Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 June 2010, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, passed by the previous Government, contains two important provisions that are due to expire on 30 June 2010. First, the Act restricts the awarding of compensation to prisoners to those situations where no other remedy is deemed appropriate. Second, if compensation must be awarded, the Act allows victims of the prisoner to claim against it before the prisoner can access the money. This amendment bill extends these provisions for a further 2 years to ensure that victims are not locked out of this process from 1 July of this year. This is a transitional measure to ensure that victims’ access to prisoners’ compensation does not lapse prior to the introduction of further legislation in this area later this year.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, I am afraid to report, has not worked as well as what, perhaps, was intended. At the time that Labour introduced the legislation the then Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, predicted that it “will restrict compensation for inmates to exceptional cases … Where payments are made, it maximises the prospect that victims will be the beneficiaries, and I make no apology for that,”. Since the Act came into force 17 awards of compensation have been subject to the victims’ claims process and finalised, totalling over $139,000. The Act has allowed over $25,000 of that amount to be paid in reparations owed to victims. However, only four out of the 17 awards have been the subject of successful victims’ claims, totalling over $38,000 paid out to victims. This has meant that prisoners have still received over $60,000 at the end of the process. Unfortunately, payments to prisoners on 13 out of 17 occasions can hardly constitute exceptional cases. It has to be said that without the victims’ claims process put in place by this Act, admittedly, and giving credit to the last Government, prisoners would have received the whole amount. But clearly—and, perhaps, understandably—there is reluctance on the part of victims to claim against an offender’s payout, and that is working to the benefit of the offenders.

The Government’s policy, as outlined before the election, is to provide that when compensation is awarded to a prisoner, anything remaining after the prisoner’s victims have sought redress will be redirected to the victims’ services appropriation. As the House will be aware, the victims’ services appropriation is being used to fund additional services and entitlements for victims generally. This appropriation already includes funding from the disestablished Criminal Justice Advisory Board—that seems like a long time ago now—and the Sentencing Council, and will be accompanied by revenue generated by another Government initiative: the $50 levy to be imposed on offenders from 1 July 2010. In October last year I announced eight new initiatives to be funded by the appropriation. Three are already under way, and the remaining five will commence on 1 July. Until legislation is ready to redirect unclaimed compensation into the victims’ services appropriation, this bill is necessary to ensure that the direct victims of prisoners continue to have priority in compensation awards.

The previous Government also predicted that the Act would deter further compensation claims by inmates, “as there will be no financial incentive for them to do so … if … the first call on any damages given to any prisoner who is wronged goes to the victims the offender has wronged.” However, there are currently a further eight awards at various stages of the victims’ claims process; a much greater number of outstanding claims still exist as a result of the behaviour management regime, which was found to breach prisoners’ human rights when it operated at Auckland prison from 1998 to 2004. Most important, this bill ensures that those claims will continue to be covered by the existing prisoners’ and victims’ claims regime. The bill also clarifies that if a prisoner makes a claim before 1 July 2012, any compensation payable as a result of that claim will be subject to the victims’ claims process in the Act, regardless of whether the claim is resolved by that date.

The applicability of the process was previously in doubt due to a drafting ambiguity. The Government does take the matter of prisoner mistreatment seriously. The best way to reduce such complaints from prisoners is to stop these breaches from occurring in the first place. However, where breaches occur the responsible agencies need to be held to account, and retaining compensation as a remedy will continue to act as a disincentive for ill treatment. I commend this bill to the House.

I say from the outset that, given that the previous Labour Government drafted and passed the original legislation, we will support the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. It is, in essence, a technical amendment to further extend and to bridge for some 2 years the provisions of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act to, as the Minister of Justice said, ensure that current claims will continue to be covered by the legislation.

