Woods Megan: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7382. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker— 
David Clendon 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but our second speaker this evening is actually unwell and will not be here so we are quite happy for Labour to take the whole call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: OK it is not a split call. The member may take a little more time. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I am happy to take what was going to be a short call on this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. My colleagues have traversed the reasons why Labour will not be supporting this bill and the history of this bill at some length. Indeed many of my colleagues have been very involved in the history of this piece of legislation through the passage of this House and have a great deal of background to it. 
The previous Labour speaker before me the Hon Lianne Dalziel pointed out very succinctly the reasons why it is that Labour is not supporting this piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that does not do what it set out to do. It is a disappointing piece of legislation and it does not achieve what it promised to do. It does not address those core needs of the victims that we as members of Parliament hear day after day from people and that we know exist. We are disappointed that this is a piece of legislation that does not address those. Put simply for us this legislation is simply not good enough. 
 We have heard a great deal about how the original Act was a piece of legislation that was never intended to have the longevity that members opposite are attempting to give it that it had indeed sunset clauses in it which are being rolled over and over and that this is just not adequate. What is more we agreed to the last rollover to that legislation on the proviso that the Government was going to come and consult with Opposition members and that we could actually genuinely work together to try to get a piece of legislation that would address these very real needs and these very important needs in our society and in our communities. Again we are disappointed—there is that word again—that Government members did not come and consult with Opposition members— 
Maggie Barry 
: You’re always disappointed. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: Yes Maggie Barry we are often disappointed by the Government members opposite. We are very disappointed that they fail to deliver on what they are going to do and that it is a Government of broken promises. Yes we are very very disappointed in that Maggie Barry and we are disappointed that this bill is not sufficiently victim-centric. We have an opportunity here and we are not taking it. We do have an opportunity to actually do something that addresses these rights and we have the Government members opposite standing there and they are talking a great deal about victims’ rights. They are talking about the slogans that go around this. They have got a great deal of empty rhetoric around this. 
If this was a Government that really cared about victims’ rights would it be a Government that was prepared to let the burglary clearance rate languish at 25 percent with no movement in that figure? Seventy-five percent of burglaries remain unsolved. If we actually think about the constituents we talk about the everyday people we talk with and their experience of crime in this country often for me in my electorate office in Wigram it is people coming in and talking about the devastation that a burglary has had on their life. They are talking about the way in which they do not feel safe in their homes and they are talking about the way that they do not feel safe in their communities any more. If the Government really cared about the rights of victims and was going to back up its rhetoric that we are hearing opposite and was going to not be a disappointment then we might actually see some movement in that figure. The 25 percent is just not good enough. Three-quarters of the people getting away with this most devastating of crimes is not good enough. 
If this was a Government that really cared about the rights of victims and really fundamentally addressing these let us have a look at some of the other things that it could do. There is a backlog of 900 jury trials in the Auckland and Manukau courts. The backlog is 900. That is in an area where you live and that you represent Darien Fenton—900 people. That is 900 victims that is 900 offenders that is 900 witnesses and that is 900 communities waiting for over 2 years to get justice. This is not a way to deliver fair outcomes to anyone involved in crime let alone the victims. 
This is again an example of a Government that is not committed to a victim-centric justice system. What it is doing is putting up legislation that does not adequately meet the mark on what it needs to do. The Government is putting up legislation that is not adequate for what it needs to achieve. 
Labour believes that the best solution to stop compensation payments to inmates is to ensure that breaches do not occur in the first place. There are many very unfair aspects of this legislation that my colleagues have traversed at length—for example the fact that if you get your money while you are in jail and you have got a victim waiting or if you get your money through Lotto or you get an inheritance from a family member or if anyone leaves you some money in a will then that money is not there. We have not heard in any of this debate in the House a Government member rise and tell us what is fair what is just and how this bill is doing adequate justice for victims and looking after their rights—the very thing that Government members are purporting that this bill has done. 
Let us actually have a look at the reality of the situation. Since the enactment of the precursor to this legislation there have actually been a low number of claims such as the one that triggered that original piece of legislation if we actually look at the reality of the situation and what has been happening. We have not heard Government members actually address what the scale of the problem is here what it is that they are seeking to address and what it is that they are seeing to solve with this inadequate piece of legislation. The Labour Party minority view in the legislation that extended the sunset clause made it clear that we supported the extension of the sunset clause only to ensure that replacement legislation would be required and could be developed. We have not seen that through the passage of time. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee when it heard the original piece of legislation for the extension of the Act received five submissions and only one of those was in support. Submitters opposing the bill were primarily concerned about the human rights implications of the provisions in the original Act and bill. These are concerns that have not been adequately addressed. We do not have a Government that seems to be adequately concerned about prisoners’ and victims’ rights. We do not have a piece of legislation that is going to address a real need. We have a piece of legislation before us that does not do what it promised to do and we have a piece of legislation that is a disappointment. For this reason Labour will not be supporting this bill.