Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:14942] 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What action does the Government intend to take as a result of the awarding of $1200 to an inmate whose feelings were hurt? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Department of Corrections is seeking advice from Crown Law on appealing the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal on this case to the High Court. Like most New Zealanders it seems to me that the injury to the feelings of the inmate pales into insignificance when compared with the trauma and suffering of the family of the victim whom he murdered in 1988. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Since the general manager of the prison service said on radio yesterday that the legal opinion from the Crown Law Office suggested it was not worth spending any more taxpayers’ money to appeal this decision will the Government appeal the decision in order to avoid setting a precedent for paying inmates such amounts of money for compensation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is more than simply the sum of money involved—it is $1200—there is the principle involved. The Department of Corrections will be getting advice from Crown Law on the prospect of its success and then a decision will be made on the basis of the facts available to the department about an appeal. 
Tim Barnett 
: Should there be any right on the part of inmates to take a case against the State if actions taken against them as inmates are inconsistent with the law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes there will be circumstances where the ability to take such a case may be justified. However I think that most New Zealanders would feel that the victims of the offender should have first claim over any compensation granted to inmates. I have asked the Ministry of Justice to examine whether offenders who are awarded compensation should in fact be required to pay damages out of that award to any victims they have harmed and never compensated. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why have the privacy concerns of a convicted murderer superseded those of a concerned member of the public when the reason the Department of Corrections withheld some of the information in the letter was to try to protect the person who wrote it from an extremely violent criminal who now roams free in our community? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have had a look at the case and I have also had a look at the letter that was written by the Privacy Commissioner. In fact the Privacy Commissioner decided not to take this case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal because she did not believe that was warranted. 
Stephen Franks 
: Has the Minister made sure that the members of the Human Rights Review Tribunal have the required knowledge and experience of—and I quote from the Act’s criteria—“cultural issues and the needs and aspirations (including life experiences) of different communities of interest and population groups in New Zealand society.”; if the Minister did satisfy himself of that question exactly which population group does he think should compensate a vile rapist and murderer for his hurt feelings? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member as is often the case has quoted selectively from the provision of the Act which requires certain qualifications on the part of a person appointed to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. There is a range of different issues—one of them of course being knowledge of the law. I notice that the member was critical of those particular individuals. It is somewhat ironic that one of the individuals on the tribunal was appointed by the very member who raised this question in the House: Mr Ryall when he was formerly the Minister of Justice. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Since the Government now agrees with the Opposition about the inappropriateness of this payment what confidence can the public have that the Government will progress this issue in light of the reports in the decision of the tribunal that the Government’s officials neither contested the issue nor argued the reason that they had withheld the information? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have the report of the tribunal in my hand which contradicts what the member has said—as usual. This issue was contested by the Crown. It was defended by the Crown and the Crown lost. It may be that the Crown could have presented its case better than it did and that will be one of the aspects that will be looked at in relation to any appeal. I would of course welcome it if the National Party in Opposition supported this Government in doing something about the law—something that the previous National Government failed to do in the 9 years that it had in office. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that the family members of the victim of murderer and rapist Andrew Ronald McMillan received not 1c in reparation when the victim was brutally raped and sadistically murdered yet he is awarded $1200 to heal his wounded feelings? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is precisely why I answered the primary question in the way that I did. I think it is quite unjust that a person who has caused so much suffering and trauma to others and who has never been required to pay a penny in compensation should now get compensation for some other matter that is very clearly much more minor than his offence. I note the fact that no reparation payment was ordered when the man was originally convicted. That is often the case when a person is given a life sentence because he or she has no ability to make any such payment.