I suspect even the most hardened souls in this Parliament, although I wait in anticipation, would acknowledge that two wrongs do not make a right. I do not think that anybody in this House thinks that a prisoner should be assaulted; nor would anybody agree that a prison officer or anybody else should be assaulted or experience inappropriate behaviour towards them. That in no way, of course, negates the gravity of what a prisoner had done to the primary victim—the victim in the community, who may well have been raped, assaulted, or worse. We are in danger, as politicians in this Parliament, of sometimes pontificating at people. I am one person in this Parliament who has to acknowledge that I have never been a victim of a crime. It is easy for me to be, as it were, less emotional and possibly more logical because I have not had a loved one who has been dealt to by an individual. I always acknowledge that and am mindful of that as we have these debates. I suspect that had I or a member of my family been dealt to in tragic circumstances such as we have read about in the papers over the last year or two, I would probably be rather more animated and probably less tolerant in respect of my response to that crime. That being said, as I have said before, I do not think anybody would tolerate a wrong being done to a member of the community; likewise it serves no just purpose for a wrong to be done to somebody who is incarcerated.

However, in my view, it also serves no just purpose that a person who has wronged a member of our community gains compensation for a wrong done against them. That is not appropriate, and that compensation should be put up for the original victim of the crime to access. That was the intent, if you will, of this legislation. I quote from Mark Burton in 2004: “The reason that Parliament passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act was precisely to recognise that victims have the right to make a claim against any such compensation and to simplify the procedure for doing so.” The Minister is correct that there have been some difficulties with that legislation. Its intent, I think, was absolutely clear. Despite some political comments that I am sure will be made by people other than the Minister, the legislation showed that the previous Government’s intent was to deny those who had done wrong the opportunity to be compensated—and, also, that that compensation was a sanction imposed on those who had offended against that person in incarceration—and, equally, to allow the victim in the community to take advantage and to gain some of the money or resources in respect of that compensation.

The Minister was right when he said that the easy way to fix this was to stop breaches against prisoners’ rights. However, I note, in passing, the Government’s measures to cut the budgets of our correctional institutions and organisations like the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, a 132-year-old institution, which I call a protector of victims’ rights. Some would say that that is rehabilitation, which does not work so they are against it. I say that that organisation is actually a protector of our community, because it tries to change the behaviour of people who have committed wrongs inside our prisons, in the hope that they do not offend again and create further victims, future victims, in our community. The Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society is actually a victim protection organisation, a community protection organisation, yet this Government has chosen to cut the resources to it.

It is interesting also that the Minister talked of victims’ rights, and I support him in his comments. Despite all the political rhetoric we heard before the election from some minor party now represented in this House, I wager that not one member on any side would say that he or she was not prepared to stand by and support victims. I wager that not one member on any side of this Parliament would say that we should not have victim support, but that it is a right for victims to be supported, whether that is by having a shoulder to cry on, or whether it is counselling support or monetary resource.

I note that victims of sexual crime—some of the most heinous and disgraceful crimes against innocent members of our community, whether children, young women, young men, or elderly folk—had been eligible for accident compensation and counselling, and for psychiatric assistance. They have been through physical torture, and then go through mental torture for the rest of their lives. Yet, as we debate a victims’ rights bill and a victims’ support bill—this is germane, I tell the House—this Government has told the Accident Compensation Corporation to cut costs. Now victims of heinous sexual crime, who are tortured mentally every day of their lives, are being denied basic counselling services. I am told—and I am not trying to be grotesque about this—that a number of those victims have taken their own lives recently. That is sad; that is a tragedy. That is a responsibility that will be visited upon those who denied them that assistance.

I say that this bill is appropriate. It is a technical bill, and we will support it. But when we come to talk of victims’ rights, I am waiting for the ACT Party to get up and give us its view on the denial of counselling services to victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault. It is interesting that during the debate on the accident compensation aspects of the bill, where victims are now being denied those basic services as they go through life, there was not a whimper, not a word of protest, from the ACT Party or Mr Garrett, who purported to be the only person—I think he once said—who stood by victims. I wait with great interest, as we debate this technical bill that has bipartisan support, at least, for Mr Garrett and his ilk from the ACT Party to tell us whether they support the Government decision to deny those who have been assaulted or worse through sexual crime, the basic counselling services they need to get through their lives. That is what is happening every day in our community. I would wager that in every electorate office around this country, whether those offices are Labour or National, Green or ACT, women and men have come into our offices after tragic circumstances, who cannot in any way now access those services through ACC.

