Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15791] 
6.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes is the Government making to address the issue of compensation payments to inmates? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Legislation will be introduced to restrict compensation payments to inmates to exceptional cases and where all complaint procedures have first been exhausted. It will also ensure that if any payments have to be made that money be available firstly for damages claims by victims of such inmates. The effectiveness of existing complaints procedures will also be reviewed on the basis that the best way to stop compensation payments is to prevent breaches of any legal obligations that may lead to them. 
Darren Hughes 
: What is the purpose of the changes the Minister is proposing to the statute of limitations as they apply to victims of crime? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Limitation Act currently limits any civil claims for damages to 6 years. If one is a victim of a serious crime the person who committed that crime may be in jail for the whole of that period of time and unable to meet the cost of any such damages. Also it would be quite wrong if somebody like the criminal Christopher Taunoa came into a windfall situation if the victim or the family of the victim is not then able to hold that person liable for the wrongs suffered in the same way that he apparently would get compensation for an alleged wrong he suffered. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will the Government not admit that its proposals still allow prisoners to make compensation claims and to still keep the money and why will the Minister not do what most decent New Zealanders want him to do and that is to backdate and wipe all those claims once and for all? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I heard “Hear hear hear.” from the ACT bench which is a bit rich coming from a party whose spokesperson on justice is totally opposed to retrospectivity. The answer to the member’s question is twofold. Firstly in 25 years of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights no Government of any political shade in this House has ever deliberately been in breach of that covenant. Certainly the National Party in its more respectable and less desperate days never did that. Secondly that member as Minister of Justice and all of his colleagues when in Government constantly railed against retrospective legislation which he is now claiming to endorse. That is double standards from that member and the party he claims to represent. 
Stephen Franks 
: In view of the Minister’s answer that the best method is to stop claims arising in the first place how will he do that when deciding what is a breach is up to judges interpreting vague general principles and they are free to make it up as they go along? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Far from being vague general principles there is quite an established body of case law around this as the member knows well so I am surprised at his question. I am also surprised that he is so critical of legislation that takes a form that he himself was calling for last week. 
Ron Mark 
: Why having made such scathing comments himself about the three Mongrel Mob members that his Attorney-General Margaret Wilson paid an estimated $300000 to on 8 September 2000 has it taken the Minister so long to get to this point and introduce this legislation; and is it not a fact that we would not be in this situation if his corrections Minister had better control over some of the delinquent prison management and prison staff who for example gave us the “goon squad” which might well also result in further such inmate claims? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can reply in so far as his own portfolio is concerned. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Clearly what has sparked the need for this legislation is the prospect of a large number of people claiming compensation in a way that most of us find absolutely unpalatable—that they should get compensation for the wrongs that may or may not have been done against them but their victims who have been severely damaged by their actions get nothing. That is why this action is being taken. I think the member is rather harsh on corrections staff with regard to the behaviour management regime. It is quite clear from reading the judge’s report that the staff did not intentionally commit a breach of the law but nevertheless the judge found that they did create a breach of the law. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister explain the nature of the new independent body that he has proposed should look at these civil claims by victims and whether we are looking at a new form of court or at a different legal standard; if not what are we looking at? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The nature of the independent body would clearly be a judge who would fill that position. The purpose of that suggestion is to clear the way for victims of crime to hold offenders responsible for civil damages for the damage that has been done to the victim. If I can quote very briefly from law expert John Miller who said basically: “What the Government was doing was putting victims on a level playing field with the criminals.” Criminals cannot actually expect not to be held liable for their actions but hold the State liable for anything that the State might have done wrong. 
Murray Smith 
: Has the Minister considered that one solution to this problem would be to require the imposition of a reparation order on offenders when they are sentenced regardless of their circumstances at the time to ensure that a portion of any future income can be diverted to defray victim reparations; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In fact the Sentencing Act requires in every case that the judge consider the payment of reparation to the victim by the offender. However the judge will not do that when it is absolutely clear to the court that the offender has no assets that the offender is going to prison for a long period of time and that there is no realistic expectation that the victim will ever get paid because to raise falsely that expectation actually doubly victimises the victim. The proposed legislation covers the situation where there is a windfall gain by the criminal and the criminal is therefore now able to put things right—to the extent they can be put right—for the victim. I hope the member will support it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Government leaving the door open to pay some of the most dangerous criminals in New Zealand compensation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: At the risk of repeating myself New Zealand like all other Western democratic countries is bound by obligations that we voluntarily entered into 25 years ago under that member’s party in Government and which we have consistently honoured. No Government of this country—including if there were ever a National Government—would breach the obligations that are placed on this country to uphold human rights. What we have done is achieve the end that everybody wants by a legitimate way—that is to allow that payment to be made to the true victims and not to the criminal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer was too long. 
Stephen Franks 
: Exactly what provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights surrendered New Zealanders’ power to decide how we treat murderers and rapists in our prisons; and what else in this area does the Minister now consider is beyond the powers of this Parliament and is to be decided by the unelected judges and committees claiming international law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This country entered voluntarily into— 
Stephen Franks 
: What provisions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —I am getting to the member’s answer if he will show me the courtesy of listening for a moment—a signature and a ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture. In article 14 of both of those pieces of legislation we are bound to have effective remedies when human rights are breached on the part of anybody. Each Government of this country has upheld that provision in law and it is nonsense and double standards for National Party members to suddenly pretend they would ignore the obligations that they entered into as a party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are far too many interjections from one quarter. They can ask supplementary questions if they want to. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Government accept that punishment for serious criminal offences fairly entitles Parliament to withdraw certain human rights from the offender including the right to freedom and to vote; if so what steps is the Government taking to explore the issue of what human rights it is appropriate for prisoners to retain so that imprisonment does not continue to be a soft option for some recidivist offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Certainly the State has the ability to withdraw the basic right the right to freedom of somebody who has offended against society’s norms and whom society needs to be protected against. Nevertheless we have—under our own law the Penal Institutions Act and under international agreements we have entered into—obligations that we are bound to honour in terms of standards that we maintain in prison. If we did not have such obligations we would end up with Abu Ghraib - type situations and Ron Mark has pointed to a couple of situations where wrong behaviour has occurred. So we will uphold those provisions that we are required to but that does not stop us from imprisoning individuals or segregating them if we meet the proper standards. 
Murray Smith 
: Is he aware that complaints from prisoners to the Ombudsman have tripled between 1994 and 2004; if so is he planning to ensure that prisoners exhaust all avenues of complaint before taking legal action; and will he also ensure that prisons take greater responsibility for resolving complaints before they reach the Ombudsman so that Ombudsmen are not the first port of call for minor complaints such as the loss of a television set during a transfer from one prison to another? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Within the prison system there is a hierarchy of complaints procedures which begins with the internal procedures: taking it to the unit manager and up to the manager of the prison. At a much higher level there is resort to the Ombudsman. Obviously the lower avenues for hearing complaints to remedy breaches have to be exhausted before they can go to the higher level unless of course it is inappropriate to go to the lower level for any good reason. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Where exactly in article 14 of those protocols the Minister spoke of does it say that some of the worst criminals in New Zealand should be entitled to receive cash compensation from this Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member ought not to be naive and know that international covenants do not name countries but what those covenants— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Where? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member would stop interrupting I will answer his question. What those covenants require is that there have to be effective remedies—which is the term used—for any breach of human rights that occur. The advice given to me by Crown Law the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Justice is that to prohibit such payments would put New Zealand in breach of the international obligations that it is committed to observing.