Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15653] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is she satisfied with the performance of her Acting Minister of Justice who yesterday rejected a National Party offer to facilitate urgent legislation removing the entitlement of prisoners to compensation from the Department of Corrections in light of news reports that 18 new compensation claims have now been lodged; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because legislation needs to be effective well drafted and well considered. Rushed legislation would be likely to be none of those as the member might consider when he thinks about the difference between his question yesterday and his question today. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What message does the Prime Minister wish to give to the victims of 18 of New Zealand’s worst prisoners in Auckland’s maximum security prison now that those inmates have been able to lodge claims for large sums of compensation only because her Government refused to accept the offer of cooperation from the National Party? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member cares to read his question today he will see that what he is asking for today is a bill to remove the entitlement of prisoners to compensation. Yesterday his question proposed that a bill be passed to prevent prisoners from collecting significant taxpayer compensation. There is a significant difference between the two. In the case of yesterday’s question it was implied that compensation would be payable but then paid to the victims which is the Government’s position. Today he is proposing that no compensation be payable which would open up our prisons to any form of activity without any penalty applying. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that rights must be enforceable to be genuine rights and that removing the ability of inmates to sue for compensation for abuse gives a green light to abuse in the prison system? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The person interjecting is one of the few people in this House who have been convicted of anything as far as I am aware. I point out that this is where there is a difficult balance to be arrived at and why the legislation has to be carefully considered. Rushed legislation is likely to err significantly in one direction or another. 
Rodney Hide 
: Back in September 2000 did the Prime Minister not in fact invite prisoners and their lawyers to take the Department of Corrections to court when following the secret payouts to the Mangaroa Prison inmates by Margaret Wilson she stated: “If they want payment they should sue. I’d rather go to court and lose than pay out and that should be the method.”; and how is it that 4 years later we still do not see any legislation to fix the process of compensation that 4 years ago she invited prisoners to undertake? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed the Prime Minister did say that and one of the issues around this legislation is whether there should remain any right to sue at all—and if there is not the member might care to think about the possible consequences of that—or if there is any form of right to sue whether the victims of the crimes of those criminals then have the first right to payment which for example is the position taken by the leader of New Zealand First. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of media reports that a further 200 compensation claims may be lodged by prisoners against the Department of Corrections; and why is her Government doing absolutely nothing to legislate against those claims when it has been assured of cooperation from other parties to do so? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is not doing nothing; the Government is preparing legislation. That question was from a man who used to take 6 weeks to make up his mind whether to put interest rates up or down which is a very simple thing compared with a bit of legislation. 
Ron Mark 
: How much credibility can there possibly be for a Government that promised no more payouts and no more golden handshakes that since coming to power has allowed about $350000 in payouts to Mongrel Mob members as a result of Margaret Wilson’s interventions at Mangaroa and a $42000 payout to inmate Rees in Dunedin and that now is only just starting to move on legislation because it has been severely embarrassed by the likelihood of perhaps $1 million or $2 million in payouts in this latest fiasco—what credibility can this Government possibly have? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is quite significant credibility in this area because work is being done on legislation. But I remind the member that his leader has called for legislation that would give the victims the compensation that any prisoners might receive. That is totally different from the proposition just made by the leader of the National Party. 
Stephen Franks 
: Could the Prime Minister explain just exactly what is so complicated about deciding whether any compensation should go to victims or whether there should be compensation at all given that the Government has had 4 years to think about it and it is 2 years since these proceedings were filed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What is complicated about that is that it is answered by the member’s own question: should there be compensation at all? 
Opposition Member 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well the member says “Yes” but the National Party says “No”. So already we do not have a majority in the Opposition for this particular form of legislation. We are to rush through legislation where the major Opposition parties cannot agree and the National Party cannot agree with itself from one day to the next! 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Prime Minister recall on 8 September 2000 her Minister of Justice Phil Goff using unministerial language saying that the Government had been “forced to make a compensation payment to a group of scumbags”—with reference to the Mongrel Mob payouts; if the Prime Minister can remember those very unministerial words can she tell the House why 5 years later the Government has still not done a thing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The recent case involved a somewhat different range of issues as I understand it and therefore we now have to consider what the nature of any legislation should be. But the member and other members do need to think carefully about what should be done. Mr Franks for example has said there should still be compensation because I think Mr Franks understands the dangers of removing any right to compensation in these circumstances. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Prime Minister now accept the offer of the National Party to pass through all stages this week a bill to prevent convicted criminals from collecting significant taxpayer compensation; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I invite the member to be clear first on what it is he is actually proposing should be passed because what he said today is different from what he said yesterday. If the member is to come to the House for 2 days in a row for the first time in his career he could at least keep his mind constant over that length of time. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would remind the Government that I am not moving on supplementary questions until those members are quiet. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had understood that it was not appropriate under Standing Orders for members to refer to the absence of other members from the House just as I have not for example referred to the absence of the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct. I tried to listen as best I could but there was a lot of interjection at the time. The member is absolutely right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is hardly a satisfactory way to leave that answer. You may judge that the Minister standing on his feet and making some personal reflections is an address to the question but we certainly do not. The question was pretty clear: will they support the legislation being changed this week as the National Party has offered or will they not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if that was all the Minister did it would certainly be correct but it was not. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Government’s proposed legislation to deal with compensation for prisoners did work begin on that back in 2000 when the Prime Minister directly invited prisoners and their lawyers to use the courts to seek compensation; if not why not and if it did where is it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No that work has just commenced. What happened in 2000 was that the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government would not simply give people compensation without the court first saying that they were entitled to it. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the answers to those questions am I right to conclude that this Government puts a higher priority on the passing of the sherry tax legislation—which was passed overnight under urgency—than it does on this sort of legislation which reflects a problem that has been ongoing for 4 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The issue of putting up tax on alcohol unfortunately is a much simpler thing than deciding the framework of this legislation. I remind the member again that members have heard today at least three different versions from Opposition parties of what the bill should be. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table the Prime Minister’s statement in the  
Dominion  
on 22 September 2000 inviting lawyers and prisoners to sue the Crown for money. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: They do not like the truth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Objection was taken as any member is entitled to do.