There are those in our community, and some commentators, who say “Hang on, that is not an accident. That’s not something ACC should cover.” Well, I ask them who should cover it if they were the victims. I do not care who covers it. I say that the State should cover it, and I say that the State has a responsibility to be the shoulder that that victim can cry on, and the agency that provides the services, counselling, and support that the victim needs. The State has a responsibility.

Labour will support this legislation—we wrote it and we passed it. I acknowledge, as the Minister has said, that it has had some difficulties. I look forward to some of the learned professionals who claim to be the ones who stand by victims, who claim to have victims’ rights at the heart of their political policy, and who say they have stood by victims in other places outside this House, to get up and address that issue. I know of no other issue that is more important than that. We have men and women in our communities who have no support, apart from their whānau or loved ones, if they have them. They have no professional counselling, because that has been denied to them. If we are really serious about victims’ rights, I say that that, along with this legislation, is something that fundamentally we must and should address.

I thank the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove, for his contribution and for a number of the comments that he has made.

One of them was that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is a technical piece of legislation—and it is. It will receive support, as I understand it, from across the House, and so it should, because all of us would agree that the offender who finds himself in custody, and then through some other circumstance finds himself with access to a significant amount of money, should be forced to pay his victims out first; or, at least, his victims should have the opportunity to make a claim against that new-found wealth, no matter how it was achieved. Unfortunately, if the offender happens to win it in Lotto, victims will have to go through protracted court proceedings to get their mitts on any money that he may have. But, under this legislation, victims have the ability to make a claim before the victims’ special claims tribunal to access money.

The bill will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank the committee members who have served on that committee from time to time. This is the 17th piece of legislation that has come before that committee over the term of this Government, and 12 pieces of legislation have exited and been reported back to the House. We would just like to pat ourselves on the back for a moment, and say that that is more legislation than has been reported back from any other select committee. We look forward to discussing these matters when they come before us.

This legislation shuts another door. What I am mindful of is that, over the course of this Government and previous Governments, we have shut a number of doors in respect of those who find themselves in custody. What we also know from experience, and from our learning over generations, is that a number of people who find themselves to be offenders and quite rightly behind bars have found themselves at some stage to be victims, too. We, as a civilised society, must stop closing our minds to that. We need to address things within the history of those inmates in prison, so that they do not go on to create further victims. So, whereas I fully support this legislation, I also fully support any move to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders or to run programmes of a restorative nature in prison.

I will pick up on something that the previous speaker said. Clayton Cosgrove was saying that the victims of sexual abuse and other abuse had traditionally had their counselling paid for by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). For a number of years now, especially since 2003, report after report has asked whether ACC should be the agency dealing with these matters. The throwaway line that the member used was “Well, abuse is not an accident.” Actually, if we scrutinise it, we see that it is not an accident. What we do know is that successive Governments, in spite of that fact, have allowed ACC to become the provider of all those counselling services, when those services could quite rightly and quite justifiably sit more appropriately under a mental health cap, for instance, or under a Ministry of Social Development cap. That is where they should be.

💬 Lynne Pillay: No funding; there’s no funding.

I will take the point of Ms Pillay, who is calling out right now, and say we do not care whose bucket it comes out of, as long as the taxpayer—

💬 Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take issue with that. I did not say that we do not care. I said that this Government has cut the funding.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a debating point.

I want to make it quite clear that I was not saying that she does not care.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What recourse does the Opposition have when a Government member deliberately misrepresents an interjection from the Opposition?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has taken offence, under Standing Order 116 she can state her objection. But a member cannot litigate a debating point; that is a matter of debate, whether or not the member likes it. But if the member has taken offence, Standing Order 116 allows some recourse.

💬 Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have taken offence, given that that is certainly not what I said.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are not getting into a debate of whether it is right or wrong. I hear the point. I ask the member to withdraw the comment.

I withdraw and apologise. I apologise because I was not clear enough in what I said. I did not say, and I certainly did not intend to say, that the member had said “We do not care.” or imply in any way that the people on the other side of the House or in any other part of the House do not care.

