Dalziel Lianne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3246. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Sorry I was not expecting such a short call from the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee Tim Macindoe. The reason I am surprised that it was such a short call is because of the issue that was raised by my colleague Charles Chauvel our spokesperson on justice in relation to information that we understood would be made available to us in the select committee in secret. The regulatory impact statement made it so clear that it was such a difficult piece of information to have in the public area because of the implications that it could have and then we find that the answers were given by the Minister of Corrections in another select committee in another context in terms of the financial review and we were denied access to that information at the select committee. I would have thought that the chair would like to take an opportunity to respond to that. I am sure that when we get to the Committee stage the Minister will be asked that question and it may be in the chairperson’s interest to make sure that the Minister is well briefed on the subject. 
I just want to quote from the  
Hansard 
 of my own contribution to the first reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill because this was a matter that I raised at the select committee meeting itself. I said: “I … would like to receive an assurance from the Government that that information will be made available in secret to members of the committee because I think it would be useful for us to understand the context in which we are debating this. I note that the Minister of Justice is nodding her head. I think it is a matter she would be prepared to take on board and consider. And the reason that I raise this is due to the statement in the regulatory impact analysis about the issue around potential behaviour management regime claimants.” It actually had not occurred to me when we were dealing with the first reading of this bill that there were behaviour management regime claimants who had not actually lodged their claims at that point and were sitting back waiting for the sunset clause basically to take effect and to see what happened afterwards—to basically chance their arm. 
I just thought that it was fascinating that Charles Chauvel managed to get the information that we were denied at the select committee in written questions to the Minister of Corrections in relation to her appearance at the Law and Order Committee which of course is not the committee that was dealing with this particular bill. I think we have to be a little bit cautious about decisions that are being made without the relevant information being taken into account. 
When we look at the regulatory impact analysis and I dealt with this in the first reading of the bill it actually was prepared only at very short notice. I think the date of it was 28 March 2012. Given that the knowledge around the implementation of the sunset provision was well known ahead of that time it seems extraordinary to me that the regulatory impact statement was left so late. It actually smacks of having been forgotten—overlooked that there was a requirement to do this level of analysis before introducing even this bill—and I know having listened to both the Minister and the chair at the select committee that they think it is just so straightforward there is no reason to debate any of these matters. But actually if we are to do our jobs as parliamentarians I think we have to take notice of these kinds of sequencing issues. 
When we look at this particular one we see that it says this: “The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament on 13 October 2011 to give effect to the redirection policy but did not receive a first reading.” Well that it did not receive a first reading does not really explain to us why it did not receive its first reading. Then it goes on to say—and this is the non sequitur I would call it of this particular regulatory impact analysis—that “There is now insufficient time to progress it through its Parliamentary stages before the sunset clauses take effect on 1 July 2012.” Well you know of course that is the case but do we not need a little bit of a better explanation as to why the bill took so long to introduce? The knowledge around the general election actually occurring in the interim period— 
Charles Chauvel 
: He was too busy with Westpac. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I know that he was busy with his interview with Westpac as the member says but that is not the point. 
It is a serious matter because what has happened is this. I just think I should put this on the record of the House again because obviously it has not attracted much attention on that side of the House. The regulatory impact statement goes on to say: “This RIS was prepared within a very short timeframe and accordingly no consultation was undertaken. However the Ministry informed the Department of Corrections the Crown Law Office the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The public is likely to have an opportunity to comment when a new Bill is referred to select committee after introduction.” Well actually the new bill had been introduced so the whole concept of a proper discussion with the public and proper consultation prior to the introduction of this legislation has just simply gone out the window. The Government does not seem to think that that is important. 
Let me go to the actual provisions in the regulatory impact analysis where it talks about the need to keep certain information secret. So here it goes: “Exact numbers of existing and potential claims by prisoners for compensation are not stated in this RIS because that information”—so it is not the amounts; it is the numbers—“is legally sensitive. The numbers were available and were taken into account when the impacts of each option were assessed.” They did say that they did notify the Department of Corrections and the Crown Law Office so it is surprising that the Department of Corrections had no trouble supplying this information to the members of the select committee. 
So here is this information. This document asks how many individual claims for compensation by inmates are expected to be paid out or settled in the coming year specified by the amount sought and reason for the claim and how this compares with previous years. It says that settlements are comparable with previous years that there are 19 cases involving compensation claims filed by prisoners or former prisoners and that one of these is the class claim by 71 prisoners or former prisoners. So that one is already on the record. Another 20 similar cases have been identified. 
So this bill is about 20 cases. That is what this bill is about—20 cases. The document continues: “The department is likely to seek to settle four cases with compensation payments. A settlement offer has already been made in one other case. Another three claims involving offenders being managed in the community will also be considered for settlement by way of a compensation payment. If settlement occurs any compensation is paid to the Ministry of Justice in accordance with the Prisoners’ And Victims’ Claims Act 2005 which has to be extended.” It has to be extended or replaced because of the situation that we are in now with the sunset clause taking effect on 1 July this year. 
So I actually think that the Government has done a disservice to this House in terms of its response to these issues in the first reading although the Minister did indicate by nodding her head—she was not nodding off; she is not one of those Ministers who do that from time to time. She was actually nodding her head and she was indicating that that information would be made available. I actually went to the point that I had accepted what the regulatory impact statement had said at face value and that it could be provided in secret. But no we were not given that information. I raised it at the select committee and members of the Ministry of Justice were not aware of the issue and they were going back to check. We never got that information provided to us but now we find it has been provided to the Law and Order Committee. I actually think it is not a good process but we are supporting the passage of the bill for the reasons that my colleague enunciated.