Little Andrew: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9732. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. This legislation had its genesis in the previous Labour Government. It was a response to a very precise very confined situation where a group of prisoners because of the way they had been treated by the prison system made a claim under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act under the precedent case—theBaigent case—and as a consequence of that were awarded damages. These were criminals who had committed crimes of a very serious nature and they were criminals whose victims would not at the time of the trial and conviction of those prisoners have ever thought that there was any value in pursuing a civil claim against those prisoners. They had no claim for personal injury but they might have had a claim for exemplary damages for their conduct.That has always been the nature of our criminal justice system and the victims of it. But that was a different situation where prisoners had won significant damages as a consequence of what had happened to them while they were incarcerated. It was simply repugnant to the community’s notion of justice that people who had inflicted considerable harm and injury on other citizens should because of the circumstances of their incarceration achieve a windfall gain whereas their victims got nothing apart from their entitlements from the accident compensation scheme and any other State-funded assistance they got. So it was absolutely correct for the Government of the day to pass legislation to correct that obvious injustice.None of that is to say—as I think the Associate Minister of Justice said in his opening speech—that we do not strive to ensure that our corrections system our system of incarceration is one that does not lead to abuse of those who are being incarcerated those who are in the Crown’s custody serving out a punishment. We must do that but it would be wrong for those who are harmed by the Crown in the course of being penalised by the Crown to then gain a windfall when citizens who are the victims of those who gained that windfall should have no claim at all. I have no personal difficultywith a regime that provides a greater sense of justice for victims and a signal to all other citizens that the person who has caused a victim harm damage or death should not be the beneficiary of some greater claim in the future.So this law was very important and it was very important that it should spell out that the courts require that in the event of a future claim by prisoners who are claiming abuse in the prison system they should exhaust other sources of remedy. They should go to the Ombudsman or they should go to the system within the Department of Corrections and utilise those forums before they seek redress in the courts. It is also right that we should ensure that we have an effective mechanism to ensure that any abuse of power in prisons is properly redressed. If there are concerns about the existing regime that we have then let us hear those concerns and let us consider what may need to be done. It is only part of our obligations as an international citizen that we ensure that those who are incarcerated by the State are not subject to abuse and torture.Having said all that—and we will support this legislation—I want to place on record our concerns and the first is that the original legislation was time limited. It was assumed that there would be and it was intended that there would be a review of the sort of regime that would deal with victims’ rights and with what happens to prisoners—but most important with victims’ rights. Indeed in one of the more recent renewals of the legislation of the continuations of it an undertaking was given by the Government of the day—this Government—that there would be a review and that other parties would be consulted on it. I have to say—and it may not be the fault of the Hon Chester Borrows who moved the second reading motion—that the reality is that none of that happened. There has been no consultation with other parties and there has been no review. So we are now stuck with a piece of legislation that was designed to deal with a specific situation a specific injustice perceived by the community which raised issues about the broader justice system but most important raised issues about our system our regime of victims’ rights. That work still remains to be done to ensure that we have a system of victims’ rights that is robust and that respects the various positions and standings of the parties concerned.There are some alternatives. There are some who argue that the provisions in this bill should be extended to any windfall gain that a prisoner gets whether it is a bequest as a result of a family member’s death a win in Lotto—although quite how a prisoner incarcerated at the time could buy Lotto tickets defies explanation to me—or any other windfall gain. I do not go that far but what I do say is that a more progressive and comprehensive system of justice that is looking firmly at victims’ rights might say that there are different ways of approaching it and that redress can be provided to victims once a penal sentence has been served.In most cases in the majority of cases prisoners—those who are doing serious time—will get to a point where they have done their last penal servitude and they get released. Because of a progressively changing corrections system we are now getting people back in the community without recidivism. They do not repeat their crimes. It is not too much to say of those who have caused significant harm and damage to others that they may have an ongoing responsibility through their future earnings to provide support and assistance to those to whom they have caused that harm. I do not think it is beyond the realms of a broader system of justice to look at something along those lines. There may be a trade-off in the length of sentences if indeed somebody having served a sentence goes into paid work and as part of their contribution to the community makes amends for the harm they have done and has a further surcharge on their earnings to make good the damage they have done to their victims. I do not think it is beyond us to do that. That would be fair. It could be considered at the time a judge is considering the sentence. It is a matter that could be followed up and could continue to beadministered by either the corrections system or indeed the Inland Revenue Department—on which we are about to spend $1.5 billion on a computer system that should be able to handle at least that.We support this legislation because it continues its confined approach to a confined problem but it does not answer the real problem which is a broader answer to the need for a comprehensive regime a cohesive regime of victims’ rights in order to compensate those victims who have suffered harm beyond personal injury which is compensated for through our accident compensation scheme and who have suffered other harm and damages as well that ought properly to be compensated for. Leaving in place this system makes that a lottery because the victim can recover compensation only if the perpetrator of the crime or violence against them is somebody who suffers their own violence in prison at the hands of the prison system. That as we know does not happen to every prisoner. It happens to a very small percentage of them—in fact a very small number as was evidenced in the particular case that triggered this legislation theTaunoa case.We do not want a victims’ rights regime that is essentially a lottery system; we need one that is based on coherent and considered thought. Coherent and considered thought has not gone into this legislation. It is simply being rolled over with some clarifying amendments. It does not address the fundamental problem. That was the undertaking given by this Government when it rolled this legislation over the last time. It has not fulfilled that undertaking. Even though this is an open-ended piece of legislation now I prevail upon this Government and the Minister who is in the House to take seriously the wish from all sides of the House to get and have in place a sensible system of victims’ rights in order to put to bed once and for all the repeated claims of injustice being suffered by victims. Notwithstanding all that we will support the bill.