The point that I was trying to make was that we, as citizens of this country, do not care who, or what bucket, what portfolio, or what Government agency, gets dipped into to pay for funding for counselling. We only care that it is funded. Surely the member has no complaint about that. Because we quite rightly expect that if someone who has been abused as a result of an attack—whether it be sexual abuse, physical abuse, or anything else—needs counselling, then the wherewithal to cover the cost of that counselling will be met by the taxpayer. My criticism has been that we have traditionally allowed ACC to do that, when quite rightly it fits within other portfolios, which have escaped it. That is what the Government is trying to put right at this stage.

This bill will receive support from across the House, and so it should. But the point I am trying to make is this: while we run around within the criminal justice area, shutting doors on free and democratic rights in a civilised society that it is incumbent on the State to provide for people in its custody, we must remember the other side of their offending, which needs to be addressed. To leave them without access to rehabilitation—as successive Governments have done, which, as we are addressing now—was wrong. We need to recognise them for the people they are, and to recognise all the things that interact to affect their behaviour and their existence, with the result that they offend against victims of crime. I hope that at some stage this House will scrutinize as to exactly what we provide for people behind bars as closely as we scrutinise what we provide for people outside. Thank you.

On behalf of the Labour Opposition, I stand to add my comments to those of Clayton Cosgrove, who spoke previously, that we support the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I will talk briefly about the purpose of the bill and give some history.

The original bill was introduced by the Labour Government in 2004 and came into effect in 2005. It regulated the awarding of compensation to prisoners for breaches of their rights. The Act also provided a regime whereby victims of compensated prisoners can claim for damages, payment for which would come out of the prisoners’ compensation awarded. When Labour brought the bill forward, it was done as a matter of justice so that victims of crime would get some redress.

We are supporting, effectively, a roll-over or an extension of 2 years of the application of this Act. The Government has said that it will be introducing a second prisoners’ and victims’ claims amendment bill later this year. Certainly, we see this amendment bill as a minor technical change. The Government will have no opposition from this side of the House to legislation that will improve services and support to victims.

My friend Chester Borrows, who spoke previously, began very well by commending the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I think that was a very sensible thing to do, because the committee is hard-working. But I was very, very disappointed in Chester Borrows—I did not take offence at his comments because I do not think there was any malice intended—when he talked about the accident compensation scheme maybe not being the appropriate vehicle for compensation for victims of sexual assault. That may not be the case, but that is the system we have in place. That is the system whereby victims of sexual assault and serious crime receive the counselling they need and deserve. It is the only, and currently the appropriate, way for those victims to receive counselling. Chester Borrows simply did not understand that. But I will not stand in this House and blame him. Do members know why? It is because the Minister for ACC does not get it, either.

The Minister for ACC, despite the advice he is given, does not understand the reality for victims of sexual assault in New Zealand, as it is at the moment. Despite professionals, psychotherapists, counsellors, and survivors of sexual assault writing to the Minister, this unfortunate experiment that is happening, as Chester Borrows spoke of previously, is not providing victims with the support they need and deserve. That is a very, very serious situation. I know that the other two speakers before me have made considerable comments on that point, and I feel it is appropriate, given Chester Borrows’ statements, that I clarify to the House that that is certainly not the situation. The cutting of services and support provided by accident compensation has been absolutely dreadful. Although the intention was to save the Accident Compensation Corporation money, in terms of providing counselling services, the human cost is absolutely immeasurable.

I commend Simon Power for some of the work he is doing for victims’ rights, but I urge the Minister to talk to Nick Smith and explain the situation to him—in fact, I suggest that they have a caucus session on it. Clearly, Chester Borrows, who is a well-meaning member, who has been very committed in terms of the Justice and Electoral Committee, does not understand. I can see that there is clearly a big communication dysfunction within the National caucus. Perhaps if that was cleared, then we would not have the sad situation that we see for victims of—

💬 Simon Bridges: No problems in your caucus!

I will not respond to that joke at the moment. I do not think this is a joking matter.

💬 Simon Bridges: You were just being sarcastic about—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot bring the Speaker into the debate.

💬 Simon Bridges: The member was just being sarcastic about this side of the House.

In terms of the challenge that I am being sarcastic, I am merely speaking the truth. The truth is that going from 300 to 400 cases a month down to six cases receiving the support they need and deserve is a travesty; it is an absolute travesty. That member needs to take note of what is happening, and needs to raise the issue in his caucus, as indeed I hope that Simon Power, the Minister of Justice, will.

