O'Rourke Denis: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9750. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I feel that there has been a good process through which this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill has gone which has therefore resulted in a good bill. There were also some very good submissions but I would have to say that I fundamentally disagree with some of them. The Law Society made a very good submission and suggested that followingTaunoa v Attorney-General the bill was actually not needed. Of course theTaunoacase did narrow the scope for prisoners’ rights to compensation and that is also what this bill does. But I do not agree that the bill is not needed. What theTaunoa case did show was that the law at that time was moving in the same direction as this bill is and no doubt that is a movement that would have been irresistible. In any event there are some significant advantages in a bill of this kind. I think the main one is that there is a code there to which prisoners and victims can refer to understand their rights. I think that in itself will go quite a long way to limiting vexatious claims by prisoners and unrealistic expectations by victims. So it is a very good bill for those reasons.I also reject I think the submissions made by the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission. They suggested that the bill would result in a reduction of human rights for prisoners. I understand that that is also the position that the Green Party has taken. I do not believe that is the case. It certainly narrows the rights of prisoners and it defines those rights. It does not remove them. I think there is also a need for a balance between those rights and the rights of victims. That emphasis is the one that the Labour Party has I think quite rightly emphasised.I would have to say however that the real question is whether this bill actually does go far enough. We have heard a couple of speeches from Labour members who suggest that it does not and that there is further work to be done especially with regards to victims’ rights. I suspect that there is some validity in that position. However I have not really heard any specificity in the claims that more work needs to be done and that the bill does not really go far enough. New Zealand First is however always prepared tolisten to those kinds of arguments. I have not actually heard any yet; I have heard only general claims that more needs to be done and I do not know what that really is. So if other Labour members can tell me a little bit more I would be grateful for that.On the other hand the Greens say it goes too far. They say prisoners’ rights will be too constrained. In fact Mr Clendon said that. I do not think that is the situation at all. The bill certainly limits and narrows claims but it does not really reduce them in any way that I think is a concern for human rights.However New Zealand First has a different position from either of those and we feel that the bill does strike the right balance. In fact we expect that the courts over time will further develop the law with regard to this tension between prisoners’ rights and victims’ rights and that they will develop the law within the scope of the bill. That is appropriate and I think—and we in New Zealand First think—that that is enough.I am pleased that the Government did listen to a number of the submissions. There is one in particular that I approve of and it concerns the issue of compensation diversion. The Government originally wished to provide for a compensation diversion provision which would have meant that there would be a pool of prisoners’ compensation funds which victims could refer to. That I think would have gone too far. It would effectively confiscate any compensation that a prisoner was awarded. So it is much better that that provision has been deleted and that the Government did listen to that and now victims may in fact claim only against the specific award of the prisoner who committed the offence. I think that is appropriate so I am glad that the Government listened to that and that we have a better bill as a result. That good balance has made it possible for New Zealand First to support the bill.It is therefore a bill we can support because it does achieve that balance but that did not really arise because it was a Government bill and a Government-conceived position. So I do not think the Government can really particularly take credit for the bill as it now is because it is not the bill that it originally introduced. What has actually happened is that the bill has gone through a good process. It has been amended and it has been modified and now we get a good balance. So I think that the bill is a tribute to the process to those who submitted and especially to the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with it. We support it because of that process and because it is a good outcome. We think that it does not really need any further work but if others feel that it does they need to be more specific about what that should be. We will be voting for the bill as I have already said.