Goudie Sandra: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21005] 
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.