Dalziel Lianne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7380. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 That member Jackie Blue obviously does not have a very good recollection of the matter coming before our select committee the Justice and Electoral Committee just a short while ago. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act when it was originally introduced was introduced as a short-term measure and that was the reason for putting a sunset provision into it. I think it has had about three sunset provisions—2007 2010 and 2012—and now the 2013 deadline is starting to loom which is why we are dealing with it again. 
What is kind of frustrating to this side of the House is that we agreed to extend the expiration of the Act earlier this year in order to provide a temporary measure in lieu of the alternative Government bill which would have made these restrictions permanent. Of course that bill has disappeared from the Order Paper. The member who has just resumed her seat did not even mention the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill known in the regulatory impact statement as the redirection bill because it has come off the Order Paper. It has been ditched. We agreed to have the temporary measure last enacted—and the member is on the select committee so she must remember it—we agreed to do that on the basis that that particular piece of legislation was going to have its first reading and be referred to the select committee. Well it never came. It never had its first reading and it was never referred to the select committee. So as a result we agreed on the basis that the Minister of Justice had offered to negotiate with the Opposition spokesperson on justice—my colleague Charles Chauvel—and other members in this House over the content of the measure. Of course she has failed to do so in good faith. 
That is actually why we are opposing this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. It is about process and I think the process is really important. I think that if people actually want to get legislative changes through this House when there are areas upon which we can work together to achieve agreement that is what we should seek to achieve and that is what we sought to achieve. The Minister did not consult with us about the new bill that she had introduced and then she did not consult about removing it from the Order Paper and she did not consult about this amendment either. I think that to turn this the temporary measure into the permanent fix actually does not solve the problem. 
We have heard members opposite talk about victims of crime. If somebody is in prison and they are left a bequest and inherit a lot of money it is not caught by this bill. If they win Lotto because somebody gives them a Lotto ticket for their birthday it is not caught by this. The only thing caught by this is if their human rights are abused and they receive compensation from the Crown. 
Charles Chauvel 
: So perverse. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is absolutely perverse and I cannot believe that members of a National Government are happily standing up and saying that this legislation is good enough. It is not good enough. That is why we were prepared to work with the Government to find a real fix which was about prisoners’ deriving income during the time that they are incarcerated or deriving some benefit while they are incarcerated—not dependent on their having their human rights abused and having compensation paid to them by the Crown but actually looking at the whole issue as to whether they should be able to be deprived of some element of what they gain while they are serving their sentence so that the benefit of it can pass on to a victim if the victim wants that compensation. I have spoken to victims of crime who do not want any money from anyone who has done to them what was done. 
I want to also remind the House that regarding victims of crime we talk about what it is that they want and we are talking about whether the legislation is victim-centric or not. We had a meeting recently with the Sensible Sentencing Trust and one of its members highlighted to us that there was a real concern about the lack of engagement with the Ministry of Justice and the Minister over some of the issues that are truly of concern to the victims of crime. 
What the trust had discovered was that on the Ministry of Justice website is this incredible document that is essentially a literature review of all of the issues relating to adult victims of crime. Right at the end—and this is what the trust drew to our attention—it says: “Guiding principles for providing effective service and support to the victims of crime—A key aim of this report was to provide information on how best to support victims of crime. In reviewing the extensive range of research relevant to crime victimisation a number of guiding principles emerge as important in delivering effective support and services to victims. These principles are applicable to all agencies government and non-government that work with victims of crime.” That is the advantage of actually looking at the international literature. Even our own literature supports this. This is what best practice actually informs Parliament about in terms of decision making and this is actually what a victim-centric service provision looks like. 
It says: “Respectful and confidential treatment: available research shows while outcomes are important to victims (eg reparations convictions) consistent with the concept of procedural justice the manner in which victims are treated is more important.” That is what all of the evidence shows. “Individualised response/flexible services: there is strong evidence that people are affected differently by crime. Services allocated purely by crime type or victim type are likely to miss other victims with significant needs. Assessment must ensure individual needs are identified and services need to be sufficiently flexible to provide individualised response. A range of service options should be offered so that individual preferences can be catered for.” 
Then it talks about services being accessible: “Services can only assist victims if they are known to victims victims are comfortable using them and are available at the time and location when needed. Participation in the justice system can be important to victims and so must be accessible to them.” Therefore it talks about services needing to be well advertised and using publicity campaigns to ensure that victims are aware of their existence. “Certain services need to be available 24-hours (eg crisis response)”. Well we have just had to have an urgent intervention in Auckland because the crisis centre for sexual violence was about to close its doors at Christmas. That had to be addressed extremely urgently. “Services and access to justice need also to be available in rural and provincial areas …”. How often do we forget that these services are not just city-based in terms of that support? “Services and justice responses need to be culturally appropriate and accessible to those from different ethnic backgrounds … services and justice responses need to be sensitive to the needs of vulnerable populations and accessible to those with disabilities younger victims those living in socially and economically deprived areas.” 
Then it talks about provision of the right information at the right time in the right format. How many times could you say that about a whole range of different areas that we should be addressing? “Delivered by experienced knowledgable well-trained empathetic staff” “Consistent high quality services and support” “Integrated service provision” “End-to-end individualised support” and “Accountable services”. 
 Those are the things that the victims of crime are actually saying to Parliament that they would like to have delivered for them. I do not think that anyone can stand up in this House and say that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill that we have before us in any way begins to address those particular needs. Labour members will be looking at the bill very carefully when it comes to the select committee. The reason we are not supporting it is that it is a bill that fails to actually address the core needs of victims that have been expressed to us and have been identified by the Ministry of Justice as being based on international best practice. The literature says so and as I say the Sensible Sentencing Trust is asking us to look much more compassionately at these issues. 
So I think it is a very disappointing piece of legislation. The Minister of Justice can do a lot better than this. I have to say quite frankly I am disappointed that effort has not been placed in this particular quarter where it should be.