Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill

I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, would be so generous as to take a call to explain exactly what is going on with this bill. What exactly is the deal that has been done on it, in order to give to the Government the numbers to pass this piece of window dressing only a few weeks before the country goes to the polls? We know from this bill that prisoners will get to keep some, if not all, of the payouts they can claim under this Government’s liberal justice system, because the bill allows for some of the worst inmates in this country to keep any such prisoner payout. Even though the Government may have moved to put in some sort of sunset clause to attract the support of the Green Party, it cannot be denied that criminals will still get to keep some, if not all, of the cash.

Let me explain why. If an inmate, such as a drug dealer, does not have readily identifiable victims, there is nobody to make a claim. If victims choose not to make a claim or do not come forward, then there is nobody to receive the money. Thirdly, if the commission involved does not think the suffering is sufficient for a victim or victims to take the full booty of cash, then some of that cash can remain with the inmate.

This bill is dangerously flawed and seriously misleading. The House is being made a party to a public relations exercise by the outgoing Government in the weeks before the next general election. Through the rest of the evening numerous members from Opposition parties will seek to take a call, to explain to the people of this country that this bill should not proceed. The National Party, and most of the Opposition parties in this House, are agreed on one thing: prisoner payouts should be blocked, stopped, and wiped.

There is no justification for prisoners to receive cash from the Government because of imagined wrongs or hurt feelings. In one situation, a man who killed a young woman—he also raped her and stuffed pebbles down her throat—received a $1,200 compensation cheque from this Government, because of hurt feelings. That is an outrage! The only reason the payout is being appealed is that pressure from Opposition parties has forced the Government to act. In another place, a payout to four criminals is being contested. Those people will each receive a substantial amount of money, but they simply do not deserve or need it, and they should not be given it.

If prison officers have committed offences, they should be held personally accountable; there is no reason why public moneys should be paid to some of the worst criminals in this country. We want the Minister to take a call to explain why he justifies those payouts, and also to explain to the nation what the deal is that is being done to keep this public relations exercise alive.

If the Government has the courage of its convictions and says this is a good bill, why are some of its provisions due to expire in 2 years’ time because of the amendments made in the name of Mr Goff, the Minister of Justice? I bet he will not participate in this debate, so I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call and explain exactly what is going on here, what the nature of the deal is, what the impact of the amendments on the bill will be, and why the Government would agree to a 2-year sunset clause.

Tonight we are seeing an alliance between Labour and the Greens. The country is being exposed to the type of Government we would have if Labour and the Greens were in office. We are seeing legislation that is soft on law and order. We are seeing legislation that is being passed under urgency, so that Labour and the Greens can urgently pay out to the most vicious criminals in society their ill-gotten gains while they have been in prison. Labour and the Greens urgently want to give them some money. What a deplorable situation! But that is what we could expect to see in a Labour and Green Government.

Mr Ryall asked what the deal is between Labour and the Greens. Is it not significant that the deal has been struck with Nandor Tanczos? Even the Greens have demoted him. What would Mr Tanczos want in return for giving his support to the Government? [Interruption] That is right, I say to Mr Samuels—“put it in your pipe and smoke it.”

It is a deal whereby marijuana would be made legal if, sometime, Labour and the Greens ever got into Government together. It is so obvious. I know that Mr Ryall asked a rhetorical question of the Minister, because the answer is just so obvious. We can see that a deal has been struck by Labour and the Greens whereby marijuana will be made legal, and if it has not been made legal by 2007—which is why 2007 is the date in the bill—all bets will be off. That is the way in which the Greens want to do business, of course. Either the business is done by a certain date or they will pull out their support. That is the way a Labour and Green Government would work, and it is obvious that that is what Labour recognises and expects. That is how Labour intends to operate in a coalition-type system.

The Greens are willing to operate on that basis because it is the only way. Labour is the only party in Parliament that the Greens can see would concede to their requirement to legalise marijuana—despite all the difficulties and health problems down the track that that would cause. So that is clearly why we are here tonight, in urgency. United Future was tentatively looking in that direction but tossed Labour aside, so Labour is prepared to pick up the Greens to do a deal with them on this issue, under urgency.

It is an eleventh hour measure; it is a desperate measure by this Labour Government. One really cannot understand why any Government would want to hand money over to the most hardened criminals in our society, but that is what this bill does. It encourages criminals, when they go to jail, to misbehave, because if they misbehave they have a chance of getting some money. That is what this bill is about. If a criminal misbehaves, that criminal will get some money. That is what this bill says. Those people, naturally, will misbehave, but now they will make the life of prison guards even harder—harder than ever before.

New Zealand First has a number of amendments to this legislation, and we want to make sure that any money lawfully obtained by prisoners, who are entitled to exercise their claims in court, is kept in the victims’ claims trust account, and it is there for the benefit only of the victims of crimes in New Zealand. We were told in the select committee that about $51 million worth of reparation is due to victims. Anything that can be obtained under this bill would be worthwhile for those victims, but the amount would never reach $51 million. We want to see that the balance of any money that comes through out of this legislation after the immediate victims have been compensated, the legal aid funds have been compensated, and suchlike, goes only to a victims’ claims account, that only victims of various crimes can possibly make claims on that money, and that at no stage can those hardened criminals be encouraged to make the life of prison officers hell. That is what this bill will do. Those criminals will taunt, tease, and make life absolutely impossible for prison officers, because we know, human nature being what it is, that the prison officers will break. They will just not be able to help it. They have to be tough to be in prison, so their immediate response will be to respond to that disgraceful behaviour—the behaviour that Labour and the Green Party are supporting by way of the culture that will now develop in our prisons.

It is so obvious. It is hard to believe that any party in Government could responsibly support this legislation, and could even promote this legislation, but that is what Labour and the Greens are doing. I can believe that the Greens are doing it; they will do just about anything in their hope to have marijuana made legal.

I rise on behalf of United Future to debate this important bill, which has been hastily put before Parliament and hastily put before the people of New Zealand as an affront to all victims, up and down the country. This bill started out with a reasoned proposition, which was: how do we stop, prevent, or circumvent the very real possibility that inmates can have any access to any compensation, at all? Everybody who took part in the select committee process wanted to see a way around that. We heard time and time again from victims who made the effort to come to the Justice and Electoral Committee. By coming to the committee they had to relive their own victimhood, sometimes with broken stories about their lives, at the other end of very serious offending. They told us they want no part of an ongoing relationship, financial or otherwise, with inmates. Yet this bill forces them to do just that.

