Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10759. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment BillThird ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill ensures that the regime under the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 continues beyond 30 June 2013 when it would otherwise expire. This means that compensation payable to prisoners for breaches of their human rights will continue to be subject to the existing guidelines and restrictions in the Act. This ensures that prisoners will not receive compensation for wrongful treatment without first having to redress the harm that they have caused their victims. Under the regime made permanent by the bill if compensation is awarded or paid pursuant to a settlement agreement certain deductions can be made from it. These include deductions for any legal aid debt related to a prisoner’s claim and any outstanding reparation owed to victims.The regime also provides a simplified process for victims to make claims against the money through the victims’ special claims tribunal. This can include claims for emotional harm or property damage or loss caused by the offender. The bill also makes a small change to the civil limitation period for victims’ claims for their benefit and clarifies that the Act applies to unlawful detention claims.The bill is another step the Government has taken in championing victims’ rights. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill prevents the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 from effectively expiring. This means that there will continue to be a fair and appropriate regime that balances the rights of prisoners and their victims. I would like to take the opportunity to thank thosemembers of the House who have been supporting this bill particularly those who have supported it all the way through to help it get through in time for 30 June. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): If there is one thing that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill is not it is a victims’ rights piece of legislation. It is not about enhancing victims’ rights at all. It is very much a lottery-driven piece of legislation when it comes to victims’ rights.The genesis of the original legislation was what is known as theTaunoa case which made awards of damages to prisoners whose New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights had been traduced through the behaviour management regime then in place in prisons in New Zealand. It resulted in awards of compensation. So effectively the State was required to compensate the prisoners.The difficulty was as seen at the time that a new injustice was created. The prisoners whose rights had been breached and who won compensation as a consequence had themselves—it is self-evident—breached the rights of their victims who had no claim against them. Under the common law rights that those victims had they had lost the right to make a claim even putting aside the accident compensation rights they had. They could not make a claim for exemplary damages for the conduct of the prisoners. So the prisoners enjoyed a windfall and the victims continued to suffer the consequences of the crimes committed against them. The Government of the day the Labour Government introduced the legislation to ensure that any awards of damages went to compensate both the State and the victims before the prisoners themselves received any amount of compensation.That situation was not and will not be under the legislation we are now considering without conflicting values and principles. It is not right that prisoners should be subject to mistreatment while in prison. We sentence people to prison to deprive them of their liberty as a sanction against their antisocial conduct. We do not send them to prison to be further mistreated abused and treated in improper ways. That is not acceptable and so it is correct that the State which is the custodian of these people while they are incarcerated should itself face a sanction.Equally it is wrong that access to compensation by victims should be dependent on what might be described as the entirely fortuitous circumstance that the perpetrator of the crime against them is him or herself subject to a violation that leads to a compensable right which leads to compensation that can then be claimed by the victim. That does not deal with victims’ rights at all. So there are limitations. Although we can understand that there is an injustice that ought to be and continue to be addressed it is not a satisfactory conclusion or a resolution to the overarching issue of victims’ rights and the ability to be fully compensated for the loss that victims of crime suffer.The original bill dealt with the obvious injustice but it had a sunset clause. The reason it had that sunset clause was that it was expected that there would be a review of just that situation and of just those principles that I have articulated on the basis that there might be a more coherent and comprehensive approach taken to victims’ rights including the ability to be compensated for loss other than that compensated for by accident compensation.Simply rolling over the existing legislation with no change leaves the same contradictions in place and leaves a still unsatisfactory situation in place. It still means that only those victims who have perpetrators who themselves are subject to a compensable act get access to any compensation—it is only by chance or by lottery and that is not satisfactory.What we still continue to need is a coherent and comprehensive approach to victims’ rights. The best that the Minister of Justice can do and she made the announcementtoday is to continue and reheat existing policies. This afternoon she made an announcement that the extra money that is collected through the offender levy the $50 that is levied on convicted offenders will be passed on for the benefit of various victims programmes. Well that is the intention of the levy and so the announcement that the Minister has made today in her attempt to dress it up as some sort of enhancement of victims’ rights is nothing of the sort.Hon David Parker: And it’ll probably reduce the fines.ANDREW LITTLE: If anything we will see a reduction in fines because of other measures being taken in the justice area such as the reduction in funding for Crown solicitors fewer prosecutions fewer charges taken and therefore less collected through fines and therefore less levied on offenders. It is contradictory.What we saw this afternoon in the announcement was the same old mutton dressed up as lamb and that in combination with this legislation means we still have an unsatisfactory situation when it comes to victims’ rights. The announcement this afternoon was for $750000 to go to victims as the additional amount that is already being collected through the offender levy. It will affect 4000 victims but there are thousands upon thousands of victims each year many of whom go uncompensated as a result. So this issue still needs to be addressed.I should put on the record yet again in this third reading that one of the objections we have to the bill notwithstanding that we will vote for it is that the Minister promised that all Opposition parties would be consulted on a more comprehensive approach to the issues that this bill covers. That never happened. That was a promise broken. How unfortunate. As we had promises of consultation over MMP so we had promises of consultation over this. In both cases the promises were broken. The