I want to move on and talk about some of the other issues for victims of crime in this country. The previous Labour Government passed the Sentencing Act, which went quite a considerable way in terms of victims’ rights. In respect of restorative justice, the Labour Government passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002, which gave victims the right to information and the ability to have input into sentencing decisions. That went a long way towards providing more support for the victims of crime in our country. As we know, the aim of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 was to ensure that victims of inmates could claim against any compensation that those inmates were awarded. I look forward to further improvements to what has already been put in place being brought into this House, as the Government has said it will do.

Also, very important in terms of victims’ rights, we can look at the introduction of the Victims Charter in February 2008. That was developed so that victims would be aware of the services and support that were available to them. At this time I acknowledge all the good work that many agencies throughout New Zealand do for victims, including Women’s Refuge, Victim Support, and those who operate the 0800 line that was introduced under the previous Labour Government, which gave more support to victims. More funding was also introduced by Labour to support victims of domestic violence through the processes of the Family Court. There was also the introduction of independent victim support advocates, who provide support for victims of domestic violence.

Although we have seen some progress on victims’ rights, and I acknowledge that, it is very sad—as many people in women’s refuge organisations have said—that we still have a very good bill dealing with domestic violence victims’ rights languishing on the Order Paper. Why? It is because it is a Labour bill. I ask this House to consider putting aside party politics and to look at what is best for victims. I take this opportunity, if I may, to request that the Government give very careful consideration to moving that bill forward on the Order Paper so that real improvements are made with regard to victims’ rights and there is more support for victims of domestic violence.

As I said before, there will not be any opposition to this bill from Labour members. Indeed, any bill that provides support or services for victims has our support. But I would also say that it is a pity that the Minister for ACC does not have in his mind the same principle of supporting people who are victims and survivors of serious sexual assault. Thank you.

Kia ora koutou. I fear that I will disappoint an earlier speaker in his assumption that no opposition to this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill would be spoken in the House. In the very short time since we have had access to this proposed legislation, we have been confronted with the difficulty that the Greens supported the final reading of the legislation that this bill now seeks to extend for a further 2 years. On balance, however, we will oppose this bill, as we think it is unfortunate that only a matter of a few months before the sunset clause in this 5-year-old legislation takes effect, there is a somewhat belated attempt to leave in place inadequate legislation while work is done to develop a better alternative.

It has been admitted by members who have spoken from both sides of the House so far that this legislation has not been a success. It has not generated or presented the outcomes that were hoped for it, and we think time and energy would be better spent finding more positive and long-term solutions to the undoubtedly important task of securing just and fair outcomes for victims of crime, while also ensuring that the basic human rights of prisoners are acknowledged and preserved, in line with both our domestic and international law and conventions.

We can safely predict that this position will once again make us vulnerable and will stimulate certain parties to accuse us again of being soft on crime or of being out of step with public expectations and preferences. In fact, we believe that the public mood is for outcomes that genuinely work, rather than those that reflect the very narrow and very punitive approach of a few. That is a point that I will refer to later.

The 2005 Act restricts awards of compensation sought by specified human rights claims made by persons under the State’s control or supervision. It provides for the making and determination of claims that the victim of a prisoner may make against compensation paid in respect of specified human rights claims made by a prisoner. It is a somewhat convoluted and complex solution to what was a very real problem. It is worth recalling that at the time, the legislation was triggered by findings that there had been systemic breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly under the so-called behaviour management programme at Auckland prison. These breaches included a failure to allow inmates on the behaviour management programme adequate opportunities to exercise, a failure to notify the medical officer when inmates were put under the programme, and issues related to basic hygiene, cell cleanliness, and access to clean clothing. Strip-searches were routinely undertaken by officers with an inadequate understanding of the grounds for conducting such searches. Many of those searches, therefore, did not comply with sections of the Penal Institutions Act. The court held that taken individually, these unlawful acts would not have been sufficient to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but taken in combination they revealed treatment falling “well below standards that befit a human being”, including the treatment of a person behaving badly in prison, and, therefore, constituted breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