Victims do not want to see the perpetrators of violent crimes against them profit from going to prison as a result those crimes. That is clear for all to see. I noticed in the New Zealand Herald newspaper today a headline that states: “Appeal Court warns that prisoner compo being ‘embarrassing’ is no reason to reject it”. That is actually not true. The fact that it is embarrassing is every reason to reject it. It is embarrassing on behalf of victims, it is embarrassing on behalf of anybody who pretends to feel for justice in this country, and it is embarrassing that a person can profit from committing violence against another person. Nobody, including the victims, wants to have barbarity in prisons, but there is a helluva difference between recognising those who perpetrate a barbarity in prison—the prison guards—and holding them to account for what they have done, and allowing the inmates to profit as a result of crime, which is what landed them in prison in the first place. It is an affront to victims in this country.

We thought that everybody had an open mind as to how to deal with this issue, and I understand the problems the Government had. The Minister of Justice also has the problem of being the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He thinks he has to uphold international accords that contradict the imperatives of our own sense of justice in our own country. So I understand the predicament the Government is in, even though I disagree with it—and there will be more on that later on as the debate progresses—but it is utterly scurrilous to have the Greens, tails between their legs, scurrying along to try to find national relevance because they are irrelevant. They always have been irrelevant, especially over the last 3 years, and they are irrelevant now. They are not fighting on behalf of victims in this country; they have turned their backs on those victims. They are in favour of the offenders, and the support they now show for this bill clearly shows that. They are in favour of offenders over the interests of victims. Their true colours are there for everyone to see.

Mr Tanczos can sit there and grin or laugh at the plight of victims up and down this country, but he fails to understand the fact that, through this bill, inmates will still be able to collect some money, and that is actually against the human rights of the victims. It hurts victims, and it puts them in a more invidious position. If victims want to take money off those offenders, they now have to enter into an economic and legal relationship to try to do that. What sense of justice is there for them? Why is it that the offenders against those victims can have recompense in money, financial gain, whereas the victims they offend against can have none? Accident compensation barely covers the costs of their wounds, but there is nothing for the wounds that will go on for the rest of their lives and hurt their families and themselves. This bill is a travesty, and the Greens are scurrilous dogs for supporting it. They are utterly irrelevant to justice.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sure it must be out of order to call the Greens “scurrilous dogs”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is out of order. Parties should be treated the same as members. The member will please withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. In order for the big cheese of Labour to be able to put this bill, this issue, to rest, Labour has the Greens scurrying along like mice to try to put the bill to bed. They will not; we will not let them.

It was most interesting to hear Mr Jones make his speech. That member must have been asleep for the past few years if he thinks that this bill is being passed by Parliament in order to allow prisoners to claim compensation against the Department of Corrections. Perhaps the member did not realise that there is a case in the Court of Appeal this week about that. The case has already been through the High Court, but maybe the member did not realise that that was already happening. This bill is actually about freezing any compensation granted to inmates and making it available to their victims. Then, proving that he has totally lost his grip on reality, Dail Jones suggested that the matter has something to do with cannabis. The member sees cannabis everywhere, even in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. I think that it really is time the member retired. He had gone, he has been resurrected, and it is time for him to go again.

Then Marc Alexander stood up and threw a tizzy because he had tried to throw his weight around and it had not worked. He is most upset. That is the real answer to Mr Ryall’s question. I will tell the Committee how this situation came about. United Future members had been supporting this bill until recently, but they decided to withdraw support and throw their weight around. Their demands became more and more extreme. They started to make increasingly bizarre threats to the Government during the bill’s second reading. I do not know whether other members here remember that, but none of us could quite figure out what those United Future members were on about.

So, in desperation, the Government has turned to the Greens. Our opposition to this bill is on record. We have said that it may breach international conventions. Unlike some parties, we do believe that New Zealand should honour its international agreements. We do believe that we, as a country, should keep our word. We do believe that international conventions are important and that the standing of New Zealand in the eyes of the international community is important, and we do not agree that international conventions should not apply to us. That road leads to Guantanamo Bay; it is the view of the Bush administration on international conventions. The Green Party does not hold that view, although United Future, New Zealand First, and the National Party may.

We have agreed to support this bill, for four very good reasons. The first is that the bill would have been made considerably worse if the Government had had to rely on accepting United Future amendments in order to pass it, because United Future members have consistently demonstrated that they have very little ability to make rational amendments. Their position on this bill, particularly, is quite outside the bounds of what is acceptable in a country that gives any consideration to the rule of law.

The second reason is that, in return for Green support, the Government has agreed to an independent prison inspectorate. The Justice and Electoral Committee supported that idea, and members of this Parliament have supported it. It is something that the Greens have been consistent in campaigning for and, finally, we now have it locked down. This country will have an independent prison inspectorate as a result of the Green Party’s actions. The third reason is that there is a sunset clause on all measures in the bill except those concerning the suspension of limitations—because we do not believe that this bill is the best means of addressing that situation. We believe that it is right that the legislation should come to an end after a period of time—that is, in 2007, as Supplementary Order Paper 374 states.

The last reason is that the Government has agreed also to an inquiry into victims’ rights, victims’ compensation, and the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The Justice and Electoral Committee said that we should have such an inquiry, but the committee is unable to make binding promises for the next term of Parliament. After the election any promises made by the select committee about an inquiry will disappear. The Greens have locked down a cast-iron guarantee that there will be an inquiry into victims’ rights, victims’ compensation, and the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The Green Party is very proud of that. We have done something about victims’ rights that United Future has not been able to do. For all their grand words, posturing, and claims to be standing up for victims’ rights, those members have actually done nothing for victims’ rights. The only thing that they claim to have achieved for victims’ rights is the Victims’ Rights Act, which was already due to come before this Parliament before Marc Alexander was even a member. So his impact has been irrelevant in that regard. The Greens are proud that we are to have an inquiry into the rights of victims, and we are proud of the achievements we have managed to negotiate through our support for this bill.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

I thought, in fact, it was relevant that the Associate Minister of Justice was arguing that time was significant in what had and had not been done 5 or 10 years, or whatever, in the past. But time is significant. The main reason for the heat around this first part of the Committee stage on this bill is not about the utterly mild, anodyne, or unexceptionable provisions of this bill—it is that the bill does not even start to achieve what the Associate Minister said it would achieve. The bill does not even start to achieve what people were demanding all through September and October last year.