Minister’s word stands for nothing.This legislation has its origins in the previous Labour Government and it dealt with an obvious situation an obvious injustice. If this bill were not in place the small sliver of injustice that would remain would still be there and we want to cover off at least that level of injustice and so we will continue to support the bill for that reason. But it is not satisfactory that several years after the original bill was put in place there does not appear to have been any comprehensive work done by the Minister or successive Ministers of Justice under this Government or the ministry they have presided over on developing options for a better approach a more comprehensive approach to victims’ rights. That is important.We should deal with victims’ rights aside from apart from and separately from the way we deal with our penal regime and our system of punishment for offenders. Let us call offenders those who are antisocial and those who do bad towards others in our community properly to account through our criminal justice system. Let us have a criminal justice system that provides appropriate levels of punishment but also aims to rehabilitate and restore people to good character and a constructive role in society. But let us also recognise that there are victims of crime and their issues need to be dealt with too through effective voice through effective support and where required through effective compensation. None of the measures put in place including those in this bill gets us anywhere closer to a better system a better regime of looking after victims of crime whether serious or non-serious crime. That is a situation that must change.The fact that the present Minister has taken no effort to talk to other parties about a new approach about different approaches and about a new way forward tells us very clearly that this Minister and this Government are not serious about new measures to deal with victims. It is about dressing up and reheating old half-baked ideas and taking the issue no further. We need better progress and we need a better approach. In thewords of the New Zealand Law Society when it submitted on other legislation when it comes to criminal justice it is better to have a cross-party approach to it. Those discussions will begin one day and we look forward to that but they will begin under a different Government a new Government a Labour-led Government that wants to take victims’ rights seriously—one thing that simply reheating the present legislation does not do.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee to speak in support of this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill in its third reading. This bill has been brought to the House by the Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins. It is a good bill and it is worthy of our support. It has gone through the process of the House in full detail and in a way that I think has done both the Justice and Electoral Committee and this House proud.As a Government we make absolutely no apology for putting victims first. I find it quite deeply upsetting to hear Andrew Little talking about protecting the rights of the criminals. These are people who have committed wrongs and who are incarcerated for good cause and for good reason. It strikes me that it is a matter of basic common sense and principle that if an award of compensation is made to them during their term of incarceration the first party to benefit from that should be in fact the victims of the crimes that were committed and that have resulted in their incarceration. So this is a good bill. It is part of this Government’s plan to build a better justice system and we have embarked on a comprehensive programme for reform not only to enhance our justice system but also to protect communities to prevent crime and as I said earlier to put victims first. We are making no apologies for focusing our justice system on the rights of victims. We are staying tough on crime.This Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill responded to concerns arising from the 2005 legislation that offenders should not receive compensation for wrongful treatment without first paying the debt they owe because of the harm caused to their victims. This new bill will ensure that the system is fair that it is balanced and that it will not lead to any unintended injustices. Our reforms mean that the victims of crime in the criminal justice system are obviously there because of no fault of their own. They are not there because they have done anything; they are there because they are the victims. And they have to deal with the financial the emotional and the physical effects of the crime that has been perpetrated upon them and committed against them. This bill seeks to do that and to do it very well.We have ensured that crime is coming down and the numbers are undeniable. Part of the reason that crime is coming down is the focus that this Government has been putting on the efforts to reduce crime and to make New Zealanders feel safe in their homes in their communities and in their families.One aspect of this bill that is of interest is that we received I think seven submissions. Those submissions recommended that this bill proceed with speed and with haste because they supported the legislation that came before the select committee. The expiry date of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 was looming and we needed to move quickly to achieve the result that we wanted. That is the reason that this bill is before the House today.It is a very good bill. I commend it to the House. The select committee worked well throughout the various stages of the bill and I want to thank the members of the select committee who participated very fully in their deliberations on the bill. I commend this bill to the House.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to remind this House why the legislation that we are debating today the Prisoners’ and Victims’Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill has not actually lived up to the expectation that was had for it and for this present Government when the legislation was originally debated and passed through this House in 2005 as my colleague Andrew Little has described. He quite rightly highlighted the fact that “Successive Governments”—both Labour and National—“have made the political decision that paying out significant compensation to prisoners for their treatment while in prison is unacceptable to a significant proportion of the public and could affect confidence in the justice system.” That was the basis for the legislative change that Labour brought into effect in 2005. We introduced the original legislation to “further reduce the likelihood that prisoners would be awarded compensation for rights breaches during their incarceration.”But the sunset clauses were put in there for very good reason. They were included to limit the application to claims arising from the behaviour management regime which have been described and which nobody in this House would describe as being on the side of criminals. Actually it is being on the side of the proper treatment of incarcerated prisoners and as has been quite rightly pointed out that is not something that anyone—any member of this House—could possibly stand up and say that they would find unacceptable. I want to talk about the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and also the Crimes of Torture Act which we have passed in this Parliament as well and our