te Heuheu Georgina: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18002] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Prisoners and Victims Claims Bill. I want to say to the House and to those New Zealanders who might be listening that a fraud has been perpetrated on this House tonight and on the public of New Zealand. We have in the introduction of this bill— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Which Minister? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: In the first place the Hon Phil Goff but in the end the Government overall. This bill builds huge expectations for victims of crime without actually delivering and pretends to take away from offenders—prisoners—the ability to receive money for any supposed wrongs that have been done to them while they were under the care of the Department of Corrections. Of course the Government was under pressure to do something about this issue but torn as it is between wondering whether to continue the right of prisoners to make claims but at the same time to satisfy the public demand for the rights of victims to take precedence over the rights of criminals it has come up with this hybrid legislation that in the end probably will satisfy only the offenders and will do very little to fulfil any expectations that victims might have that the hurts and suffering they have had at the hands of criminal offenders will be catered for in the long run. That is why I have said that a fraud is being perpetrated on the New Zealand public and on this House with the introduction of this bill. 
That is not surprising. This Government through its various Ministers is great for doing the great huff-puff job pretending to be disgusted at certain things. We have seen that this week with the issue of Judy Bailey’s salary increase where the Prime Minister and the Minister Steve Maharey did a huge mock-disgust act. The Prime Minister said that the pay rise resembled something of a culture of extravagance in TVNZ it was not acceptable and she would not stand for it. What did they do today? When three of the directors on the board of TVNZ offered their resignations they were given a little slap with a wet rag and told no they should stay in their jobs—but not before the Prime Minister and Steve Maharey had huffed and puffed in the last few days about the disgusting nature of Judy Bailey’s salary rise. When they had a chance to do something to satisfy the public disgust at that pay rise they did not do that. 
A similar pattern of behaviour is contained in the issue we are addressing now. When the issue arose of prisoners getting huge payouts for supposed hurt and damage they had received while in the corrections system and the public of New Zealand got all worked up that of course was a signal for the Minister Phil Goff to give some of his vein-popping speeches and feign disgust as well. He is very good at feigning disgust I might say but in the end the words are not as important as the delivery. 
As I say we are seeing in this bill expectations raised for victims of crime. If it is a proper thing to do if there are some principles on which this House believes that victims should be compensated for the hurt they have received then that should be addressed through the victims’ rights legislation and not through some half-pie mumbo-jumbo that is contained in the bill before us tonight. 
The other thing is if we are truly trying to satisfy a public disgust at huge payouts to criminals then this bill does not achieve that. The reality is that if one looks at the detail and considers the hoops and barriers that victims have to go through to try to claim some compensation out of a fund into which money won by a prisoner has been placed even if victims of any particular crime could be identified it is highly unlikely that they will win anything back. 
One then gets that invidious kind of situation where on the one hand the Government is saying: “Here we are we’re setting up this framework whereby if this prisoner gets a huge payout the fund will go in trust and as a person who suffered at the hands of that prisoner you can make a claim and you can win some of that fund.” Clearly that is not true. If one looks at the detail offenders will still get the money. If no victims are identified and in many many cases it will not be possible to identify the victims then the money will go to the offender anyway. So nobody not one person who has been disgusted with the huge payouts this year and in the past will be satisfied with that. 
Secondly if the judge does not approve a claim and there are a whole lot of reasons why a judge may not approve such a claim again the money will go to the offender. If anything is left over even if a victim was able to win a part of it the remainder is handed over to the offender anyway. I guess on balance it is more likely that offenders who have managed to get a compensation payout will end up having that money paid to them. 
Of course there is the other side to this and that is why my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp and I say that there is a better way to address the suffering and hurt of victims. Under this framework victims will be absolutely traumatised if they bother to apply for part of the payout of any of the funds anyway. As I say it is highly unlikely when they consider the hoops and barriers that they will even bother. 
But as I say if there is a good principle on which this House should be seeking to develop a framework to compensate victims properly then this is not the way to do it. We do not need to put victims through a trauma again. They are already victims. Under this bill a victim’s application for a payout from the fund is shown to the offender who can then comment on it. What victim would want comment from some person—for instance why would a woman who is a victim of a rape go through such a stupid procedure and become traumatised all over again? Why would she? The victim’s comments go back to the offender. The victims may have to reappear in court in support of their application. Again why should that be the case? [ 
Interruption 
] If it is wrong the Minister can explain why that statement is wrong. What he cannot deny though is that his bill raises expectations for victims many of which expectations will not be fulfilled. They just will not be. 
That is why I say that a fraud has been perpetrated on this House on the New Zealand public and on the victims of crime. This is a hybrid bill no doubt hastily put together even though these payouts have occurred over a long period of time. In looking at the way it has been set out one can only ask who put it together. Of course the Minister will claim credit for it. However it does not do him any credit. There is a better way of compensating victims than the way presented in this bill. The Minister should withdraw this legislation.