When we think about the time involved I just want to remind the Associate Minister, now that we are in urgency tonight, that the hearings on this case were in October and November of 2003, and February and March of 2004. That is when the Government became fully aware of the arguments of Mr Ellis and others on behalf of those prisoners. The judgment of Justice Young was given on 7 April 2004. He set out his reasoning in full. It is true that at that stage he had not calculated damages. Apparently, the Government then did nothing until much later in the year when the damages award was given. And still it did nothing.

By September, when Mr Ellis was mentioning the hundreds of future cases to come, I produced a bill that would attempt to do what the Associate Minister claims this one is doing—that is, to stop the outrage of the grave offence to the victims of those criminals. The victims cannot claim compensation for the injury done to them because of the accident compensation scheme, while their attackers—the people who had injured them—are claiming amounts that the victims would not even dream they would get. We produced that bill in September, and still the Minister of Justice dithered. There was still obfuscation in Parliament about what the Minister would do, and when he would do it.

Finally, there was a statement about what the Minister would do when he did introduce the bill—in late October, as I recall. Then there was another delay.

Quite frankly, when the bill was finally introduced and people had a chance to look at it, I think the media had got bored of it. I think that was the calculation of the Minister, because he knew that he was not going to deliver what the people of New Zealand wanted or what the victims wanted. Throughout that time, and throughout the time since when the select committee was looking at this bill, this calculating Government was relying on the fact that the media had lost interest in the underlying issue.

Well, it is a shame that the bill has come back and has to be dealt with now, right when the case is before the Court of Appeal. Because I think the Government will not get away with this. It might be rescued by the Court of Appeal, but Tony Ellis is a very diligent lawyer for his clients. He believes in what he is doing. I honour him for what he puts into the cases. I disagree with the outcomes and I disagree with his convictions, but he is doing his job properly—unlike this Government.

This Government did not even represent the people of New Zealand properly before Justice Young. Nowhere in Justice Young’s judgment did I see that anyone made a proper defence of the behaviour management regime. We had to wait until we were in the select committee to get some timorous, but quite unmistakable, defence by the Department of Corrections of what had been done, and an admission that as the department had been forced to “give up” on that regime, it had nothing to replace it for the worst offenders.

We have had a complete abdication of responsibility by the Government. Now it has gone to the Greens and is bringing in its “cure” for the intense outrage—and it expires in 2 years’ time. Why does it expire? I have not heard anything from the Associate Minister on why it expires. What is so horrific about it? When I read the bill there is nothing actually very wrong with it, except that it purports to be something that it is not. But what it is, is very mild.

I see that half a million dollars is set aside in the Budget to run this tribunal. I would think that most of that will be used up in writing letters to people telling them why what they thought was going to be a compensation regime, does not work. But there is nothing really odious about what is being done. The bill is telling prisoners they must go through the official channels first. They have to exhaust all their remedies within the prison disciplinary system, before they can go to the courts and apply for human rights breaches. Then it says that if they do get something it has to be held to see whether there is a victim’s claim. The odious part of it is that after all this time it is pretending to be something it is not.

If ever a bill before the House showed just how out of touch the Labour Party is with ordinary New Zealanders, this would be it. Ordinary New Zealanders have expressed outrage at the idea that someone in a prison, who gets in a tangle with the authorities responsible for his or her incarceration, should somehow be able to go to a court and get a monetary payment for hurt feelings or for other damage. It is just abhorrent. I point out to the Minister that we live in a country where, sadly, a violent crime is committed every 9 minutes. So why are we taking the time of the Parliament to look after the interests of prisoners who might get on the wrong side of their keepers, when we are doing nothing for the victims of crime? That is the outrage that New Zealanders will be expressing when they hear what this bill is about. It does not surprise me that the Greens are supporting the bill. The Greens, of course, are a very confused group of people, as evidenced by the performance of their leader earlier this week, and the claim today that they are campaigning to get the votes of prisoners—who, of course, cannot cast a vote!

I want to read out something from the commentary on the bill, because it is worth listening to, under the heading: “The place of victims in the criminal justice system—the need for further inquiry”. It states: “Many of the submissions”—to the select committee—“focused on the effect on victims and their families of very serious violent crime. The focus of victims who submitted on this bill was largely on ensuring the outcome reflected the hurt done to them, which they argued was not necessarily achieved by monetary compensation. At the same time a number of submitters referred to overseas models of government-funded compensation that did not require the victims to take any direct action against the offender.” So having heard all of this from victims, the select committee went on to state: “We have concluded that further work needs to be done, and we consider it is appropriate to think about the next stage in the agenda that included the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.”—at some future time. So here is a bill to sort out the rights of criminals! If ever there was an example of getting the boot on the wrong foot, this bill is it.

I challenge the Minister about the outrageous statement he made earlier about New Zealand having to comply with international conventions. It is a load of rubbish. There are international conventions all over the place that this country does not comply with. So why on earth do we have to comply in this case? Why do we have to say that our system has to line up against many countries that we would not want to compare ourselves with?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Oh, Australia?

The Minister says: “Oh, Australia?”.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Canada?

He can name all these countries but there will be dozens in that list that are absolute shockers. We have seen plenty of pictures of conditions in Bali jails, on our television screens in recent days.

I want him to tell us exactly what the legal advice was, because the committee report does not talk about it in a specific way. It simply states that it would “likely be inconsistent”; it “could be inconsistent”; it “might be inconsistent”. Well, where is this compelling legal advice that is making the Government act on behalf of criminals before victims? I remind the Minister that from time to time courts get things wrong, courts make mistakes. It is the job of Parliament to fix those mistakes, to correct the court’s view of things, according to the way the citizens of this country see it. This bill does not do that. This bill is upholding the decision made by a judge, and is then simply setting a few little things around the edges of it that determine how the judge’s decision is to be implemented. It completely denies the fact that the victims of violent crime carry the scars of those attacks, those violations, and those other wrongdoings for the rest of their lives. We have time taken up tonight, urgency taken in Parliament, to make sure that some prisoner who has hurt feelings gets his dollars.

