Barnett Tim: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21019] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 It is with satisfaction that I rise to support the third reading of this legislation. In doing that I would like to tell two stories. The first is an historic story which begins with Labour’s inheritance when we came to Government in 1999. There are two particularly relevant parts of that inheritance. Firstly we inherited human rights law that allowed for monetary compensation to be paid to people whose human rights had been breached. That law was tolerated by the previous National Government throughout the 1990s including during the time when New Zealand First was in coalition with National. Secondly Labour’s inheritance was a particularly weak law on victims’ rights. Victims had no statutory rights to have a say in the processes of the law. Labour did two key things. The first was to establish the Victims’ Rights Act legislation that I seem to remember was actually opposed by National and ACT because they thought it went too far in giving victims statutory rights. That legislation gives victims a voice in the court and in the parole system and we absolutely accepted at the time that that was the first stage in the development of a victims’ rights’ agenda which will develop from there. 
But a parallel development was the doubling of our prison population over the last 12 years a process that has happened for a variety of reasons. The doubling of the prison population has led to massive pressures on the prison system. At the end of the day prisoners are people who are in the care of the State. As we well know the concept of human rights at its heart is about the relationship between Government and the governed. Prison inmates people living in prison are completely in the control of the State. They are in one sense the ultimately governed people in our nation and they are in a situation that will always be open to abuse. That is why we have debates and why we have institutions concerned with prisoners’ rights. No Western State denies prisoners’ human rights. No Western State fails to pay compensation to make amends for extreme breaches of the rights of prison inmates. In the last few years we have experienced situations where New Zealand’s legal system has found that prison inmates have had their human rights abused and that those inmates were entitled to compensation. So firstly we have stronger victims’ rights law but secondly a situation whereby prisoners have had their human rights abused. It was the award of monetary payments for that that really began the key debate on this issue back in September last year. 
I will quote from an editorial in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 5 September 2004 but first I will say that the words are from a lawyer who has done a lot to promote the issue of prisoners’ compensation Tony Ellis. He said: “What one forgets is that these prisoners have been victims too and two wrongs don’t make a right. The crimes that the men committed are contemptible and grave and the men deserve to lose their liberty for them. But the abuses committed by the prison system are also serious. Those who say the men deserve nothing overlook this. What they are saying in effect is that in this case wrongdoing should be winked at.” The  
Sunday Star-Times  
editorial then went on to state and this is important: “If nobody guards the guards we are headed down the path that leads to Abu Ghraib. Prisons are too often closed worlds where the power of the jailers goes unchecked. Abuses must be punished. If they are not the state is reduced”—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Mapp—“to the level of the criminal who goes scot-free.” The editorial concluded: “Politicians will always play to the gallery on these issues and the outbursts by Ryall and Goff are drearily predictable. In fact there may be a middle way here. Few would object if once the criminals had received their compensation they were then required to hand a fair chunk of it to their victims. That way their complaint has been upheld and the principle of deterrence has been served.” 
That is exactly what this legislation actually does. That is the second story we have to tell: the reaction of the Government and Parliament to the reality of the compensation awards last year. The legislation was developed in that context and it is very tricky legislation because it tries to deal both with the very real and powerful needs of victims and also with the situation where the vast majority of the public was offended at the level of compensation awarded to prison inmates. As the Minister has described a solution has been developed whereby victims will have an extra right inserted in order to be able to claim back compensation through the system. 
I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with the legislation and oddly enough I commend both Tony Ellis and the Sensible Sentencing Trust for managing to agree on an awful lot in the advice they gave to our committee. Both said that they did not want ideally a situation of compensation going to prison inmates but also that they did not want there to be an abusive prison system. Unfortunately the solution that has been constantly called for by the Opposition in Parliament in this debate over the last day is one that can be described as an abusive system. Those members are advocating a system where there is no incentive not to abuse prison inmates. The select committee went through an exhaustive process which took longer I think than the Minister was entirely relaxed with in trying to develop other options. We looked at the removal or restriction of monetary compensation but that was clearly a significant breach of international law. We looked at the diversion of the money into a trust but again that was a breach of international law. We looked at deducting legal aid costs but that would not have actually dealt with the cases currently before the courts. We looked at monetary limits to damages but again that would have been a breach of international law. We looked at a fines system where someone who already had fines owing would have had to pay those fines off as well. We were told again that that was a breach of international law. We looked at introducing a concept of victims’ orders as some kind of damages system separate to reparations. We went further with that one than with the others and I think that it may well be an issue we will go back to when we look at the broader issue of victims’ rights. 
At the end of it all we concluded that the legislation had the right balance but we used the very necessary power of a select committee to make two key recommendations. Firstly we recommended the establishment of an independent prison inspectorate. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: We said we should establish an independent inspectorate. 
TIM BARNETT 
: That was not the National Party’s idea but one I think that emerged particularly from the Labour and Green members on the committee and it is something that is absolutely essential in my view. The establishment of a standards-based independent prison inspectorate was unanimously supported by the select committee. Secondly we resolved to establish an inquiry to look at the next stage of the agenda in relation to victims’ rights having heard searing stories particularly from people whose family members had been murdered. They talked about the impact of that on them and about their support needs that were not being met. We were quite clear that there is another stage to go on the victims’ rights agenda and we have agreed to establish an inquiry to look into that. 
 What was fascinating when watching the Opposition during the debate was to see that when Mr Worth was in the Chamber he advocated the establishment of the independent inspectorate and that as soon as he was not around his colleagues started to screech that that would require yet more money to be spent. There is no consistency at all in the position the Opposition is taking. We heard Wayne Mapp talk about his sister having received compensation in New South Wales. If he wants to adopt that kind of system then I can assure him another few million dollars will need to be spent on that. Only 10 minutes later when we were talking about the need to develop better victims’ rights Sandra Goudie was screeching that that would cost yet more money. There is no consistency in the Opposition’s position; it is absolutely playing to the gallery. 
The mark of a great Government in the MMP environment is that it finds workable solutions to problems and works generously and positively with other parties that have similar values. I thank the Greens for their cooperation on this legislation which I commend to the House.