commitment to that.Sunset clauses were included really to look at that behaviour management regime situation to make sure that any applications that were being dealt with under that could actually be dealt with and to also allow time for an independent prison complaints body to be established. The view of the Ministry of Justice at the time was that the legislation and its sunset clauses together—and it was together—“represented the best compromise between ensuring compensation is only paid to prisoners once they have redressed the harm caused to victims”—in terms of the financial obligations that arose out of that—“and upholding New Zealand’s domestic and international human rights obligations.” That actually remained the ministry’s view. I should say to the House that the document that I am quoting from is the regulatory impact statement that led to the introduction of the legislation that reaches its conclusion in the very near future on 1 July.So the sunset clauses in the 2005 legislation were originally due to come into effect on 1 July 2007. However the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Act 2007 extended the sunset clauses to 1 July 2010 and the reason for that was again twofold. It was because work on the independent prison complaints body was still ongoing and the behaviour management regime claims were not completed. But neither of those things was an indication to an incoming Government an incoming National Government that this would result in the kinds of changes that it has now introduced nor that it would be made permanent.In 2005 the Ministry of Justice began its work on an inter-agency working party to examine existing prison complaints and monitoring processes within the Department of Corrections and to scope the role of an independent prison complaints body. Under that enhanced role that came down to the Office of the Ombudsmen it was given responsibility for monitoring investigations into deaths in custody and serious incidents that could potentially affect the safe fair and humane treatment of offenders.What I should point out to the House is that we did actually receive a submission from the Office of the Ombudsmen. Of course with the office’s important role in terms of being formally designated as the national preventive mechanism for prisons and compliance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment its statement to our Justice and Electoral Committee I believe was very very important. What it stated was: “We areconcerned that the victims’ claims scheme which the Bill makes permanent provides neither a suitable way to compensate victims of crime nor a suitable way to prevent abuse or mistreatment of prisoners in accordance with New Zealand’s international obligations.” I believe that that is an incredibly serious statement because the Government is claiming not only that this bill somehow will enhance the rights of victims but that it is in accordance with our international obligations. The Office of the Ombudsmen which has this very important role in terms of oversight of our prison service says the exact opposite.I want to remind this House again as I did in the second reading of a document that was drawn to our attention by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I believe that the trust has raised an exceptionally sensible point that every member of this House should be aware of and that is that it discovered that there was a report:Victims of Crime in the Adult Criminal Justice System: A Stocktake of the Literature. Where did it find this stocktake of the literature and what did it find? Well the trust found it on the Ministry of Justice website because the Ministry of Justice has been doing this work on the victims of crime. And what did the trust find to be the guiding principles for providing effective service and support to the victims of crime? They were: “Respectful and confidential treatment: available research shows that while outcomes are important to victims (eg reparation convictions) consistent with the concept of procedural justice the manner in which victims are treated is more important.”That is what the literature said. “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.” It goes on about services being accessible; the provision of right information at the right time in the right format; 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.The Sensible Sentencing Trust said this is what victims are asking for. That is what they want and unfortunately this bill does not resolve these problems because what it says is that money will be allocated to victim support but only if the human rights of the person who has perpetrated the offence are somehow offended against in a way that earns them compensation while they are in prison for a crime—you know the crime in fact may or may not be one that affected the individual concerned.There are many people for example in our prisons who are in there because they have been caught with possession of a drug they have been caught several times drink-driving they have problems that they need to have addressed but they are serving time in prison. In many respects they are the victimless crimes where nobody else has actually been harmed in the process of them committing what is an offence. But they too are caught by this and if their human rights are challenged by the service that is supposedly providing them with humane prison treatment then somehow that means that that money is available and that is the only way that it is directly available apart from the offenders levy.It seems to me that this is getting the wrong point. If we are going to hold people accountable for meeting those financial obligations then surely it means that we should be looking at more productive ways and more I believe important ways of holding people to account for their actions. If we are to ensure that people take responsibility for their actions then surely it is not only if they have been in this situation but if they have a windfall like a Lotto win or something like that—all of these things were supposed tobe looked at when we actually allowed for the sunset provision to take place. So I think the Government has really done a great disservice both to the victims of crime and to our international standing.DAVID CLENDON (Green): It is never a happy sight to see this Parliament passing bad law and that is what we are seeing tonight. With the passing of this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill we are embedding as a permanent provision in our legislation a mechanism that was marginal at best as a stopgap short-term measure which is all it was ever intended to be. It intended to respond to the particular moment in time: an unfortunate series of incidents at Mt Eden prison and the ongoing public concerns about that. It was intended to be legislation with a sunset clause. It should have been allowed to simply fade away while we did something much more sensible and much more long term.This legislation and its various iterations—I think this is the third cycle of legislation it has gone through: an extension a continuation bill and now this legislation to make it permanent—have chewed up an inordinate amount of parliamentary time and resource. In the meantime we are told the Minister of Justice and her officials are too busy to even consider or contemplate a very good proposition that came from Judge Boshier some 7 or 8 months ago proposing that we create an offence of family violence. That would have been a means by which we