New Zealand First will be opposing the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. We want to rename this bill the “Screw the Screws Bill”, and I am sure that most Kiwis throughout New Zealand would relate to that new title. It is what the bill is all about. It is about ways in which a prisoner can make a claim against a prison officer or the Department of Corrections and get compensation.

This bill rings a bell; it sounds like those bills that have to have “regard for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. This is just another gravy train for politically correct lawyers. I can see that sort of thing happening right down the line with this bill. No funds should be made available to criminals. They do the crime, and they do the time. Most New Zealanders will relate to that principle very, very easily. If one listened to Radio Pacific and the talkback shows when this compensation was mooted and out in the media, one would know that the people of New Zealand went absolutely mad. Why should this Government be settling on this bill?

This does not mean that prisoners should be ill-treated while in prison, but neither does it mean that their human rights should suddenly become much more significant than the rights of victims, who in most cases were murdered. I am really surprised at the Greens’ attitude towards this bill. Quite frankly, this is the dead-end for the Greens, because they are supporting this bill on the basis of human rights. But human rights were taken away from the victims. Prisoners are trying to get compensation, and the Greens are supporting this bill from the aspect of prisoners’ human rights. Quite frankly, I am disgusted that the Greens are now the doormats for Labour to get this bill through.

Those rights are set out in the international United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But what about the victims of those criminal, heinous crimes? Several Mangaroa prisoners some years ago were paid compensation on the grounds that they were ill treated. But the interesting part about that whole claim was that there was no mention of Mr Hati Kaiwai, the prison officer who was so badly beaten that his assailants stacked mattresses on top of him and left him for dead. What did he get? As a colleague from National has said, he got nothing. That is what he got—zero, for the beating and the scars he will bear for the rest of his life.

There is also the case of Mr William Bell—and I am sorry to call him “Mr”; he is a scumbag—who was involved in the brutal murders at the Mount Wellington - Panmure RSA. He murdered one of the RSA members—someone who had fought for Bell’s right to live in this country, and for the rights of all New Zealanders to be part of this community. Who met his end at the hands of a criminal on parole? Again, in the paper recently we read that Mrs Couch is suffering the effects of being brutally beaten and shotgun whipped by that scumbag. She is having problems in trying to get help from the Accident Compensation Corporation. As Mr Brownlee said, where is the help for the victim? Zero—again.

I am sure that all New Zealanders listening to this debate tonight will be thinking: “What a lot of drivel from the Greens, and what a disgusting bill from Labour.” I advise that Sam Te Hei, who cold-bloodedly murdered Colleen Burrows in 1987, is now seeking compensation for a breach of human rights—an act that the Greens are supporting—and would get to keep the money. As we have heard tonight, the money should not be paid out to the criminals but put into a fund, and at the end of the day the victims should receive it, not the criminals. Mrs Ida Hawkins, mother of Colleen Burrows, has said that Te Hei now wants human rights. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, his rights were extinguished when he went to prison. Mrs Hawkins said that human rights are for human beings. Te Hei is a disgrace to Māoridom. He is not a human being.

I move, That the question be now put.

The Labour Government might think that dealing with this bill in this particular way, under urgency, puts it to bed and takes it away from being an election year issue. It will not, because there are a number of parties here that will keep this issue alive. Not only will a number of parties here keep it in the public domain, but the victims will also keep it alive. The Sensible Sentencing Trust and Victim Support will keep it alive—and there is a reason why. This bill is a huge injustice. It is a slap in the face for all victims in this country.

The one inescapable fact is that the very act of an inmate being able to secure a financial windfall, supposedly to support his or her human rights, is at once a human rights violation against the victim. There is no escaping that—the point being that when we are balancing the human rights of both offender and victim, they are in an inescapable relationship with each other for life from the very moment the offence took place. Anything that benefits the inmate, by necessity, will be a deficit to the victim. There is no getting around that. The problem this Government faces is that it is passing a bill, with the Greens’ help, that is championing the human rights of the offender against the human rights of the victim.

The public will not be fooled; the Sensible Sentencing Trust will not be fooled; Victim Support will not be fooled; National will not be fooled; New Zealand First will not be fooled; ACT will not be fooled; and neither will we. The only people who seem to be fooled are the Greens. Well, the Greens’ actions we can explain away. They probably thought they could get the votes of those people in the prisons.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Yeah!

Well, they will not. The other point that needs to be looked at—and it is something that the Hon Rick Barker talked about at some length—is the potential violation of international law. That is an absolute nonsense. As Gerry Brownlee pointed out, it is only a “might be”; it is only a “maybe”. But even more important than that is this crucial question: is Parliament sovereign, or not? The laws of this country must come from this Parliament, nowhere else. Some pillock can go off and sign whatever international accord he wants, but unless it is ratified by this Parliament, it should not be a law of the land. Justice for our own people, justice for the victims of this country, must supersede the interests of the arrogance of some foreign affairs Minister darting about the world, signing this or that accord.

There is no reason to assume that an international accord should have precedence over New Zealand justice. In the end, that is what this is really about. I think that what is forgotten here is that this Government is not the boss. This Government is not at the top of the heap. This Government, like all of us, is an employee of the people of New Zealand. We are employees of the very victims we are supposed to be caring about, yet this Government arrogantly puts the interests of the offender first—ahead of the interests of all people who love justice in this country, and ahead of all those people who are supposed to be doing something about the victims of this country.

People will not be fooled by this. It is a subterfuge. It is a sly attempt to get this issue out of the way before the election proper starts. This Government knows that it will be tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion, for this bill. Nobody will be fooled or duped by it. This is a cynical bill that attempts to put the interests of the Government’s re-election process ahead of anybody else’s interests. It is one of the reasons why nobody in this Parliament wants to support it, and I daresay that many Labour members themselves probably want to walk away from it. It is beyond me that the Greens, in order to get a headline and gain any kind of relevance whatsoever, have run along like little cocker spaniels to support their hopeful future masters, and support this bill.

