Barker Rick: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20930] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to take a few moments to talk to the Committee about the changes the Government has brought to this bill and the circumstances surrounding those changes. The Government is moving to pass the remaining stages of this bill under urgency to deal effectively with the significant concerns the public have about prisoners receiving compensation payments for the wrongs afflicted on them in prison. The Government is concerned to ensure that this bill is passed and it thanks the Green Party for its support and cooperation in helping with that. 
The passage of this bill will mean that existing cases before the court and foreshadowed will be captured by this legislation. The payments awarded to Christopher Taunoa and others which sparked the public concern last year are currently under appeal. But if those payments are upheld by the court this bill will ensure that that money will be held in trust rather than handed over. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but perhaps the microphone is not up loud enough. We are having difficulty hearing him. My apologies for the interruption of the debate but we cannot hear from back here. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: As I can hear my voice echoing off the Chamber walls I suggest that the members of the National Party to my left stop chattering and listen and then they would hear. 
Stephen Franks 
: Although I am well away from there I was also having trouble hearing. It sounded like distortion and it was very hard to understand what the Minister was saying.  
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Can we all hear now? OK. The point I was making before the interruption was that a number of payments are under consideration at the moment. Quite contrary to the point made by Mr Jones this legislation if passed will ensure that those payments that have currently been awarded by the court will be captured by this legislation. That point is quite contrary to Mr Jones’ assertion and I want to make sure that that point is clear. 
This bill establishes a special procedures claim that will assist victims of offenders to exercise their rights in making a civil claim because as Mr Jones and others well know people can currently make civil claims for damages against those who have committed crimes against them. This bill will ensure that where payments are made in those cases they will go towards paying offenders’ fines and reparation payments where those are outstanding. But this bill will also ensure that the statute of limitations currently in place will be extended so that where the limit for hearings is normally 6 years victims’ claims can be heard well past that time. 
The bill will ensure that the process is simplified that it is legally aided and that those people who do not want to confront the offender again will not be required to do so which picks up the concern that Mr Alexander and others have expressed. However if victims do wish to participate personally in the process another organisation or person can help them file a claim etc. So this bill is making the system as friendly as possible. 
The lawyer in the Taunoa case Tony Ellis has been reported as saying that he intends to file another 200 cases and that about 40 of those have already been filed. So there is some sense of urgency to do something about this matter. Those cases and any future cases will be subject to guidelines that will greatly restrict the circumstances in which monetary compensation can be paid. 
In future prisoners will have to demonstrate that they have tried to use the prison complaints system to try to resolve their grievances at the earliest opportunity before the matter escalates to the use of the court system. They will also have to satisfy the requirement that the non-monetary remedy would be insufficient to address their concerns. Despite those restrictions any future payments ordered will be subject to the new trust and to the victims’ special claims procedure. 
The Government has agreed to the suggestion of the Greens that the passage of this bill be followed by legislation to establish a new independent police complaints authority. That was suggested by the Justice and Electoral Committee and it was a very good suggestion. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very difficult—there were complaints from members about not being able to hear but I cannot even hear myself. 
Preventing the grounds for compensation is in fact the best way to avoid having to make compensation payments in the future. While the new Corrections Act and associated regulations have to a degree significantly improved the situation the establishment of the new independent prison complaints authority will be a very good step and an additional assurance that I am sure all would agree with. Legislation establishing that new body will be passed by 2006. 
The bill deals effectively with the currently expected claims that have caused public concern. The number of any new complaints or likely future payouts will in our view be likely to fall dramatically. For that reason the sunset clause inserted by the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 374 into the bill will effectively wind down the special claims procedure in the new period after the new body has been established. The procedure will therefore apply only to those claims lodged by prisoners prior to 1 July 2007. 
The sunset clause will ensure that guidelines restricting the circumstances under which compensation payments are made will be reviewed and be made permanent. The Greens have raised questions with us about the practical application of some aspects of those guidelines. The Government expects that the guidelines will benefit from future review in the light of experience to the point that they might be amended or renewed. For example the legislation will establish the new independent prison complaints body and the sunset clause ensures that the review will take place at the same time in a broad framework. 