might actually have addressed the issue of protecting victims of reducing the number of victims. That would have been a useful and appropriate means of using the resources and time of this House and the people in it. Unfortunately instead we are spending time perpetuating bad law such as this prisoners and victims legislation.Does the Government continue to be genuinely concerned about a public backlash if inmates seem to reap some financial benefit some restitution for having their rights denied them or for suffering abuse while in the custody of the State? If there is a problem if the Government is genuinely concerned about that the solution is actually self-evident. The solution is to create a safe humane decent environment in our prisons to ensure that inmates do not suffer abuse or denial of rights. The problem simply goes away. There would not be an issue if we created an environment in the prisons where prisoners’ rights are secured and where they are safe environments for both inmates and indeed staff who work in them on our behalf.The events at Spring Hill Corrections Facility last weekend and the series of events over recent months which are becoming more frequent and more serious demonstrate we do not have that safe environment in our prisons and that demonstrates we have a great deal of work to do—genuine work finding real solutions to real problems rather than fiddling about the margins with this piece of legislation that actually has not even worked.What we have done here effectively is to create a lose-lose situation. This legislation being embedded in legislation takes away the rights of prisoners to fair restitution if their rights are abused or compromised. It diminishes our right to claim we are a country that respects human rights and basic decency and as the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel pointed out it does contravene international law. And what do we get in exchange for this? A piece of legislation that over 8 years has delivered virtually nothing to victims. A figure of something like $45000 has been returned to victims under the provisions of this legislation. That is less than $6000 a year—basically pennies rats and mice peanuts. We would have been better to not devote any time to it close the House early one night save a lot of money and give that to victims. That is an equally nonsensical suggestion as the one that we continue to embed with this piece of legislation which is a lose-lose piece of legislation. It has not worked for 8years. Why will it work for another 8 years or 8 years beyond that? It simply makes no sense.It has been claimed that the Greens’ opposition to this bill reflects some sort of lack of concern for the well-being of victims. Indeed at an earlier reading one of the Government’s spokespeople saw fit to suggest that I had made a speech on this bill without once mentioning the word “victim”. In fact I suggest to that member a course of active listening because I continually referred to “victims” in my 10-minute speech and that particular member managed about 90 seconds of commentary on this very important piece of legislation. We do have significant concerns for the well-being and rights of victims and would seek to put in place a comprehensive review. When the Greens supported this legislation in 2005—somewhat reluctantly but we did support it—it was on the understanding that there would be a comprehensive review of the rights of victims ideally a cross-party approach as Mr Little has indicated. I was somewhat surprised to hear the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee a competent and typically quite amiable chair talking about this Government’s comprehensive reform of the justice sector. I think the Government is being remarkably modest. If it is undertaking a comprehensive reform of the justice sector why is it not telling anybody about it? There is no evidence of any such comprehensive reform. We are seeing short-term reactive stopgap measures.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DAVID CLENDON: I am pleased to take the opportunity to make some further comments about this unfortunate piece of legislation that has been inflicted on the House. It would perhaps be a defensible piece of legislation to continue to embed as a permanent feature rather than a temporary one—which is how it was designed and enacted—if we had any evidence that in the ensuing 8 years it had done any good. As I mentioned earlier it clearly has not done a great deal of good. A total sum of $45000 has been dispersed to victims as a result of this piece of legislation. Despite the significant cost to the country of enacting it both the process cost and the cost of the various stopgap pieces of legislation—the continuance and now this one—it is all for a grand sum of $45000 to victims.As I said earlier our original support—our somewhat tentative support but support none the less—for the 2005 legislation was predicated on the expectation that a comprehensive review of victims’ rights would be undertaken. We have an issue in New Zealand with having a very disjointed and not very strategic or well-considered approach to making restitution to victims. We have some good programmes in place. We have some good restorative justice processes albeit not as many as we could use—those very positive means of getting good fair outcomes that are transparent that serve the needs of victims and that make offenders think and hopefully deter them from reoffending.Unfortunately we have never seen the review the significant review—a sort of clean slate approach to how we can make good and how we can ensure that the victims of crime get restitution as appropriate and that they get the appropriate treatment and counselling. There are means not to undo an offence that has been done to a person but certainly to help them recover from it. We are not even at page 1 of thinking through what that might look like. That is a piece of work that I suspect will require as Mr Little indicated earlier an approach from a new Government a Government with a more progressive set of ideas and a Government not frightened to take a step back and undertake the difficult piece of work of a comprehensive review rather than these add-on stopgap short-term measures which really do us no good and indeed are now doing us harm. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take a call in the third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker David Clendon talked about a Government that was more comprehensive. I cannot think of a Government that is more comprehensive than a Government that is reducing offending by 25 percent by 2017. Results so far from corrections show there is an 8.9 percent reduction in offending. Overall crime rates have reduced by 50 percent. Violent crime is down by 20 percent and youth crime by 5 percent. Results so far show that the total crime rate is down by 9 percent with violent crime down by 7 percent. So I am not sure what the previous member means when he talks about comprehensive and progressive Government that is proving its results.This is about a bill whose purpose is to make the restrictions on awards of compensation and the victims’ claims process in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 permanent. We are balancing the rights and responsibilities of both the victims and the offenders. We know that incarceration on its own is not enough to reduce recidivist offending. However there are some issues that are important here. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 did respond to concerns that offenders should not receive compensation for wrongful treatment. We talk about a court of law but there is also the public court of opinion. It was quite clear—the Hon Lianne Dalziel actually spelt it out—that the original legislation in 2005 which was supported by the Green Party was to give confidence to the public that we were responding to and balancing the needs of victims and that is what this Government is doing.Seven submissions were submitted on the bill but were not proceeded on. I finally wanted to say this: the bill confirms the Government’s commitment to supporting victims by providing that for any compensation awarded in respect of prisoners in claims for compensation the claim limitation period is to be suspended when the compensation is paid to the Secretary for Justice. This in regards to the other reforms that we are introducing as a Government is a good bill. It is not a bad bill. It is a bill that introduces and addresses some issues. The principal Act had a sunset clause that has now come to its end. We are now making this permanent to give confidence to our communities of need. I commend this bill to the House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I note that the Greens feel that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill goes somewhat too far from their concern for prisoners’ rights which is of course quite a proper concern. Labour on the other hand seems to say that the bill does not go far enough and its concern is that there should be more attention given to victims’ rights and that is a fair enough position as well. New Zealand First actually wants to achieve both of those things with an appropriate balance.I think this bill makes a contribution to that. I do not think it is really going to make much difference to anything in the end but it is certainly worth considering. The Justice and Electoral Committee has indeed done just that. I am pleased to see that it made a number of recommendations and they have been incorporated into the bill. New Zealand First will therefore support the bill as it is better than nothing.The principles we considered were these: first of all we say that being a prisoner means being penalised only by the temporary removal of personal liberty and by incarceration and it does not mean anything more than that. Prisoners should have the opportunity for rehabilitation education and reorientation in their direction of life. Secondly it does not result in the loss of other rights for them and it does not mean the loss of the right to compensation for genuine injury or disability from genuine accidents and it does not mean the loss of the right to compensation for significant mistreatment if that should occur.On the other hand the rights protected in this way must be balanced against the fact that there is concern in the community that prisoners abuse some of those rights especially the right to compensation for mistreatment and especially accident compensation on some occasions. So there are genuinely held concerns in the community about that and we must give some attention to them even if cases of abuse of rights are rare. We should certainly not mollycoddle prisoners and we should make sure there are no rorts like some of those we have seen in recent years.We in New Zealand First also accept that there is a need for an accessible process for the victims of a prisoner to be provided for in claims against any award made to a prisoner. Victims’ rights we think have been seen as almost second-class rights for far too long. This bill at least properly pays attention to that. It creates a clear right and an easily usable process for a victim to claim against an award made to a prisoner. New Zealand First therefore believes that the bill does achieve an appropriate balance to protect the rights of prisoners on the one hand while on the other also meeting community expectations that prisoners’ compensation be acceptable by their victims to meet the properly awarded claims made to those victims.The Government originally wanted a diversion fund to hold those proceeds and that of course was quite impracticable and has been abandoned and we are glad to see that. Some submitters also said that the courts had pre-empted this bill in theTaunoacase and that the bill is therefore not needed. They thought that codification would not be positive and that the law should be allowed to develop further as it tends to do. However codification does provide certainty and consistency in the law and I think that Parliament does need to set out what the scope for claims by prisoners will be. It does not mean that the courts may not develop the law within the scope of the Act further anyway. I agree with the Kim Workman submission that codification helps both prisoners and victims understand their rights. I note that section 13 of the principal Act sets out the essence of those issues.It says in section 13: “No court or tribunal may in proceedings to which this subpart applies award any compensation sought by a specified claim unless satisfied that—(a) the plaintiff has made reasonable use of all of the specified internal and external complaints mechanisms reasonably available to him or her to complain about the act or omission on which the claim is based but has not obtained in relation to that act or omission redress that the court or Tribunal considers effective; and (b) another remedy or a combination of other remedies cannot provide in relation to the act or omission on which the claim is based redress that the court or Tribunal considers effective.” and that seems to me to be a very appropriate provision.In section 14(2) there is a whole list of guiding considerations for awarding compensation that a court or tribunal must take into account. That includes such things as “the extent … to which the plaintiff the defendant or both took [concerning] reasonably practicable steps to mitigate loss or damage arising from the act or omission on which the claim is based;” and another one is “whether the defendant’s breach of or interference with the right concerned was deliberate or in bad faith; and … the relevant conduct of the plaintiff; … consequences for the plaintiff of the breach …” and so on—a whole list of those things which I think are very relevant to the issue.Taking all of that into account New Zealand First considers that the bill now does achieve the correct balance—that prisoners’ rights will be preserved but will be appropriately restricted in the ways that I have mentioned in the claims that are brought. More important the victims of crime will have a clear right and process to make claims against any award that the committer of the crime against them has received and that is as it should be. The victim should have the first claim against the money that a prisonerhas received in such a claim. The prisoner who committed a crime can only expect that he or she must first compensate the victim before benefiting themselves.I understand that the Labour Party which also supports the bill wants to see a much wider right for victims to claim the assets of the convicted person. That of course is beyond the scope of this bill but New Zealand First would support such an investigation and the development of legislation as suggested by Labour. I would doubt however that any additional legislation would prove to be necessary or would really make all that much difference because victims of convicted persons already have civil rights to make claims against those persons and arising from that they also have the right to enforce those claims. Perhaps those rights are not clear enough or easy enough to access and again that might be something that could be addressed in the future. But New Zealand First would need to be convinced that there needs to be anything more at all.Similarly New Zealand First would like to see better legislation to ensure much better treatment of victims which again is outside the scope of this bill. It is something that other parties have referred to and which we heard quite a lot about during the submission process for this bill. So I think that is something that all parties need to give good consideration to. In the meantime New Zealand First will be happy to support this bill which as I have said does make a worthwhile improvement to victims’ rights without compromising prisoners’ rights either.