I shall turn to a couple of points raised by the Minister in his speech. He compared us with Australia. Well, let me tell the Minister that in Australia victims get decent compensation. I know that for a fact. My sister suffered an assault in New South Wales—quite a serious assault—and she got worthwhile compensation from the state of New South Wales, which, I might add, has lower taxes than New Zealand. So it is an issue of choice, is it not? This Government would sooner spend $250 million on wānanga and hip-hop tours and the like, and it ignores the rights of victims. What is the Government’s promise? It has made some sort of deal with the Green Party, which I could impolitely call the “Dope Dealers Party”, and—

💬 Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is outrageous. I request that the member withdraw that comment and apologise. It is totally outrageous.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member has taken offence.

I just referred to a party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, no.

I withdraw and apologise. It is on record, of course, that certain members of the Green Party advocate the legalisation of marijuana. Furthermore, some of them have admitted using marijuana. That is the reality, and no one in that party can deny that fact.

I return to the issue of Australia. That is a clear choice. What is the deal it has done with the party that advocates the legalisation of marijuana? Has there been some kind of study into the rights of victims? In the meantime we have the wānanga, which has lost millions of dollars.

The second point he raised was international law. I heard a discussion today on this issue, and for some reason the Government thinks that it can comply with conventions, only provided there is a monetary compensation regime. That is false. I am one of those people who believe very strongly in the adherence to international law. I believe in the various covenants and conventions that the Government has entered into.

They do not require monetary compensation. Certainly, they require remedies. In fact, National has proposed precisely that in its minority report, and that is an inspectorate of prisons where proper complaints can be made in cases of abuse. It is in our minority report, if only the person would actually note that. So it is a question of providing a remedy.

There is no case for monetary compensation, because the distorted approach the Government and the Greens have—and it was rather well put by Marc Alexander—is to, in an absurd and unreasonable way, tie the victim to the capriciousness of the offender suing. Who is the type of offender who is actually likely to sue? We have the case of one of the worst murderers in New Zealand, Christopher Taunoa. He is a brutal man, subject to the behaviour management regime. He is the sort of person who gets disciplined within prisons. That is what initiated the claim. The Government put up some wimpy, half-hearted defence in the courts, and indeed, I understand, in the select committee, to defend that regime. If it had done it properly he would not have got any compensation. Frankly, a man like that, with all the problems he had, and caused in jail—he is one of the most difficult prisoners in New Zealand—would not have succeeded in his claim. It was a failing in the Crown case in the courts.

National is outraged, on behalf of victims, at this, frankly pathetic, bill. It is pathetic, because it does not do what it should do. It should ban monetary compensation to criminals. The Government has failed to do what it should do, which is to provide a decent compensation regime for victims. There are real choices when one is sorting out priorities for Government expenditure. Surely, innocent victims who suffer lifelong injuries should receive proper compensation for the hurt and injury. The accident compensation regime is in many cases simply not adequate or appropriate. In many cases it depends on having earnings. So the accident compensation regime is insufficient. There needs to be a special regime for victims.

I would like to pose a question to the Minister in the hope that he may answer it. About 150 metres away from here is the Court of Appeal, in Molesworth Street. Effectively, it is our final appellate court, because the Supreme Court is accessible only by leave. In the last 2 days the Court of Appeal has been hearing the case that has established the so-called mischief that this Government seeks to deal with in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. It is bad practice and bad policy for the Government to seek to pre-empt whatever decision the Court of Appeal may make.

Let me put this proposition to the Minister. One of the fundamental issues in the Court of Appeal case is whether the High Court was right in allowing the damages awards to be made. What will happen if, in the next few days, the Court of Appeal states that the High Court was wrong and that those damages awards should not have been made at all? This legislation will then have achieved no purpose, because there will be no mischief at all to deal with. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that that will happen. This Government—in my view, incredibly unwisely—has tried to head off and pre-empt the decision of the Court of Appeal by putting Parliament into urgency.

The doctrine of the separation of powers, based on what Montesquieu said—which the Minister may well be familiar with—states that government has three elements: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This Government has plunged Parliament into urgency in order to cross a very clear constitutional threshold that it should never cross. It is quite acceptable for Parliament in the exercise of its sovereign powers to reverse decisions of the courts. That has been done on a number of occasions. But we are not talking about that in this case. We are talking about this Government pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make an effective decision in respect of the issues that are before it. That is constitutionally reprehensible.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that what is going on in the Court of Appeal with regard to the decision currently under appeal would be “captured by the legislation”. He has not exactly spelt out what he means by “captured by the legislation”, but one assumes that he is talking about the very issue about which I have underscored a concern: that Parliament in this instance is trespassing on judicial process. So the Minister should tread very carefully as he advances this bill.

A number of members have spoken about issues relating to international treaties. Here, again, the Minister has been misled by his advisers. I would like to talk about the issue of international obligations for a moment. In National’s minority report on this bill we touch on that issue very directly. I believe that the officials who have advised the Minister have given him wrong advice—advice that he may come to rue. New Zealand is, of course, a party to a number of international human rights treaties that have been considered in the process of developing the bill. These treaties embody commitments that are binding at international law. The executive has the power and the authority to undertake foreign relations and, as part of this, to negotiate and enter into treaties. Where legislative action is required to give effect to obligations assumed under a treaty, that legislation has to be passed by Parliament before New Zealand becomes a party to the treaty. So it is that we signed the international Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We did that on 14 January 1986, and, in accordance with our treaty obligations, we ratified it on 10 December 1989.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to explain why we will be voting for this bill. I think at the heart of it is that we support human rights. That seems to be a concern to some of the other members here, but we support everyone’s human rights. We support the human rights of members of Parliament, prisoners’ human rights, and victims’ human rights. We are obliged to do that, as the last speaker has indicated, by international conventions such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which he has just mentioned, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Edwin Perry mentioned, and the other conventions that require us to give redress for harm done by the State to any citizen, including people in prisons. This redress does not have an exclusion. There is nothing in these international conventions that states: “and not financial redress”. That is part of it.

One of the things about a person in prison is that the forms of redress are somewhat limited, by virtue of the fact that the person is in prison. We could let them out.

💬 Marc Alexander: They are supposed to be there.

