a whole year to wrestle with this issue. Has it done anything about it? What work has Mr Alexander been undertaking with the Government to achieve that particular outcome? That was one of the choices before it. 
I am disappointed that in a sense we are debating the wrong bill. We should be debating the “Victims’ Compensation Bill”. If we had been doing so National would be happy to support such a bill. Instead we are debating a statutory code of compensation for prisoners. The Government says: “Oh well of course if a prisoner sues and gets some compensation the victim can then get some money.” But that is completely round the wrong way. It puts the victims in the incredibly difficult position of hoping that the rights of a prisoner are infringed so that the prisoner will then sue the Crown and the victim will get some money. Frankly that is just absurd. 
The Government has had a whole year to deal with this problem—and I recognise that it did have a problem. Why do we not have a “Victims’ Compensation Bill” coupled with—and I think this matter has the consent of every party in the House—a bill that establishes an independent inspectorate of prisons? We could have been doing that today but we are not. Every party in this Parliament has spoken in support of an independent inspectorate of prisons. It was put in the select committee report by members months and months ago. What has happened? Nothing. All that has happened is some sort of inquiry. Well Governments are elected to do things and that is one of the things this Government could have done. This is a sad day because it is a day of lost opportunities—lost opportunities for victims who could have been getting a new code of compensation today. Mr Garth McVicar would have issued a press release in support of the Government if that kind of bill was being debated today. A bill giving victims a statutory code of compensation—and it exists in Australia—would have been supported today. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: That’s another one he’s going to pay for out of tax cuts. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is exactly the point Mr Gosche completely misses. He would rather see $250 million of funding go to a wananga and be absolutely wasted. We in contrast would sooner be supporting victims. It is all about choices. The Government makes the wrong choices. That is the real problem here. Fundamentally the Labour Government has its headspace in the wrong place. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: The public knows that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As my colleague says the public knows that. So National is opposing this bill today because it is the wrong choice. It is not a requirement of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that we pass this legislation. It is not a requirement of international law that we pass this legislation. This bill is an insult to victims who deserve a proper code of compensation. It is fundamentally based on a wrong premise and for that reason we are voting against it. We are proud of that because we will do justice for victims when we are in Government. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 National is voting against this bill today because an election is looming. Members should be under no misapprehension as to whether it is about the poor victim or whether it is about what National wants to do to appease the public. National’s motive for voting against this bill is purely and simply that by 24 September we must have an election. National is typically tough while in Opposition but a lamb while in Government. We on the Government side of the House and the Greens who are supporting this bill today know that we will never out-hang National. We will never be a “public floggings public hangings roll up to the revolution and bring along your knitting needles ladies” type of Government. That is not part of our personal philosophy. But quietly surely and positively this Government has done a huge amount to assist the victims of all manner of crimes. We are proud of the legislative changes we have been able to make to give victims’ rights a high priority. 
Those of us who are realists and who talk to real people of all socio-economic classes know that there is no way any Western developed country can ever say that there will never ever be crime again. We abhor crime. Thinking people abhor crime. Thinking people also find it abhorrent when prisoners are awarded compensation payments for wrongs that they may have suffered in prison but we also believe in the old adage that prevention is better than cure. It is much better to have systems in place to prevent abuse from occurring in those institutions in the first place. That is a priority. It does not scream out at people from the front pages of the papers but it works. It works to have systems and measures in place and to have appropriate staffing levels and well-trained staff. That is far more effective than salivating and drooling at the mouth about punishment and about how we will “fix those people”. 
National has been all over the show on this bill and that has been particularly evident in its actions in the House today. Those of us on the Government side of the House who are here at the moment have been in the House for most of the day and we have observed the body language and the behaviour of the Opposition members. Those members have been about as organised as—we will not draw an analogy. They were highly disorganised. A lot of that stems from the fact that the National Party has no leadership at all on this issue. That goes right back to September last year. On 14 September Don Brash said that National wanted to “prevent convicted criminals from collecting significant taxpayer compensation” but on the next day he said that National wanted legislation “removing the entitlement of prisoners to compensation” altogether. That conflicting attitude—one view one day another view the next—is very prevalent in the way the National Party has handled the debate at all stages of this bill. There is no leadership on this issue and those kinds of attitudes do not bode well for the social future of this country. 