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next member the member has something on his box which is at an oblique angle to me and if it is a slogan—I am talking to the member who has just resumed his seat—it is out of order. If it is a slogan could the member just put the box away please. Had I noticed it he would not have got the call.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I intend to take just a very short call in support of this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. Many of the views have already been traversed in this House through the various stages of the bill. I think it is pertinent that there were only seven submissions in relation to the bill. It is not a particularly controversial bill unless you are a Green member.The scheme represents a balance as Denis O’Rourke the previous speaker has said. We believe that it represents that correct balance between the rights of the offenders and the rights of victims. It does respond to that concern raised in respect of the initial Act that offenders should not receive compensation for wrongful treatment without actually repaying the debt that they owe for the harm that they caused their victims. This bill is fair it is balanced and it ensures the system will not lead to any unintended injustices. It does put victims at the heart of our justice system. It puts that stronger emphasis on victims. This bill really helps to reinforce that we want to ensure that victims are heard that they do get the support that they need and that they are not brutalised again and again and again when the defendants are tried.This is part of a suite of justice improvements. We are also of course modernising court processes to make the justice system safer and more efficient speeding up court cases and improving civil justice. This is a sensible component of that suite and I certainly support it in its third reading.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I regret to say that the last speaker Kate Wilkinson was wrong about this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill doing a whole lot more for victims. This bill had the opportunity to do a whole lot more for victims but it is an opportunity lost.Hon Kate Wilkinson: Why didn’t you do it then?Hon PHIL GOFF: Why did we not do it? I will tell the member why we did not do it. All of the major victim legislation was brought in by a Labour Government. I brought in this particular piece of legislation the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act but I brought it in to deal with a narrow range of offenders who happened to get caught up in the behaviour management regime in prison—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Also under Labour.Hon PHIL GOFF: —and were treated unlawfully according to our own law. The behaviour management regime was a National Government invention unfortunately. It took us a couple of years to catch up with the fact that it was doing badly. The New Zealand Government was acting unlawfully which brought the inmates in line for compensation.I happen to know that the people who were in the behaviour management regime were not particularly nice people. I looked at the range of offences they had committed and they were horrendous offences. Damaged scarred individuals injured people hurt people—offenders who never showed remorse and never did anything to put things right. So when I looked at theTaunoa case which was going to be expanded under a class action effort by a lawyer who I thought was more interested in gold-digging than in seeing justice done I said that this was not good enough.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Mai Chen.Hon PHIL GOFF: What this legislation—no it was not. But she will be glad to know Mr Finlayson that you have accused her of that and when she reads theHansard she will now read your comments so it is good to have got you on the record.What the bill that I introduced did first of all was say that compensation should be paid only when there is no better way of righting the wrong than monetary compensation. It required a whole range of things that should be looked at to put things right for the inmates. Then it said that if it is good enough for the inmate to be compensated for wrongful action against him why is it not good enough for that money that the inmate gets to then be available to the victim—to the person whom that inmate wronged—so we could see some restorative justice done? And I stand by that. That was the sensible thing to do at the time.What I say about this legislation now however is that it deals with a very narrow group of inmates and this is where I want to come back to Kate Wilkinson’s comments. It deals with only a very narrow range of inmates—a handful of people probably. It has given probably $40000 to $50000 back to victims but that is peanuts in the wider scheme of things.I thought to myself at the time that I wanted to see how this legislation worked so I put a sunset clause in so that after a period of I think 4 years or 5 years this legislation would come to an end and the Government if it wanted to keep it would have to renew it or would have to look at reforming it. The idea of the review was that the Government would take seriously the prospect of people who are in prisons who have wronged their victims being required to give more back to the victims by way of reparations and not simply the narrow group of offenders who were wronged through the behaviour modification regime. Why should a person in that situation pay money back to the victims but not an inmate who won Lotto? Suddenly they have got a lot of money they are rich and the person whom they have harmed is still suffering from their actions. What about the crooks who write about their criminal experiences? They write books in prison and make money out of it. What about the person who inherits a whole lot of money? They did not have money at the time that they were convicted. They did not give a cent back to their victims. Nothing was done. What about people who come into money who are suddenly able if they choose—and too often they do not choose—to putthings right for their victim? What I thought this legislation might have done is have a proper review and have a look at the options.There is one group of offenders that particularly made me angry. We are seeing more of them at the moment than we have ever seen before and these are the white-collar offenders. They do not simply go and burgle somebody’s place—that is bad enough—they rip off money in hundreds of millions of dollars. They have resources. They have skills. They have assets. They never