I think Mr Alexander, who has interjected, might be a bit upset if that were a form of redress. One of the other ways is to give them financial redress, which is not actually a lot of use to a person in jail but it does go some way to accommodating the mistreatment. We do see problems in this bill in that under the provisions, in some cases, the whole of the compensation could disappear as a result of a claim, and that could be a disincentive for prisoners taking claims for mistreatment. It is not just a problem for the prisoner, whose human rights we should identify with. If we want to have a disincentive for the State persecuting any citizen, including those in prisons, we have to have a penalty on the State. That is part of the justice system in New Zealand and internationally.

I object to the idea, expressed, I think, by Edwin Perry, that when people go to jail they lose all their human rights. He quoted a friend of his who said that. To not identify with a human being when he or she is being mistreated, to treat that person as some sort of beyond-the-pale person we cannot identify with in any way, is exactly the psychology of the offender. The people who brutally killed those two old people the other day presumably were thinking that way—“We don’t identify with that old man and woman. They are not human beings. We can kill them.” That is the psychology of the offender, and unfortunately that is the psychology I hear around me in this Chamber tonight from the people who are interjecting. They are being as bad, in some ways, as those violent criminals.

The other concept of justice that the Greens promote—restorative justice—is the opposite. It sees both the offender and the victim as human beings and tries to get them to see each other as human beings. It also tries to get the prisoner to show genuine remorse, and thereby rehabilitate himself or herself and be less likely to commit more crimes. If we are really concerned with victims, we have to stop the rates of reoffending—stop people committing more crimes. We are supporting this bill not because it is a good bill; we think it is a bad bill. But if United Future had had its way it would be a terrible bill. It would not have had a sunset clause. When I say it is a bad bill, I say, though, that it does have some good features that Nandor Tanczos will be talking about later, in terms of some benefits for victims. People are saying that Victim Support is against this bill. I was on the select committee when Victim Support came and said that it was totally against this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I will take a United Future speaker, because United Future has over 30 amendments and I think we should hear from the United Future members.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. By my reckoning, this will be the third speech from a United Future member.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): You are exactly right.

💬 Peter Brown: There have been three New Zealand First speakers, and we are a much bigger party than United Future. Come the next election, we are going to be even bigger.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): New Zealand First is indeed a bigger party. I am conscious of that, but I call Mr Adams.

New Zealand First may be a bigger party than United Future at present, but that will shortly change. I rise on behalf of United Future, which is not supporting this bill. It was very interesting to hear Keith Locke. I think that, as close as this is to an election, both the Labour Party and the Green Party have seriously misread public opinion, not only on this bill but on a number of issues. I think the members of those parties should be very, very concerned. Keith Locke has said that we have to consider human rights. I do not think anybody would disagree with that statement, but let us get real about what we are dealing with. We are dealing with prisoners—people who have been put away for committing some horrendous crimes, as we have already heard tonight. Then, all of a sudden, prisoners have been mistreated, and they are seeking compensation. Their victims will have to go through all the drama, and all the emotions, of confronting those people again if they are to try to get any claim on the monies that are being paid to prisoners.

But let us take this issue one step further. If prisoners whom the State is responsible for looking after have their human rights violated, what is to stop two prisoners, both in prison, from all of a sudden staging a set-up, whereby one prisoner would fight another prisoner and then say his or her human rights had been violated? Those prisoners would go through a court case, be paid out a large amount of compensation, and then share the takings between themselves. That happens once we set a precedent for something. Nobody whom I know of would argue that prisoners should not be looked after correctly in prison; all those things we would agree with. But once we start to bring financial payments into any type of situation, unfortunately because of human nature we go across a different line.

I think Marc Alexander has done a tremendous job in this term of Parliament. He has brought victims’ rights before people. Everybody is now beginning to appreciate those rights, and to gain a little understanding of what those poor people have had to put up with and to go through. People can see the effect that victims’ experiences have had on themselves, their families, and their friends, and can see what victims have had to go through in court cases and many other things. Now, all of a sudden, we are bringing in legislation that states that if victims want to have any part of a financial payment to a prisoner, they have to go through a legal process again. They will have to go through all the drama, and have to face the offender.

If we are talking about human rights, we are talking about two lots of people. There is a prisoner who has been locked away because he or she has failed to follow the rules of society. But, on the other side of the equation, in many cases there is a totally innocent human being. All of a sudden, as that person was going through a normal part of his or her life, somebody invaded his or her home, invaded his or her privacy, or destroyed one of his or her family. Yes, the offender and the victim are both humans, but I cannot be convinced that they can both be treated equally in terms of human rights. If we have to weigh up whether one person is likely to suffer more than the other if we proceed with this legislation, I believe that the public of New Zealand would say that there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that the prisoner is the one who should have to suffer more than the victim.

I believe that as we go through this legislation, the public will begin to get stirred up again about this issue. I can guarantee they will get stirred up; they have already been stirred up about this issue. New Zealanders are a people who understand fair play, but they have said very clearly that paying this type of compensation to people who have been put away for committing crime is not in the fair-play basket. The United Nations may have said that we must be aware of prisoners’ rights and human rights—we understand that. But I think we have gone much further than that. Now, in New Zealand, we are beginning to say that we can pay financial compensation for those types of things.

I move, That the question be now put.

Part 1 is on general provisions, and I get the feeling that members would like to get on to the nitty-gritty of the bill in part 2. I will call one member who wants a call and has not had one yet.

I want to comment on the United Future members’ speeches—particularly Marc Alexander’s speech, but even his colleague Paul Adams made a very sensible speech. I know that Marc Alexander has been pushing this issue behind the scenes. I know his frustration and, probably, his anger, but I have to say that if United Future had taken a more forthright position some weeks ago when this bill first emerged, we might well have got the Opposition parties a bit more united and we might have been able to overturn it. We might not have been dependent on the silly Greens. Some good points have been made. Unfortunately, I think United Future should have backed Marc Alexander a week or so ago.

In this debate there seem to be some conflicting opinions around the Committee about whether we should be subject to international law. My understanding is that we are not committed to international law. Despite what the Minister said, we are the master of our own destiny. As one unknown New Zealander said only a few days ago, with regard to our commitment to international law: “Baloney!”.