 Most New Zealanders find it abhorrent when prisoners are awarded compensation payments for wrongs they have suffered in prison when those prisoners frequently never pay any compensation to their victims for the harm they have inflicted. The Government remains firmly of the view that the measures in this bill are the best way to deal with cases where prisoners may be awarded compensation by the courts. The Justice and Electoral Committee having considered the issue in detail also came to the same essential conclusion. 
The select committee has recommended that there be an inquiry into the support available for victims of serious crime and the place of victims in the justice system. The Greens have expressed their strong desire for such an inquiry and the Government has agreed that the inquiry will take place. That again I am sure the Committee will all agree is a very good step forward. 
Of course there is the usual simplistic chorus from the Opposition that payments should be reversed wiped blocked or never made regardless of the circumstances that might have given rise to the claims. The Government’s legal advice confirms that ruling out any possibility of monetary compensation would clearly put us in breach of international law. None of the countries that we compare ourselves with such as the UK Canada Australia the United States and the European Union countries rule out monetary compensation for prisoners if the circumstances demand it. I just restate for members that the legal advice and the advice from all other people—despite the chorus from the Opposition—is that no other country with which we compare ourselves rules out the possibility of compensation if the circumstances demand it. While parties such as the National Party make strident statements in the luxury of knowing they will never have to deliver we consider that no responsible Government would deliberately legislate to put ourselves in breach of international law. To do so would seriously undermine our international credibility. 
National’s record in Government after all stands in stark contrast to its current statements. The case known as the  
Baigent 
 case in 1994 established in New Zealand law the provision that compensation could be paid for breaches of human rights. The National Government explicitly declined to legislate in order to overturn that precedent. That is in stark contrast to the utterings of the National Party now in Opposition. [ 
Interruption 
] That was of course the National Government in which Tony Ryall was a Minister and it is a bit rich for the former Minister the Hon Tony Ryall to now come with his National Party colleagues and express outrage at what the courts did. 
Darren Hughes 
: Crocodile tears! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: My colleague over here says they are “crocodile tears”. Tony Ryall had the chance when the issue was raised but did nothing about it. National went to the Law Commission and asked the commission for its advice and the— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Your nose is growing! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take exception to the comment made by Mr Ryall. I insist that he withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members that interjections are obviously OK but the barraging is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We fully accept that interjections should be rare and reasonable and as Mr Braybrooke used to say if possible witty. However when a Minister takes up the Committee’s time—and we know that the Government has some cooked-up deal about how long it will be before various members on its benches will leap to their feet to take closure motions—with straight-out political attacks of course you will then get the sort of response that was just forthcoming from this side. It was not excessive given the extreme nature of the allegations the Minister was attempting to put across. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That was not a point of order. The point is that since the debate began there has been considerable politicking from both sides but I most certainly remind members again that the barraging is not acceptable. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: As I was saying before it is absolutely a matter of record that a court awarded compensation in a case commonly known as the  
Baigent 
 case—compensation for ill-treatment in prison—and the National Party did nothing. It went to the Law Commission for advice and it chose to accept that. That party did nothing. Now we have a similar situation and the National Party is expressing outrage so I want to make it absolutely clear that the National Party from 1994 to 1999 had 5 years to pass legislation—and it did nothing. 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am having a bit of difficulty following why it is that we are being given smoke and mirrors about something that might have happened sometime in the past and is not at all relevant to what is before us now. One cannot defend the bill by going after somebody else. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows very well that that is not a point of order; it is a debatable point. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The point about this bill is firstly that the issue of public concern has been raised and this Government has acted. It has a bill that will go through the House and deal with the compensation payments in a way that will not take away from those people their human rights to be able to lodge a claim before the court. The bill will set out the hierarchy of the issues that are to be taken into account and everybody agrees with the victims of crime that if there is to be compensation then the victims should get it first. I am sure everybody in the Committee would agree with that. 
Secondly as a result of this legislation we are going to establish an independent prisons authority to check on our prisons. Thirdly we are going to establish an inquiry about the rights of victims and the place for victims in the justice system. Those are three very good initiatives; I am surprised that anybody in this Committee would object to them. This legislation is good stuff.