In conclusion I just want to say that if a prisoner is awarded compensation despite the new guidelines that strictly limit payouts victims will not have to front up to the perpetrator of the crime that was committed against them. Victims will be contacted and they will be assisted in making a civil claim for damages against the sum that has been awarded to the prisoner. Victims will not even have to fill out the forms themselves. They can have an advocate a counsellor or a support person do that for them. This bill is about supporting victims and reducing or eliminating any trauma that they may be suffering because goodness knows they have suffered enough already. This legislation strikes a far better balance in favour of victims than the law that National left in place. I will not mention Mr Alexander’s behaviour because I do not think that behaviour is true of other United Future members. His behaviour today has just been odd—that is the most generous word I can use. But as I observed what has gone on from the salivating few members on the National benches I saw a sign of guilt because National had had 9 long years to do something about this issue and did nothing. Actions speak louder than words and this Government with the support of the Greens has taken positive action to support victims. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for disturbing the flow of the debate but during my speech I suggested that Peter Brown had misunderstood the bill because he had been poorly advised by Mr Jones. Mr Jones has informed me that Peter Brown specifically said that he had not been advised by Mr Jones. I have not checked  
Hansard 
 but I take the member’s word for it. I simply want to apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have to say that this PC nonsense that has come out of the Government speakers today demonstrates that this Government has completely and utterly lost the plot. I will take great delight in getting on a platform and debating this bill with Government members anywhere any time right around the country. It is an absolute no-brainer. The country simply does not want this legislation. The people of New Zealand want to see justice done and they simply do not want it dealt with in this guise. They do not want lowlifes getting compensation because their feelings were hurt when they were languishing somewhere in prison. 
Let us be absolutely clear: some of those prisoners are amongst some of the worst in the prison regime right at the moment. The people of New Zealand do not want this sort of society. They actually want common sense to apply. Sam Te Hei murdered a young woman in the most brutal manner imaginable yet he got compensation. What could I tell the mother of the victim— 
Edwin Perry 
: Mrs Hawkins. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the member for the name. What could I tell Mrs Hawkins when she asked me what her daughter’s rights were? “What about the human rights of my little girl?” she beseeched me. So that members are clear I tell them that this animal beat this girl so badly that her own mother could not recognise her. Yet this Government wants criminals such as Te Hei to get compensation because the lights were left on once too often in their prison cell. 
What do I tell the son of the Sanson hotel owner who had his throat slit from ear to ear by a vicious thug? “What about his human rights?” he asked me. It is a difficult thing when one comes to the reality of it all—when one has to sit across the table from the victims of crime and they ask those sorts of questions. The same thug blamed the son for the murder and the son incurred $5000 in legal fees just to clear his name. The police did not think he was guilty but he simply had to clear his name as anyone else would have done. Did he get compensation? I will let that question hang there. 
I can now tell Mrs Hawkins and the son of the Sanson hotel owner that the Government now says that they can sue those vicious criminals for compensation. That is right. To get any justice now by way of compensation the victims must now incur a financial cost by way of legal expenses to engage with the very criminals who caused them so much harm in the past. They are now expected to sit across the table from these vicious thugs and engage with them once again. Their pain and hurt go on and on. 
That is why I will enjoy getting on a public platform and saying that this is a Government that prefers that type of justice rather than ensuring that these criminals get nothing. The victims’ nightmare will continue on and on. Instead of saying that vicious criminals and rapists will not get compensation—which would have been the right thing to do—the Government has now legislated a convoluted process whereby criminals can profit and victims can go fly a kite. 
By way of mitigation the Associate Minister of Justice told the House that the legislation extends the period of limitations for victims so that if for example one of these vicious thugs decided to write a book it is successful and he or she gets a windfall the victims could sue. That really beggars belief. Can members imagine the high interest in a book entitled  
Ten Brutal Ways to Kill and Rape Innocent Women 
? That would be a real winner would it not? Victims of crime will be lining up to sue those types of individuals! Not only can the criminals probably not read and write but even if they were smart enough to write a book does the Minister think they would not create some form of trust or company structure to defeat their victims who might want to bring a claim against them? 
 This bill presupposes that criminals will have a regard for the law in the first place. Money from vicious criminals? As the Tui advertisement says: Yeah right!. We are not unreasonable people. All members of the Opposition have argued that prisoners should not be mistreated in prison but we say that we should fix the problem and not just treat the symptom. If prison officials are acting unlawfully they should be dealt to. But let us be clear: most of the infractions that these prison officers have supposedly committed have been minor. For example a window was left open for an extra half-hour in winter lights were left on for just a little bit too long or someone did not get to read a letter that had nothing to do with that person in the first place—it was private correspondence anyway. That is the sort of thing we are talking about. 
In terms of our prison models we had a perfectly good working model in the private prison in Auckland. No prisoner complaints came out of that prison but the ideology of the Labour Government put the prison back into State management. More precisely the Government put it back into the Public Service Association’s management. That is right. In order to keep jobs for its union mates it closed down a perfectly good working model. Prisoner abuse was not happening under that private prison model; it was happening— 
Marc Alexander 
: The Greens supported that. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh no the Greens would not support that because they came to the House last night and said this bill was bad law. They said this bill was bad so surely they would not have voted for that closure. No they would not do that; I am sure the member has got that wrong. 
Prisoner abuse was not happening under the private prison system; it was happening under the State system. Now we have a Clayton’s bill that supposedly enables victims to get justice from vicious criminals. In the final analysis—[ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis is screeching like a hyena as is her wont—the sophisticated member from Whanganui. She might think that this is a light moment but I do not. This is a very serious issue and she would do very well to keep her smart alec mouth closed and listen and learn. In the final analysis victims do not want compensation from these thugs. They actually do not want anything to do with them at all. They have already lived the nightmare once; they do not want to live it again. Is it unreasonable that victims do not want anything to do with those criminals? Would reasonable people want that contact? So why does this Government not want to help victims? It is simply a disgrace. 