My second point concerns what the Minister said. This Government is well known for being soft on criminals, particularly on those who have affected victims. The Minister sits there with a look of horror on his face, but I want to show him a headline in the Dominion Post of only a few days ago: “Mob man guilty of attack on police”. The article is about a guy named Gillies who has now attacked another two policemen. Some time ago Gillies attacked a policeman—a sergeant, I think—called Hendrikse and virtually paralysed him with a screwdriver. The policeman has never recovered. Gillies was put in prison. The Government, of its own accord—with no judicial review, no judicial hearing, and no hearing whatsoever—awarded five criminals $325,000. That was in the Government’s last term. In this term it wants to legalise that. In the Government’s last term it did that, and in this term it wants to legalise its action. The Government gave that guy Gillies $40,000, and he is now back in prison after attacking policemen in a vicious manner. That is the sort of person to whom this bill gives compensation.

Many people have spoken about whether prisoners have rights. Of course they have rights—minimum rights, like the right to food. No one is trying to take that from them, are they? Nobody is taking away prisoners’ right to shelter—to accommodation. We have already removed, through legislation, their right to receive accident compensation payments once they are in prison. We have already removed prisoners’ right to vote. What we are talking about, with regard to this bill, is whether prisoners should have the right to sue and whether, if they take an action and win, they should be entitled to compensation. New Zealand First has taken a compromise position, a midway position. We understand that prisoners could have the right to sue if the Department of Corrections mucks them around. But we will not agree to their getting a cent of that money—not a single cent. As this bill is drafted—and the Greens will support this—prisoners will get some of the money, and perhaps a large measure of it. They will not get all of it, but they will get a significant amount in certain circumstances. Tony Ryall intimated the circumstances in which prisoners could get a considerable amount. Where there is no victim to pay out—the offender may have shot and killed the victim—the prisoner could get a residue. Where the crime has no obvious victim—I am trying to think of an example; I did have one in mind before—the prisoner can get a payout. New Zealand First objects strongly to that.

Many law-abiding New Zealanders have spoken to me. I am surprised that those people do not talk to the Labour Party, because many of them have said to me: “Peter, for God’s sake, stop this bill. We don’t want prisoners getting compensation.” Those prisoners are the scumbags of this country. They do evil deeds—my colleague Edwin Perry illustrated quite clearly what some of them have been up to—and they are now being given the chance to get legal aid to sue the Department of Corrections for compensation. We mollycoddle prisoners in this country, to some degree. This very day I have seen a protocol signed between the Department of Corrections and the Office of the Ombudsmen, yet the Greens are saying that that is not enough. That protocol almost gives prisoners two lumps of sugar in every cup of tea they want. That is not enough for the Greens; they want to have an independent prisons inspectorate.

There should be no way at all for someone who commits a crime and who is sent to prison for it to come out wealthy. That could well happen here. Under this bill it could happen, if someone who has been sent to prison for a horrendous crime gets in some sort of fracas, as Paul Adams illustrated a little while ago—and there are easier ways than by fighting with another prisoner; all one has to do is antagonise a prison guard, get him or her to retaliate, and the prisoner will come out wealthy. That is not on.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise the fact that I have been requesting a call for some time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member will leave it to the Chairperson.

Mr Chairperson, I appreciate that you had intended to close the debate on this part, but the Minister might wish to consider an amendment—a technical improvement—to clause 9. Indeed, I am concerned that without such a change the whole bill looks more cynical and calculating than the Minister probably intends.

In the last line of clause 9 the term “victim’s claim” is defined by reference to “the offence”, but it does not say which offence is meant. The offence that a victim of a crime is complaining about may be an offence that never resulted in a conviction. For example, many burglars admit to a whole string of burglaries but may be charged with, and convicted for, only a representative group—three or four of them. The police can then record the rest of the offences as cleared, advise the victims that they have been cleared, and tell them who the offender is. But in this situation, as I read this clause, none of those extra victims would be entitled to claim compensation. I think the phrase “the offence” in clause 9 must refer to the offence for which the offender was convicted. It is defined as the offence for which the offender was convicted. From the definition in clause 4, it seems that “offence” is general. But I believe that when we use the phrase “the offence” it relates to the offence of the offender.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Offence as defined in the bill.

Yes, but the offence as defined in the bill would have to be one that was established. The Minister may be right, but I am not sure how the court would know which offence is referred to when the term in this clause is specific. If it said “an offence” then the Minister’s contention would be beyond all doubt. Certainly the claimant would still have to establish that an offence had been committed.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: The offence convicted on.

Well, if it is the offence convicted on, then all those other complainants are victims of that offender, but not for the offence that finally sent him or her to prison. There will be many circumstances where offenders may have confessed—certainly, on a civil standard, it could be established that they had committed offences—but those offences have never been the ones that resulted in the prisoner being imprisoned. I think that the word “the” is unnecessarily specific. It should not cause any trouble to the scheme of this legislation if “an” offence is used. It expands it to avoid doubt. Certainly, if Tony Ellis were acting for a prisoner who was trying to hang on to his or her windfall gains, he would try to require that the only claims that could be established were those that related to the offence that put the offender in prison.

For example, if a claim was made right at the end of a prison term by someone who had committed multiple offences, the claim would probably relate only to the offence that had put the prisoner in prison for the longest time, because his or her earlier imprisonment periods would have expired. If the word “the” is changed and accepted, I do not think there will be any risk to the Crown, and I do not think there will be any risk to the legitimate rights of the offender. It still has to be proved that there has been an offence, but we will not get the possibility of this technical restriction that I am sure the drafter never intended. I believe that, at least, the drafter probably wanted victims’ claims to extend to any claim that related to an offence committed by one of those lucky offenders who managed to claim under the Human Rights Act, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or any of those other judge-invented grounds of claim.

I suggest to the Minister, Rick Barker, that the officials on hand—and he has a whole bench of them—should be able to confirm to him that there is nothing malign in changing the word “the” to “an”. It is obvious that the Minister wants to kick for touch, although the Government has had years to think about these issues. In this case it is very late. When I was trying to consider what the Minister said by way of explanation in envisaging the sorts of claims we would get, I thought that the only way a prisoner would be deprived of one of those substantial claims would be if a whole lot of his or her victims fronted up. Very few of the victims would be likely to be able to show that they were entitled to exemplary damages. Those who could establish exemplary damages might establish them only for an offence for which the offender is no longer in prison.

