Clendon David: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12087. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I must begin by acknowledging the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage the Associate Minister of Justice for his very prompt and complete answer to the question I posed as to the number of victims who had been compensated under the terms of the Prisoners’ and Victim’s Claims Act 2005 over the last 5 years and the amount of that compensation. I am now informed that a total of $25000 has been awarded to the victims as reparations and a total of four victims have been awarded a total $38000 under the provisions of that Act. So we know that in 5 years some $65000 in total has found its way into the hands of victims who otherwise would have received nothing. That is an extraordinarily small amount of money. My expectations were not high; I have not been disappointed in those expectations. I would have thought it not beyond the wit of this House to come up with a mechanism that would deliver a great deal more real practical compensation to victims than a very paltry $65000 over 5 years. It seems hardly worth the time of this House to extend the life of this Act in order to perpetuate legislation that has clearly failed in its intention to return even a small amount of compensation to victims. 
Clearly the Greens and the Maori Party are alone tonight in this House in terms of our opposition to the extension of this Act through the Prisoners’ and Victim’s Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. But we know that others outside this House support the position we are taking. We know this in part through the submissions that were made to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will quote from a couple of those submissions firstly from Caritas the agency for justice peace and development that is the social services arm of the Catholic Church in New Zealand. It is quite clear: “Caritas opposes the bill. We originally opposed the 2005 Act on which it is based because victims of crime will only benefit and be compensated if the offender is mistreated by the State and awarded compensation as a result of this mistreatment.” A point that has been made tonight is that it is a very perverse mechanism to award compensation to a victim only if the human rights of another person an inmate have been transgressed. That is a very strange daisy chain and a very peculiar mechanism for delivering compensation to people. 
The Caritas submission goes on to say: “We still believe that under this legislation … few prisoners will pursue complaints of abuse and violence and even fewer victims are likely to receive compensation payouts.” Clearly that expectation is borne out by the history of the last 5 years—a very paltry $65000 of benefit. Caritas further points out that “There is no incentive for prisoners to be compliant with prison authorities. A situation in prisons is created where there is nothing left to lose … The Act creates an environment where prisons are potentially more dangerous and the extension of those provisions in this Bill repeats that risk.” Caritas is an organisation that is not self-interested; it has no axe to grind. It is an organisation concerned only with peace and justice in this country. It is making very clear and well-informed statements that this legislation is not worthy of extension and that it sees no value in it. 
The Human Rights Commission in its submission supported the continuation of the Act but only rather tentatively and on the grounds of an assumption that there would be a full review of this legislation and that by 2012 we will have legislation in place that is more compatible—to use the commission’s language—with article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the body of its submission it makes the point that in its opinion the process of awarding compensation in this Act does not amount to an effective remedy in terms of article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Commission went on to say that proposals to deal with the capacity crisis in our prisons—such mechanisms as double-bunking two to a cell—are short-term remedies and are likely to increase the number of human rights issues that will need to be dealt with and the likelihood of transgressions of human rights. It goes on to say: “the State faces fewer adverse consequences when it fails to meet its obligation to prisoners.” under this legislation. 
The Law Society is an organisation that cannot be trifled with. It is a highly credible organisation with a long history of analysis and commentary on legislation and law. It noted that in 2005 it opposed the Act being enacted. It quoted the United Nations Committee Against Torture as having expressed concern that the 2005 Act limited the award and the payment of compensation to prisoners. The society agrees with the Minister of Justice quoting him as saying that “The best way of preventing future claims arising from breaches of prisoners’ human rights is to ensure that incidents leading to such claims are kept to an absolute minimum.” 
Would it not be more sensible to put our energy and our efforts into minimising and reducing the offences against inmates while they were in prison—to get that unlovely proposition out of the way? Would it not make a great deal more sense to put effort into finding and applying the known mechanisms for reducing crime and recidivism therefore reducing the number of victims? It is about finding real mechanisms and restorative justice processes that will enable victims to feel that they have experienced some closure and received some compensation be it of a financial sort or simply in being able to let go of the emotional mental and occasionally physical trauma that results from crime. 
We know that programmes that work are in place. The Sycamore Tree programme works with high-end offenders and has achieved remarkable outcomes in turning round lives and giving victims an opportunity to see that their concerns have been heard and that their issues have at least been confronted by the perpetuator of the crime against them. I mentioned earlier the faith unit that manages to deal with some 60 people a year but probably could offer useful service and better outcomes for some 2000 prisoners—that is the estimate of the Prison Fellowship. Some 2000 prisoners would get benefit would improve their behaviours and would reduce the likelihood of recidivism if they were able to get access to programmes of that nature. 
We know the solutions that work and this bill is not one of them. The Act that it seeks to extend is not part of the solution; it is part of the problem. For that reason we will vote against this legislation. Kia ora.