The Associate Minister claims that we are bound by a UN convention. Other members have responded to his claim so I will not go into it again other than to say I think it is a load of bollocks. I simply ask him and the members of the Labour Government: what about the conventions that one does not murder and one does not rape. Why cannot those conventions be more important to Labour members? I conclude by saying that if the Associate Minister cared more for fellow Kiwis and less for UN conventions then New Zealand would be a better place for it. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 There is nothing like law and order legislation for bringing out the worst in some Opposition members of Parliament. Over the last day and a half we have seen it in a mixture of total exaggeration melodramatic theatrics and complete misrepresentation of what the Government is trying to propose here. I am not shocked by that because it happens every single time and—surprise surprise—it is the same members of Parliament from the same Opposition parties who seem to do it all the time. I see Mr Franks volunteering. I was not going to mention him because anyone who has ever followed anything he has had to say will know that the member from the “Freedom Party” as he likes it to be known wants to make sure that things are tough for absolutely everybody. 
Let us be very clear what this bill does. We had a law on the books under the previous National Government—I do not want to be political about it but the National Party in office brought in the legislation—that resulted in the  
Baigent 
 case where the prisoner got to keep 100 percent of all the cash that was paid out. That is fine; that is the state of play as it was. That law was effective for most of the 1990s when National was in office. I see Dr Wayne Mapp over there who was a member of that Government. He went into that National Government and said nothing to reflect the absolutely huge moral outrage we have heard about for the last day and a half. But that is Wayne Mapp the member for North Shore; he says one thing when in Opposition and does absolutely nothing about it when in Government. 
So Labour inherited that situation but we asked what would happen in a case of someone who has offended against a victim but who has been rightly punished by society. The person has been to a court and received a punishment but the judge has not been able to order the person to pay any reparation because the person has no money. Of course if offenders do have money as part of the sentence they are ordered to pay some money to victims. Often as we know people who commit violent crimes do not have much money so the judge cannot make them hand any over. 
We come to the offender who has done a wrong and terrible thing against a victim. Nobody in any political party supports that but members can read out every crime they have ever heard of and make it sound as if only their party is upset about them. We are all upset about violent crime. Let us get the nonsense out of this debate in that regard. Labour was upset about it to the extent that we have improved the sentencing laws and we are putting people away for longer. 
But once offenders are in prison if the State then turns around and mistreats people in the very ways we have said that offenders did wrong which put them in jail in the first place—that is we say as a society: “Please don’t commit violent crime. If you do we will lock you up.” and then the State says: “Once we’ve got you incarcerated we’ll treat you violently and badly and that will somehow make sure you don’t reoffend. We all disapprove of the reoffending rate.”—then the State of course has to be held accountable for the way officers of the State are treating people. 
Now that is not to say that all of a sudden we are not on the side of the victim. But we are saying that we should be spending all our resources in trying to stop the people who have been put away from reoffending once they get out. Members have got up for the last day and a half in this House and said we should treat those people terribly because here are terrible cases they have heard about and we should make people even worse once they leave prison. That is what they are saying: lock them up throw away the key treat people badly. That does not work. Two-thirds of people are reoffending—we have to do better than that. 
If a case comes to court and it is proven that the State mistreated people in prison and if those people are awarded money the Government is saying that the money should not stay with the offender. The first people who should have the call on that ought to be the victims—the people who at sentencing missed out because the prisoners we are talking about had no cash at the time. Where prisoners have had a windfall gain this legislation actually gives victims the opportunity to benefit from it. This is pro-victim legislation. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member to have an extension of time. He plainly has too much to get through. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. The member has no right to ask for an extension for someone else. The person seeks it on his or her own accord. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: That reinforces the very point about the way Opposition members behave on law and order issues. In that regard it brings out the juvenile in even the most ageing middle-aged men on that side of the House. 
The Opposition was worried that victims would have to “relive their crime” in order to get the money. Not having read the bill they did not realise that a District Court judge sitting as a victims’ special claims tribunal will be able to decide the case using papers. The victim does not have to prove again that the crime occurred. As the member for Whanganui said the victims can use an advocate in order to make sure that he or she gets access to the money. 
Once again we have gone through a process in the House whereby we have totally distorted the issue because we all like to pretend that we are the toughest roughest meanest and baddest on dealing with law and order issues rather than looked at what this bill does. It is a process bill that tries to make sure that people who have done wrong do not get to benefit from doing that wrong and that people who have been victims having missed out in the first place then get the chance to get some of that money if it is paid out in that way. 
I support the bill for that reason not for the ridiculously exaggerated reasons that Dr Mapp Brian Connell Stephen Franks Dail Jones and Ron Mark—all the usual cast of characters—have gone through. It is a process bill—but then National would oppose that having talked its way out of process and missed a question time. What a hopeless lazy useless Opposition! 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill be now read a third time.  
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 4.03 p.m. (Thursday)