Barker Rick: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20959] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 We are debating Part 2 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill and the essence of this part— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: No “Prisoners’ Compensation Bill”. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claim Bill. The first key element that needs to be made is that this is going to strengthen victims’ rights to make civil claims against offenders. Point No. 1 which the Opposition seems to overlook is that it is going to recognise that victims have first claim against any compensation. Who in the House would say that that is wrong? No one. That is what it does yet the Opposition votes against it. The bill goes on to state that when compensation is required to be paid by the Crown to prisoners then the compensation will be first paid into a trust account to satisfy any valid claims that are brought by victims against the offender. So the victims get any compensation paid to them first. 
Marc Alexander notes that the bill will also provide that if a person owes fines or owes outstanding reparation payments or other bills to the State he or she will come second. He says this is somehow sinister. Well I cannot get my head around that being sinister but neither can I get my head around some other parts of this debate. It is true as Mr Worth said before that this legislation is closely linked to the case being heard in the Court of Appeal today. Yesterday Mr Worth put up the proposition that we might not have to do anything because if the Court of Appeal says there is no compensation to be paid then this bill is irrelevant. Well that is not quite right. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Why? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because it is the sort of logic that says we should not put the roof on the house because it might not rain. Well the fact is that the claims are there. The compensation has been awarded and if this legislation is not passed through this Parliament and the Court of Appeal does not uphold the appeal against it then the money will be paid out to Mr Taunoa and others. The very action they rail against will happen. I am amazed that Opposition parties are trying to stop legislation going through this Parliament that will give effect to the end that they want for themselves. 
The other thing that amazes me is that this issue has been before this Parliament and the public before. In 1994 a Mrs Baigent took a case against the Crown. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: We were told this last night by you. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: And Mr Worth did not listen. Mrs Baigent went for a breach against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The then National Government Minister of Justice went to the Law Commission and asked it what it thought. The Law Commission said that there needed to be an effective remedy for breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that the international law reports link these remedies to these rights. The Law Commission said that people should be able to get monetary compensation for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The National Government did nothing about that and accepted that advice. That is what it did. Now the National Party turns up here and says that it does not accept it. Well why was it good enough for the National Government in 1994-95 and is now not good enough for it today? It was confronted with this problem and ran away with it. 
This Labour-led Government with the support of the Greens says that that is not good enough. In our view if there is to be compensation then compensation should go to the victims first and then any other payments made afterwards. But better than that we have said we want to see these breaches stop. We are going to have an independent commission look at prisons and manage the concerns or issues that prisoners raise. Because one of the problems with the current situation is that if people perceive that their rights have been breached they can simply leave the issue until they go to court at a later date. The public have this perception that a person can go all the way around the board back to “Go” collect $200 and do nothing in the meantime. Well we are saying that that will not be good enough. 
So we are going to have an independent prison complaints authority by the end of 2006—independent of the Department of Corrections—to ensure that if people do have problems and their rights are being threatened or abused then they can make a complaint and it can be dealt with at that level and there will be no issue of compensation. It will be independent. 
The third point that the Opposition overlooks is that the Government with the Greens has undertaken to have an inquiry into the victims of serious crime. Reference to this will be picked up very shortly and we will be under way with it. This is something that the Justice and Electoral Committee said it wanted to see happen. The Government and the Greens are going to make it happen. The Opposition parties oppose this. 
 I reaffirm the point that this is about giving the victims their rights first; secondly it is to make sure we are compliant with international law. Some people make a laugh out of this and I find what Craig McNair says—that we are looking to have the same sets of rights as the Taliban—distasteful. Also it is wrong because the Taliban is not a signatory to the UN conventions on human rights as he as a member of the House of Representatives should know. The Taliban is effectively a terrorist organisation and to compare its rights with human rights is just absurd. The member devalues the currency of his own opinion and standing. 
I make it clear that the advice given to the Government is that in other like countries such as Britain Canada the United States the EU and Australia the rights of people to take claims when their human rights have been breached do enable them to have monetary compensation as part of it. 
Brian Connell 
: What about the human rights of victims? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We have a shrill shriek coming from National members for political ends but the truth of it is that that is the dispassionate advice to the Government from officials with no political agenda at all. That is their advice. Members can check that advice if they want to. New Zealanders go overseas and they like to hold their heads up high as being good international citizens. We do the right thing and we are good international citizens. I say to those members opposite that we should not have laws in New Zealand that are less than those of the people in the countries we compare ourselves with—Australia Canada Britain the US the EU and so on. Those are the places that will enable them to have compensation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I still have barracking from members on the left of me from the National Party. I say to Mr Connell that in 1994 when Mrs Baigent got paid compensation for a breach of her human rights in New Zealand the National Government did nothing about it. It said that it was acceptable to it. The point of this is that Tony Ryall who has been leading this campaign for the National Party was a Minister in the then National Government and all the other hangers-on and Klingons in the National Party are still here. They did nothing then; they said it was OK. They said it was good that it was fine and that it was acceptable to them. This Government has said that it is not. We believe that if there is to be compensation paid the victims should get the money first and that is what this law will do. If this law is not passed then the money that has now been awarded by the court to Mr Taunoa and others will be paid out. The people who are opposing this legislation will do their best to ensure he gets the cash and we are opposed to that.