Goudie Sandra: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20944] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Recent contributions to the debate show the importance of allowing it to proceed without being closed down by premature closure motions. I refer in particular to my learned colleague Richard Worth’s contribution to broadening our understanding of international treaty obligations and what they mean in terms of human rights. My learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp also expanded on those international obligations. Those contributions were important and relevant to broadening the understanding of the Parliament. I like one or two others wonder how far we need to go to meet those obligations when I believe that criminals in committing offences abdicate their right to other than basic human rights—which are food shelter and reasonable treatment. It is time we became tough on crime instead of soft on crime. This bill is soft on crime. We should not allow any form of compensation and I am delighted that National opposes this bill. 
Tony Ryall has made a very sensible recommendation that we should have an inspectorate of our prisons rather than go to the extent of this bill. After all if criminals are allowed to sue for compensation then they are entitled to legal aid. A whole tribunal structure has been created to assist that process. Let us think of the costs of that. The hard-working earning Kiwis of New Zealand are paying that cost. Is there any constraint on the amount of legal aid that is allowed to be accessed? Is there a cap or any sort of limit on legal aid? I have not seen that in this bill. What would be reasonable access to any form of legal aid? Again I say I am glad National does not support what would be a considerable waste of taxpayers’ money in allowing criminals to sue and to swallow up more of those hard-working taxpayers’ dollars. 
The bill also encourages rorts on the system as has been enunciated tonight—for instance by setting up fights between prisoners whereby one would be the offender and the other the victim. There would be a very real likelihood of that because those people are criminals—they have a criminal intent. If they cannot rort the system out in the public arena they will do it in the confines of their prison in any way shape or form they can use. They have abdicated their right to expect anything other than basic rights. They will make prison a hell for prison officers and I suggest for other prisoners. They are an affront to all victims. 
There was a clamour right throughout New Zealand that prisoners should not get access to compensation—and what have we done? We have given them access to compensation. Earlier my learned colleague Richard Worth raised that amazing point about the Court of Appeal decision and about this Government pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make a decision. I find it extraordinary that by putting this bill through in urgency tonight we are putting ourselves in the position of doing that. This Government has put us in the position of pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make a decision. 
My learned colleague Richard Worth said that that is constitutionally reprehensible and I completely agree. I find it an extraordinary move by this Government. However one could almost expect that type of incompetence under this current Government. Perhaps the Minister Rick Barker would take a call to explain his comment about his expecting the Court of Appeal to “be captured by the legislation”. Perhaps he might like to take a call to explain to us exactly what he meant by that. Was it the intention of this Government to make some sort of constitutionally reprehensible move in terms of the Court of Appeal being able to make a decision? Perhaps the Minister would take a call to explain that to us. Then we heard the bizarre statements made by Green members that this is bad law but that they will support it. Doh! How sensible is that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I try to be very fair. This part is on general provisions and it is my view that we have covered it quite substantially.