give back to the victims because they have enough skill to know that they can protect their assets in trusts. These crooks whom we lock up for 2 or 3 years because they have ripped off people—they have taken their life-savings—come out of prison go back to driving the flash car go back to living in the big house and go back to the international holidays and all the while the people whom they ripped off who have lost their life-savings end their lives in penury. I say that is wrong and there must a better way of dealing with that. This review would have had the chance to have a look at it.When the legislation ran out of time with the sunset clause the Minister Judith Collins promised the Opposition that she would involve the Opposition in discussions on a review of that legislation to see whether we could put something better in place for victims. She dishonoured that promise. She broke her word and she came back into the House with the same legislation having wasted 2 years without any review at all. I think it is time that a National member got to his or her feet and explained why the Government did not take up the opportunity to do the review and why it did not honour the promise that it made to the Opposition that such a review would take place.There is a myriad of ideas that you can explore when you are in Government. I believe very firmly in restorative justice. The best thing that can happen when a person commits a criminal offence against another person is for that person to put things right for the victim in so far as that is possible. The concept of restorative justice is the purest form of justice. So why did this Government not look at some of the restorative justice schemes that were operating overseas? I introduced schemes on restorative justice. I am proud of them. They could have been expanded.Why did the Government not look at how you get behind the trusts that protect the wealthy white-collar offenders and why did it never require them to pay money to the people whom they have wronged? That was an opportunity. Why did the Government not take it up? Why did the Government not look at the concept where when a person goes to prison they have got no income they have got no ability to repay to the victim but when they come out and they resume work again it is a clean slate? Why do they at that point owe nothing to the victim whom they have wronged? That is a concept Chris Finlayson that the Government could have examined could have looked at—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Useless Minister of Justice. You had 6 years.Hon PHIL GOFF: We had the best legislation that this House has ever seen in justice when I was Minister of Justice Mr Finlayson and you know that. That is the truth. You had real legislation. If the Government has time to pass rubbish justice bills that are about rhetoric and not about doing anything that makes a real difference it should have used its time on this bill to come up with some innovative ideas about how to look after victims and how to put in place a system of restorative justice.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Try to give something other than a vain—Hon PHIL GOFF: This Attorney-General who is meant to protect the rights of New Zealanders brings a bill into the House that takes away court-given rights for families looking after seriously disabled adults—steals their rights—and breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which he is sworn to protect and he comes in and tries to tell this side of the House what justice is about. That is the greatest injustice MrFinlayson that I have seen from any Government—robbing permanently disabled adult disabled people and you Mr Finlayson are responsible for that.What I want to say is that this legislation gets support from the Opposition only because it was better than nothing—only because it was better than nothing. It will still help in some cases where offenders come into money because they have been wronged by the actions of the State and that gives the victim claim on that money. But I want to repeat what I said in 2005 because they still believe it: “Most people believe that it is wrong that offenders should be compensated for wrongful treatment but in turn are not required to pay restitution to the victims they harmed.” I said that in 2005. I stand by that but what I want to repeat to Mr Finlayson because he is partly responsible for this is that this was a lost opportunity—an opportunity where the Government could stop mouthing meaningless rhetoric about helping victims and actually do something to turn that into a reality. That was the lost opportunity that was the broken promise and that is what this National Government stands condemned for.KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. Well it was interesting. Phil Goff just sat down—6 years as Minister of Justice he put this legislation in place and now he is standing up and saying it is pretty weak. Actually if he thought it was pretty weak he should not have put it in place to begin with. If he wants to be strong for victims well he should be standing on this side of Parliament because we support victims. We are the ones who are putting through this strong legislation supporting our victims in New Zealand and making them a priority for this Government. But this bill does have a very difficult task. It does because we must acknowledge the Crown’s failings against prisoners and at the same time recognise the impact that prisoners have had on their own victims. It is a very fine line to actually get it right.Currently we know that this legislation has got a sunset clause and when that expires this bill will come into force and it will allow for the prisoner debts such as reparation payments and legal aid costs to be deducted from compensation. We do know that it will allow for a process whereby victims can make civil claims against offenders. We do know that this is going to make it permanent. There are no sunset clauses in this legislation because we back this legislation to be the correct legislation. We do know that it will provide for cases where the compensation may take a while to be granted and the statute of limitations on victims’ claims may expire and it will prevent this situation from happening and ensure victims have their right to redress. We do know that we had eight submitters the main one being the Law Society which submits on most legislation in this Parliament and makes some very good points. It raised many points around the human rights in this legislation but we believe we have got this balance right.We do have to remember that victims are the centre of our justice system for this Government and we will do everything that we can for those victims in New Zealand to get good outcomes. This is one more bit of legislation in the right direction. It was my pleasure to take a call in the third reading of this bill tonight.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a split call?Dr Rajen Prasad: Yes it is.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five minutes.