Power Simon: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20569] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I was not a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which heard submissions on this bill but have listened with some interest to the contributions made by Tim Barnett Stephen Franks Edwin Perry and Nandor Tanczos who were I guess fortunate enough to hear the contributions made particularly by victims of horrific crime and victims’ families. Tony Ryall has done a substantive job of outlining the reasons why the National Party will not be supporting the second reading of this bill—and I will come to those shortly. 
After Minister Goff spoke at the start of the second reading I raised a point of order over a concern I had about the use of minority reports and about the way the United Future party had tried to have a bob each way. Well who would have thought that the can of worms that has opened up in this House in the last 20 minutes would have been as a result of my requesting a considered Speaker’s ruling on that matter? In my 5½ years here—I came in with Stephen Franks and Nandor Tanczos in the intake of 1999— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh! 
SIMON POWER 
: Oh and Clayton Cosgrove. The intake of 1999 was a fine vintage. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Hey! 
SIMON POWER 
: Oh and Mahara Okeroa. My apologies. I have never heard—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh and the Deputy Speaker Ann Hartley. I have never heard a speech from a member of a political party that indicated such open defiance for the position that a party took with respect to a report back on a bill. 
I say to Marc Alexander that I congratulate him on finally after 2½ years on having the courage to stand up and say things like: “This report back is incompatible with United Future’s law and order policy.” That is what he said in his contribution. He said that of the three main pillars of United Future’s law and order policy the last—and in his view the most important—was “victims first”. He went on to say that this bill does not put victims first. He said that in this House. Then he went on to say that it was incompatible with United Future’s law and order policy. But in an open display of what I can only describe as being raw political courage he stood in this House and said that if his proposed Supplementary Order Paper is defeated in the Committee stage it will not be him who comes down to the Chamber and delivers the vote. 
This is a member who I am told wrote the United Future minority report for the commentary on the bill. It is the most extraordinary set of circumstances when United Future’s law and order spokesperson—somebody who I have to say is pretty highly regarded by this House in general terms—comes down to the House and with his colleagues sitting near him says that it will not be him who delivers the vote on behalf of United Future if this bill stays as it is. He has come down to the House and said that this bill is incompatible with United Future’s law and order policy. 
But in the report back on page 2 the majority report refers to “most of us” as being “Labour and United Future members”. So the situation that United Future finds itself in with this bill is extraordinary. I urge the other members of United Future to display the same political courage that Mr Alexander has displayed and to refuse to come down to the Chamber and vote in favour of the bill if its Supplementary Order Paper is denied. 
Although Mr Alexander honestly conceded that he had not always been at the select committee when it met on this bill—because a smaller party cannot make those select committee commitments nobody holds that against him and I would not do that for one moment—he says he believes that the result of the report back was incompatible with United Future’s law and order policy. What an extraordinary position United Future is now in. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Extraordinary! 
SIMON POWER 
: Mr Cosgrove is using the same adjective that I am using. We now have a public display in the House as a result of United Future’s spokesperson on law and order coming to this House and saying that he will not be the person who delivers the vote on this bill. I cannot understand how on the one hand United Future says that it is with the majority on this report but on the other hand its minority report indicates Mr Alexander’s views not the views of the rest of United Future’s members. 
We are now in an extraordinary situation where the public will be completely confused about what United Future’s position is. I know that members of this House who follow Mr Alexander’s views on law and order will applaud his courage in standing by his convictions but at what cost will that be to his prospects in United Future? When bills are drafted as a result of embarrassment to the Government sloppy law emerges. 
The National minority view contained in the commentary is concerned with two of those drafting difficulties and uncertainties. The question is this. When funds are made available to victims how will those damages be apportioned? How will those decisions be made? As the minority report points out in the case of a serial offender will those damages be awarded equally or will they be awarded to those victims who have supposedly suffered more than other victims? What if the victims concerned comprise a very large class of people? For example in the case of an offender who is a drug dealer and drugs have been sold to many people how will those people be tracked down? What damages will they be entitled to? 
National believes that there is a clear case for an independent prison inspector and has stated that in the minority view. I just say this: Government members and Opposition members will be watching with interest in the Committee stage of this bill and we will be waiting with interest to see the Supplementary Order Paper to be presented by Marc Alexander. We will be waiting with interest to see who delivers the vote for United Future.