Recent contributions to the debate show the importance of allowing it to proceed without being closed down by premature closure motions. I refer in particular to my learned colleague Richard Worth’s contribution to broadening our understanding of international treaty obligations and what they mean in terms of human rights. My learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp also expanded on those international obligations. Those contributions were important, and relevant to broadening the understanding of the Parliament. I, like one or two others, wonder how far we need to go to meet those obligations, when I believe that criminals, in committing offences, abdicate their right to other than basic human rights—which are food, shelter, and reasonable treatment. It is time we became tough on crime, instead of soft on crime. This bill is soft on crime. We should not allow any form of compensation, and I am delighted that National opposes this bill.

Tony Ryall has made a very sensible recommendation that we should have an inspectorate of our prisons, rather than go to the extent of this bill. After all, if criminals are allowed to sue for compensation, then they are entitled to legal aid. A whole tribunal structure has been created to assist that process. Let us think of the costs of that. The hard-working, earning Kiwis of New Zealand, are paying that cost. Is there any constraint on the amount of legal aid that is allowed to be accessed? Is there a cap or any sort of limit on legal aid? I have not seen that in this bill. What would be reasonable access to any form of legal aid? Again, I say I am glad National does not support what would be a considerable waste of taxpayers’ money in allowing criminals to sue and to swallow up more of those hard-working taxpayers’ dollars.

The bill also encourages rorts on the system, as has been enunciated tonight—for instance, by setting up fights between prisoners, whereby one would be the offender and the other the victim. There would be a very real likelihood of that, because those people are criminals—they have a criminal intent. If they cannot rort the system out in the public arena, they will do it in the confines of their prison in any way, shape, or form they can use. They have abdicated their right to expect anything other than basic rights. They will make prison a hell for prison officers and, I suggest, for other prisoners. They are an affront to all victims.

There was a clamour, right throughout New Zealand, that prisoners should not get access to compensation—and what have we done? We have given them access to compensation. Earlier my learned colleague Richard Worth raised that amazing point about the Court of Appeal decision and about this Government pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make a decision. I find it extraordinary that by putting this bill through in urgency tonight, we are putting ourselves in the position of doing that. This Government has put us in the position of pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make a decision.

My learned colleague Richard Worth said that that is constitutionally reprehensible, and I completely agree. I find it an extraordinary move by this Government. However, one could almost expect that type of incompetence under this current Government. Perhaps the Minister, Rick Barker, would take a call to explain his comment about his expecting the Court of Appeal to “be captured by the legislation”. Perhaps he might like to take a call to explain to us exactly what he meant by that. Was it the intention of this Government to make some sort of constitutionally reprehensible move in terms of the Court of Appeal being able to make a decision? Perhaps the Minister would take a call to explain that to us. Then we heard the bizarre statements made by Green members that this is bad law but that they will support it. Doh! How sensible is that?

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I try to be very fair. This part is on general provisions, and it is my view that we have covered it quite substantially.

Other typescript amendments in the name of Marc Alexander to omit definitions of “account”, “immediate family”, “incapable”, “judgment”, “parent”, “Secretary”, “Secretary of the Tribunal”, “Tribunal”, “victim”, and “victim’s claim” are out of order because the question has already been decided.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit the definition of compensation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification, because the member Matt Robson was not in his own seat when he cast the vote. I wonder whether it is in order for him to cast the vote from anywhere in the Chamber other than from his seat. [Interruption] My point of order is that the member cast a vote while standing but not from his own seat, and there was also some doubt as to whether he was casting the vote for or against. I seek some clarification.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I remind members that there will be silence while a point of order is being raised. I thank the member for raising the point. I accepted the vote from Matt Robson. He did change it, but I was certain as to what he wanted, although I should have said, before that, that there is to be no talking during a vote, and certainly no exclamation or assistance given to the voter. I just make that point clear.

I raise a further point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that the member needs to be seated, rather than standing in the aisle, which is where the member was when he was confused about which way he was actually casting the vote. I would like a ruling on where he should have been positioned when he cast his vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is sufficient for tonight. I thank Mr Tisch for again enlarging on that matter, but I accepted the member’s vote. Members should be seated. That is the requirement, but it is entirely up to the Chair. I did accept his vote. I knew where it came from, I knew what he intended, and I will let the matter rest there. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance. Parliament is currently in urgency to consider urgent matters. I would like to know what the procedure is for the rather unusual step of the Opposition wanting to add something to the urgency motion. Can we do that by leave during the Committee stage, or would we need to call the Speaker back?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If the Opposition wished to pursue that, the Speaker would, of course, need to be recalled, because that is a matter to be dealt with by the House. The urgency motion has been passed and dealt with for the purposes of this Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek further advice. I notice that there is an urgent matter on the Order Paper that is likely to fall off in the very near future. It is a notice of motion that was lodged on 7 December 2004, and I think that notices of motion stay on the Order Paper for only a limited number of days—something like 42 days. We must be coming rapidly to a point when this particular notice of motion will fall off the Order Paper. I seek your guidance as to whether there could be a discussion with the Speaker—perhaps tomorrow morning, or at some other convenient time—as to whether it would be possible to have something like this important notice of motion added to the urgency motion. Effectively, a Cabinet Minister has been referred to as a traitor, and the House most certainly should have something to say about that, particularly since that particular Cabinet Minister was only too quick to use the word “traitor” himself about an official in his own department who has taken an important step in recent days for the public good of New Zealand.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member has sufficiently described the motion. I thank him for raising that issue. I have no doubt that the Speaker will be prepared to listen to the member in the morning, as suggested. Members’ notices of motion fall off the Order Paper, but Ministers’ notices of motion stay on it. That is perhaps the reason why that one remains on the Order Paper. The Speaker will, I am sure, be only too happy to discuss the matter in the morning.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No. I have dealt with it.

I am seeking guidance on the matter, as it involves a member of my party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am always happy to guide the member.

Mr Chairperson, I am not sure whether you will mention this to prepare the Speaker for a possible application for a ruling or guidance on this issue. If you do, would you mind alerting the Speaker to the fact that ACT will probably be interested in whether there is some means, like a leave process, by which the member who is the subject of this motion could bring it up so that it is debated, given the circumstances.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is almost in line with what I ruled; it is a matter for the morning. I thank the member for raising it.

Part 2 Prisoners’ and victims’ claims