Mark Ron: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20589] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 When the House rose last Thursday I was 2 minutes into my speech—and what a rather extraordinary series of events we had in the debate on that day. I note with interest that the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the bill contains minority views from virtually every party in the House—specifically every party that is represented on the select committee except Labour. 
What do those minority reports state? Consistently they oppose the bill which raises an interesting question. How could this bill get passed through the House by the Government when even its coalition partner and—I am not sure how to describe the “Poodle Party”—its partners in sin which give it supply and confidence oppose it? United Future even states that it opposes this bill. Indeed it went further. Mr Marc Alexander in his derision of the bill in his strong criticism and well-argued points against it went on to say that his party supports it. 
It defies logic. It is logic that defies gravity when a member stands up in this House and says that nothing about this bill is right that everything about it insults one’s sense of fairness and insults the victims of crime and then that his party will support it. However he did conclude his speech by saying that if the amendments that United Future put up are rejected in the Committee stage—which is quite obvious they have been because the amendments do not feature in the tabled copy of the bill at its second reading—then he will not vote for it. So clearly the discussions that United Future members have had behind the scenes with Phil Goff and with other Labour justice and law and order people have not produced the amendments the member wants in this bill. 
He is now signalling that United Future will put up Supplementary Order Papers and seek to make changes. He said that if those amendments are not supported by the Government and the Labour Party United Future will not necessarily vote for the bill. He said further that he would not be in the House. We are all confused as to whether he means that United Future members simply will not be at work that day—that they will let the Government get away with it by just not turning up. Or will it take the poodle option? The poodle option is when all those members of United Future who disagree with this bill simply do not turn up on the day and their whip will cast their vote for them in favour so that they can go out on the hustings and tell everyone that they did not agree with it. We all know that their party voted for it. The country deserves to know precisely where the “United Poodle Party” sits on this issue. Is it simply rolling over and letting Helen Clark scratch its tummy in supporting the Government in making all those pointless and meaningless objections or is it firm in its resolve? Will it do what New Zealand First is doing and vote against this bill? That we want to know. 
Why is New Zealand First voting against this bill? It is clearly stated in our minority report. New Zealand First’s belief is twofold. Firstly if the Department of Corrections its employees and its officials break the law they should be charged. If a man who is in charge of inmates breaks prison regulations he should be charged. If that man is subsequently convicted and locked up in the same cells with the inmates he abused or beat up then clearly that is tough. 
The only compensation those inmates deserve is the knowledge that the man who abused them the prison authority who abused them is now in the cells beside them. There should be no monetary compensation; end of story. That is exactly what the Labour Party said on the hustings in 2002 and then flip-flopped on. Members should remember that. When Margaret Wilson was the Attorney-General a young man who bashed the teeth out of a barber in Dunedin was paid $40000 compensation. He still owed $500 reparation to that poor unfortunate citizen. Did he pay it? No. Did he give any indication he was likely to pay it? He did not. Quite the contrary he went on TV and said that he would not pay it and no one made him. The Labour Government gave him a cheque for $40000 and looked the other way as he went to the pub and spent it. 
Then what happened? It became worse than that. The Government ended up writing cheques for hundreds of thousands of dollars for inmates one of whom stabbed a policeman with a screwdriver and made him a paraplegic. Government members now come to the House with this bill which seeks to endorse the rights of inmates to get money. New Zealand First states in its minority report that if the Government is to do that if it is to allow compensation for inmates who have had their feelings hurt—a classic example—then it should not pay one red cent to any inmate concerned. The money should go into a victims’ claims rehabilitation account and appropriations from that account should be made to victims who need support. That is what New Zealand First says. 
It is common sense logical and fair and it ensures that people who break the laws of this land—be they prison officers or scumbag gang members—get equal application of the law. It makes sure we do not see the abhorrent practice of inmates who have committed murder committed violent acts against children and bashed the teeth out of an innocent barber on the sidewalk in Dunedin receiving any form of compensation whatsoever for such horrendous crimes as having their feelings hurt. 
This Government is spending a lot of time behind the scenes right now trying to figure out on what day it will call an election. New Zealand First says to make its day do it tomorrow do it next week do it next month but please bring it on. This sort of legislation is sticking in the throats of average New Zealanders. As Gareth Morgan said in his  
New Zealand Herald 
 column one needs only half a brain to see what has been going wrong in this country. Clearly the Government does not have half a brain. If it had it would not progress this bill. It would send the bill back to the select committee. Government members would sit in meaningful discussion with parties like New Zealand First and then they would find a common-sense way through it. This is not the way. 
This legislation as it currently stands is unacceptable. Whilst United Future members may be dithering around not quite sure how they will vote—up down for or whatever—New Zealand First is very clear. We will be voting against this legislation. We find it absolutely unacceptable that any inmate should be paid any monetary compensation at all for any reason for a crime that might have been committed against him or her. After all no victim of that inmate’s crime ever received financial compensation for the original crime committed by the offender which resulted in him going in jail. Logic suggests that the very same principle should apply throughout the justice system without deviation. New Zealand First will be opposing this legislation.