Genter Julie Anne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3318. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I rise to take just a brief call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill during the Committee stage. As we have heard clause 5 seeks to amend the principal Act the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005—specifically sections 16 and 17—by replacing the words “30 June 2012” with “30 June 2013” and “1 July 2012” with “1 July 2013” so effectively extending a sunset clause. 
I think it is at this point that I would like to respond to comments raised by the Hon Phil Goff. He was surprised that the Green Party was opposing this bill. I thought I would just remind him that actually when the Green Party agreed to support the principal Act at the third reading it was uniquely because it was the lesser of two evils and it included a sunset clause. So it is not surprising that we would oppose this bill which is effectively extending that sunset clause. I believe that at the time it was because the Labour Government at the time did not have the numbers to pass this legislation unless it was going to be with the support of United Future which wanted to amend it in ways that we found very very troubling indeed because they would further threaten the rights of people in prison who had had their human rights breached. 
I do not quite follow the logic here that when there are two completely separate breaches of rights you would take the compensation for one and use it to rectify the other. When we have had a breach of rights that a prisoner is serving a sentence for his or her loss of liberty is a result of the breach of rights that resulted in whatever harm the victim has suffered. But the separate breach of rights—which in the case of  
Taunoa 
 and the behaviour management regime was quite a gross breach of rights on the part of the Crown unfortunately—is a separate breach of rights. So it is unclear why the compensation that the prisoner would be seeking for that breach of rights should be used then for the victim of the first breach of rights. In other words two wrongs do not make a right. 
So just to connect the dots on the relationship between prisoners not having an effective remedy and potential perverse incentives that could lead to increases in breaches of human rights in prisons if prisoners no longer have an incentive to seek compensation when there is a gross breach of rights they are less likely to seek compensation they are less likely to take a case and therefore the Crown is perhaps less liable for breaches of rights and more likely to be sloppy in its administration of justice because there will not be the incentive for it to look after the human rights of prisoners. And that is really fundamentally very very important. 
This bill is still part of this race to be tough on crime and support victims but it is unclear that this bill is going to do more than perpetuate a system that at best is ineffective and at worst creates perverse incentives for the mistreatment of prisoners. The Government’s plans including extending this deadline do not substantially create a better environment for victims of crime but do come at a heavy price to prisoners’ ability to realise an effective remedy for their own victimisation after they have started serving a sentence which was what the State decided was the price they would pay for the crimes that they committed against their victims. And victims do have the ability to seek remedy through taking a lawsuit if they believe they need additional financial compensation or in some cases they are able to have their needs met by ACC. That is a decision we have made as a society as to how we are best able to achieve justice. So for these reasons we disagree with the amendments to sections 16 and 17 of the principal Act. Thank you.