Clendon David: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12064. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. When the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill was first proposed prior to 2005 the Greens opposed it essentially on the basis of its effect on human rights—that is its reduction of human rights—because it was likely to be ineffectual as has now proven to be the case and because most of the effects would be negative. It had very few positive elements or redeeming features. We were at the time persuaded to support the bill through its final stages on the understanding that it would be quickly followed by a major reassessment and a major overhaul with significant attention being paid to the whole issue of victims’ rights. Clearly everybody in this House is supportive of finding ways and means of compensating the victims of crime—of getting redress for them—as well as punishing and rehabilitating those people who cause problems and who create victims. However we cannot in all conscience support this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill at its second reading which would mean the continuation of what is essentially a flawed and indeed a failed Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. 
The Act has two features. It intends to restrict the circumstances in which courts can award compensation to persons under the control of the State whether in prison or through some other means and it intends to provide a simplified process for allowing victims to make claims on compensation awarded to prisoners. In fact that has been more symbolic than real: there have been remarkably few successful instances where victims have had any benefit from this legislation in the 5 or more years since it has been enacted. 
The Act denies prisoners the possibility of redress for wrongs done by the State. Why would one continue with legislation that has failed? The victims in this case can benefit only if a prisoner or an inmate—somebody under the control of the State—has a windfall or if the State abuses the human rights of that prisoner. That is about the only mechanism through which a victim can get any redress. Is it not perverse to create a situation where imposing on the human rights of one person is the avenue to rewarding another for wrong done to that other person? It is simply a peculiar and perverse model and it would be better to simply remove it from the books and go looking for a proper solution. Part of the solution could be to establish a fully independent prison complaints authority. Such authorities are known to work successfully and are quite commonplace in other jurisdictions and in other countries. Absent such an authority we need to be very sure that there is a very robust set of circumstances where prisoners can rightfully be awarded some compensation if their human rights are abused while they are in the control of the State in prison. If there are no checks on abuses in prisons then inevitably prisons become more dangerous places—they become more dehumanising environments. The flow-on effect of this is that prisoners become more brutalised more dehumanised and therefore more dangerous to society when they are released. It increases the likelihood of recidivism. 
There is no value in the Act. It has not worked for victims and it has certainly not worked for prisoners; it can work only through a very perverse link of abuse recompense and secondary recompense to victims. The recent move to such unhelpful strategies as double-bunking to deal with the increased prison numbers is increasing tension in prisons. It is increasing the likelihood of tension and stress and the violence that inevitable follows from that in our prisons. We know that there are better ways to deal with crime. We can reduce recidivism. We know that there are strategies that work strategies such as the faith unit at Rimutaka Prison which has had an extraordinarily good success rate at reducing recidivism. The rate of recidivism is down to perhaps less than 10 percent for inmates who have been through that programme compared with something like 50 percent otherwise. We know that mechanisms are available to us today that could be applied within existing budgets by moving budgets away from concrete steel and wire towards serving the needs of the community by reducing the likelihood of recidivism and by healing prisoners. They are damaged people in the same way that their victims are damaged. We know that there are better strategies than continuing the failed strategies of the past. 
If the Government wants to get serious about crime about reducing the prison population and about reducing the knock-on and flow-on effects and the social environmental and economic costs of crime then we know there are strategies and mechanisms available to us. Inhumane treatment of prisoners is effectively protected under this bill because it takes away the likelihood of prisoners claiming compensation or objecting to the fact that their human rights have been taken away from them. We will continue to oppose the Act. It does not work; it was flawed at its enactment. It has proven itself ineffectual and it would be a much better situation simply to start with a clean slate and look for a set of solutions that will deliver good outcomes. Kia ora.