Franks Stephen: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20970] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I ask the Minister in the chair Rick Barker to explain the thinking behind the time limit that this bill is now to have. Supplementary Order Paper 374 will have the practical effect of making the bill expire in a couple of years’ time. That needs explanation because if the bill is a good idea we need to know why it will suddenly cease to be a good idea in 2 years’ time. If it is a good idea for only 2 years we need to know what will change in 2 years’ time. If it has a time limit because it is not really a good idea and the Government wants time to get a better idea we ought to get some explanation from the Minister of just what would be better and just what we as a Committee should be looking out for that ought to be improved. 
If in fact the bill will expire because the Government expects the current proceedings before the Court of Appeal to make it irrelevant we ought to know that. It is very curious that the position the Government seems to be arguing in the Court of Appeal is so different from the position being advanced by the Minister in here. The Minister is saying that we must have rights of financial compensation for prisoners in order to suck up to all those thugs and tyrants in the United Nations. Meanwhile the Government’s own lawyers are telling the Court of Appeal that it does not need to award compensation and that this is not a matter where  
Baigent’s 
 case should have been applied. Which is it and what is the reason for putting a time limit on this procedure? Why is the Government doing this in fact without explanation? The Supplementary Order Paper does not explain why this particular structure will expire in 2 years’ time. 
There is another reason that the Minister should explain it. The Budget says that the Government will spend $534000 on setting up the tribunal that will look after these cases and $379000 on it for each of the 3 years after that. Does that mean the Government actually expects it to continue—that when it expires the Government will simply renew it? The Government has provided in the Budget for it to continue 3 years after this year; in other words it has provided for 4 years of expenditure on this tribunal. I would like to know because I think the Sensible Sentencing Trust which is struggling to stay alive and which has done more to restore pride to victims in the sense that they can be masters of their fate than anything the Government has done would love to have just a tiny fraction of the amount that is going to be wasted on a tribunal that probably will see two or three cases a year. That sum of $500000 is more than the Government has paid out in compensation! Are we going to spend $500000 to supervise the distribution of $200000? Why not just give it to the victims straight off and say: “We’ll match whatever is given to the thugs; we’ll match whatever is given to the criminals.”? How can a Minister who has concern for taxpayers and public money be wanting to spend $534000 and $379000 a year thereafter on a new tribunal to administer payouts to prisoners that in the past have never exceeded $300000 in a year? Has anyone asked why we are doing this? 
Why is there a time limit? If it is a genuine time limit why are we providing in the Budget for the tribunal to carry on after the time it expires? The Greens say they will vote for this time limit. I hope that a Green member in the House will take a call to explain why they want to vote for a time limit. One would have thought that with their sanctimonious principles they would think either it is a good idea and they will vote for it for good or it is a bad idea and they will not vote for it. But they seem to think that something bad is OK if it lasts for only 2 years. 
What is this measure achieving in those 2 years? Why is the Court of Appeal being told that compensation should not be paid while the Government in the House is turning its other face to the members of this House—and of course to the United Nations which it hopes will one day employ the Prime Minister when she has passed her use-by date—and saying: “Of course we’ll hand out money to criminals because that is what the likes of Mr Mugabe tell us should happen.” The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations is a joke. When the officials came before the select committee it was an absolute—and I cannot remember the phrase that describes something that is the exact opposite.