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a short call on this particular bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. Let us be clear. I think we will all agree that the public expectation is that prisoners will not benefit from their crimes if you like in any way or indeed by what happens to them when they are serving a sentence. TheTaunoa case brought that to light and therewas the reaction against it justifiable public reaction that while this was happening to somebody when they were supposed to be being punished the victims outside were not receiving anything. So Minister Phil Goff in those days brought an interim measure into place and that was put in. Clearly and the records show it was in the expectation that a better system would be found hence the sunset clause which has been renewed several times.If I take what the last speaker Katrina Shanks was saying that this is as good as it gets—well Ms Shanks smiles but that is the message I take from what you said—that National is the Government that is interested in victims and this is its response to it. So if this is as good as it gets let us see how good this bill is. It has added nothing more than the original bill—$50000 has gone back to victims over what period of time? Since 2007. Members on the other side of the House stand up and crow about this as the exemplar—that this is how it ought to be done. That is intellectually dishonest. If indeed the thought had been put into how this bill was constructed then Ms Shanks could have got up today pointed to the new additions to this bill there would have been cross-party support everybody in this House would have supported it and New Zealand would have put a marker in the sand. But that is not what has happened.What has happened is that this is the further politicisation of this particular issue. When something like this comes out with great fanfare Ministers say “Look here we are addressing the problem.” but that lasts only as long as their story is on the front page of the newspaper. The grafting that needs to go on to actually address the problems is where the real work of policy makers goes in. That has not happened in this particular bill. In fact even the promise given for cross-party negotiations did not take place. Why did that at least not happen? As I say that did not happen.There is no moral ground on which the Opposition could stand to say that this is the best we can do and the best we can bring forward. There was no proper review. There have been any number of the ideas that have come out as to how victims could be compensated. Mr Goff raised very very good points about how to balance the victims of white-collar crime and the victims of blue-collar crime. The Government’s side—the National Government and the ACT Party—is not interested in the victims of white-collar crime. It is not. That has run into billions of dollars. In fact to be absolutely honest about the desire to redress victims if this bill was properly addressed—as Mr Goff designed it and as the promise was given—the Government would have come back today with a comprehensive bill that would say that this is how we compensate the victims of white-collar crime and this is how we compensate the victims of blue-collar crime and there would be no difference.So it is intellectually dishonest as I say to say that this is a demonstration of this Government doing the best it can in bringing forward an exemplar because that is not what this bill does. This bill does not deliver on a promise—the promise that victims will actually be properly compensated. I have not heard of any victim coming up and saying that $50000 over 8 years is really the best we can do. If that is the best that this country can do the best that the Government can do then I think we fall far short of the ideal. So it is an opportunity lost and again the victims are the victims again.As for the next time this bill is looked at I think members across the House have made many many good points as to what it would look like. We will support this bill because there is no reason why we should not support it but we are disappointed that it has not delivered on the promise. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to add another Green Party voice in opposition to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill following on from my colleague David Clendon our justice spokesperson who raised several key points relating to our position. I think you can sum up our opposition with four keypoints roughly. One is that the original Act the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 provided for a review to ensure that victims’ rights and the effectiveness of this bill were able to operate clearly. This bill is now going to entrench without consultation and review that law. We think that is a massive lost opportunity. There is a lot of thinking and work to be done to ensure that our system is adequately delivering for victims outside of the prison system and also that our prisons are as safe and geared towards rehabilitation as they can possibly be. By passing this bill in this way we are missing the opportunity to have that conversation and as a result we are missing the opportunity to make our country safer and fairer. We believe that is a real shame.The second reason we are opposing this bill is around the fact that we want to ensure that our prisons are safe and promote rehabilitation. There is a very real possibility too that this bill will provide a perverse disincentive for prisoners to report injury abuse or even torture within the prison system. Anyone who has had anything to do with the prison system must be aware of those power relationships in there and the very real potential of abuse and the need for our systems to actively check those power imbalances to make sure that those places are as safe as possible. That is a matter of rights but it is also a matter of promoting good rehabilitation because we know that the more people are alienated from society the less incentive there is for them to turn their lives round. If they do not feel they are being respected by society and have a stake in society then there is no sense for them to rehabilitate.The third reason we are opposing this bill is that we have a commitment to human rights for all people—victims and prisoners. We note that New Zealand has signed the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This requires each State party to ensure that victims of torture have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation. This bill threatens that commitment. We have been told it is justified but over 6 years $45000 has been returned to victims. I am not sure you can say that that is actually a justifiable result for the victims or for the victims who are prisoners.The fourth reason we are opposing this is that we actually want to improve the justice system for victims. Again as I said earlier this is a massive lost opportunity of the time that has been spent on this bill coming back to the House—for the third time in fact. We are being told that the Government with its agenda at the moment cannot look at work around domestic violence legislation. We have been told by the Minister of Justice that the decades of work that have gone into looking at alternative pre-trial and trial processes that might help increase the conviction rate from the pitiful 1 percent that it is for most sexual offences have been taken off the agenda and are not worthy of the time of this Government. Again we have seen similar work in the Evidence Act. If this Government really truly cared about victims then the focus would go on actually ensuring our system delivered for victims. It is a sad day when we get this instead.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Compensation and Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes101New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes18Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.