Alexander Marc: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Alexander Marc: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20566] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to address the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill and to correct some of the misrepresentations that have been made of our position on the bill. Most obviously for me is the fact that if this bill goes through without amendment it will be incompatible with the United Future policy on law and order which is based on three principles: being tough on crime being tough on the causes of crime and—to my mind the most important principle—placing victims first. This bill does not put victims first so from my point of view it is utterly incompatible with that policy. However—and this is the part I think has been misrepresented—we will be supporting this bill through to the Committee stage at which point we will be putting forward a number of Supplementary Order Papers. One of them in particular will be a bottom line for us. If it is not accepted our support ends right there. That Supplementary Order Paper will I believe enshrine the victims-first approach. If for whatever reason that does not happen—if for whatever reason United Future nevertheless decides to support the bill—it will not be I who will deliver that vote. The House can count on that. 
I turn to the substance of the bill. I do not want to lambaste the Minister of Justice for this bill because I think that in many ways he has been put between a rock and a hard place. On one hand he has what I consider to be—and many would agree with me—spurious United Nations obligations. I understand that from the point of view of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade he has to uphold those principles. In a sense it is a pity that Phil Goff wears both hats and that they are in conflict with each other. In this particular instance his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade conflicts with his role as Minister of Justice. The idea that we must sign up to international obligations and that that somehow supersedes our Parliament is fundamentally flawed. At the end of the day Parliament must be the arbiter. Parliament must be the point at which laws for New Zealand are decided upon not the whim of the Government of the day in signing up to international accords without the proviso of giving Parliament the ability to debate and support whatever those obligations may be. 
I have also been accused I believe by the National member who spoke earlier of having allowed myself a bob either way by taking a supportive view of the main body of the commentary on the bill and also stating a minority view. Let me just say clearly for the record that although I was the United Future member on the Justice and Electoral Committee for the purposes of this bill I was not always at the meetings of that committee simply because of my responsibilities in the other select committee of which I am a member. Had I been there I would possibly not have included United Future support for the main body of the commentary. 
Members will see that the United Future minority view outlines our major concerns. I have talked a little about the international obligations. On the issue of the compensation that needs to be provided for inmates there is no necessity in my opinion—and I think in others’—that the compensation be financial. It is quite clear that there is a purpose for compensation: to be a punishment or a penalty imposed on the Department of Corrections for doing the wrong thing. I have no problem with that. But that the money should somehow be a windfall for the inmate concerned is I think the part of the equation that nobody can accede to. When an inmate is brutalised the Department of Corrections and the people responsible for that brutalisation must be brought to justice and they must pay the full penalty. But there is no reason to reward the inmate over and above reasonable compensation which is not necessarily financial compensation. If there is a broken leg let us mend it. If there are hurt feelings let us give the inmate counselling. But we should not give the inmate one cent of taxpayers’ money some of which comes from the victims of the crime he or she committed in order to find himself or herself there in the first place. I think that that is utterly wrong. 
That applies to people like Taunoa who received $55000 for being subject to prison discipline. That man had slashed the throat of a person so badly that it exposed the victim’s spine. He is a threat to other inmates and to the guards. Not to put him away would infringe the human rights of the guards and other inmates. The idea that taxpayers must now front up and pay $55000 in compensation as a result of a decision arising from that inmate’s own actions is an absolute affront to victims everywhere in this country. The point is that compensation need not be financial. That will be the sum of the Supplementary Order Paper that I will put forward in the Committee stage of this bill. 
The simple fact is that we have heard from a number of victims many times over that they did not necessarily want the offender to be put at risk in prison but they did not want to have an ongoing legal relationship with the offender either. Victims want to get on with their lives. The idea simple though it sounds that if an inmate does get compensation the victim can then go along a legislative path to take some or all of that money is actually repugnant to victims. They simply want to get on with their lives and heal from the crime that has been committed against them. I understand why the Minister of Justice is to allow the opportunity for victims to take legal action and claim the money. He like everybody else finds it repugnant that inmates should be rewarded for choosing to commit crimes getting caught for them and being put in prison. But this bill is clearly not the way to address that. 
At some point we have to say that the rights of victims and the obligations of the Government to victims and to law-abiding people in this country must supersede any international interest. That has to be absolutely rock-bottom. Compensation should not be seen as this bill suggests as a payment to the inmate but as a penalty against the correctional institution and the people who perpetrate the offences. As I said before we will vote in favour of this legislation going forward to the Committee stage. Our obligation to support it goes only to that point. I will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage and our support thereafter will be conditional on it being agreed to. Otherwise I will not be in this Chamber to give the vote for United Future.