We originally opposed the 2005 bill that became the Act that the Government is seeking to extend due to our concerns that it could be seen to violate prisoners’ rights. It removed a mechanism for stopping abuse in prisons and went only a short way towards meeting the needs and legitimate expectations of victims of crime. We listened to the debate at the time and we changed our position to support its third reading, on the clear understanding that there would be a comprehensive inquiry into prisoners’ rights. This inquiry was duly put in place. It reported back to this House in December 2007. It must be said that that report contained some very good recommendations, but there is too little evidence that those recommendations were picked up by the previous Government or, indeed, the present Government. For example, the report proposed in 2007 a one-stop shop for victim support—a properly resourced agency that would ensure victims had access to adequate information, services, and outcomes that were appropriate to their needs. It would be an agency that did not rely solely on the goodwill of many hundreds of volunteers. Too much of the victim support work being done in this country now is left to non-governmental organisations and to poorly resourced voluntary and private organisations.

The report proposed in 2007 the establishment of a compensation regime focused on recompensing victims for their loss. It recommended a gap analysis to identify where victims’ needs were not being met, and various other quite admirable proposals were made. Some good advances have been made since then. The Victims Charter was mentioned earlier. That was a positive outcome. But it is difficult to support an argument that the victims of crime are substantially better off now than they were 5 years ago.

There is a still glaring need to establish an independent prison investigative authority, which the Greens have long advocated for. We could model such an agency on the very good examples established in Britain or Western Australia. We will oppose this legislation, which, in its present form, has been more symbolic than real. Very few victims have benefited from it. Very few affected prisoners have taken advantage of the provisions within it. Arguably, very few of them know of it or would choose to use it.

The legislation overall and its continuance are symptomatic of the view that prisoners should lose any rights, which was specifically proposed by a Government member speaking earlier in this debate about prisoners’ voting rights. Treating prisoners as non-citizens, as people not possessing rights or not deserving of rights, is entirely counter-productive and worsens post-release integration problems. There is ample reason to adopt a more enlightened approach.

Evidence from Scandinavia, and especially from Norway, shows that those systems that give most regard to human rights, and impose the fewest denials of human rights on convicted people, deliver the lowest levels of reconviction. Norway, for example, has a reconviction rate of 20 percent, whereas ours is effectively double that. Imagine the financial savings and the benefits in terms of social and individual well-being we might see if we could emulate that reconviction rate here, if we could cut our reconviction rate in half.

I mentioned that the provisions of this legislation are complex. In Finland we know that victims of crime are compensated by the State, which then enacts appropriate measures against offenders to endeavour to recoup some of what has been paid to the offender. It is a much cleaner, more straightforward, and much more appropriate mechanism than this rather convoluted legislation that we are confronted with. The concern that prisoners might somehow gain financial benefit that is denied to the victim is very easily resolved, and that point was made by the Minister presenting the bill. If we put in place more and better mechanisms to protect the human rights of prisoners and ensure they are treated in accordance with national and international law and convention, then there will be no avenue for offenders to gain financial redress.

There are solutions available to the admittedly very complex problem of needing to provide fair recompense to victims of crime without compromising our commitment to humane treatment and human rights for all citizens. But those solutions will not be found in perpetuating inadequate and dated legislation. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa, e hoa mā, i tēnei pō.

💬 Paul Quinn: You’re back.

I am back. From the Māori Party’s perspective, I will cut to the chase straightaway. At the nub of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is the issue of human rights, including a person’s right to a reasonable way of life, even when in prison. I refer the House to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which our Government is required to ensure that inmates are treated with dignity, and that effective remedies are available when violations of those rights occur.

One would think that human rights should have always been up there in our history, but when we look back, it has not been so. One hundred and thirty years ago, this Parliament passed the 1879 Maori Prisoners Trials Act and the Maori Prisoners Act. That legislation was the Government’s racist response to the passive non-violent land-rights occupation—well, it was talked about as being occupation, but in fact it was a stake in the land—for those people of Parihaka. Under those laws, prisoners were held indefinitely without trial, contrary to one of the most basic rights guaranteed to all British citizens and set out in the Magna Carta.

As a part of that history, an important player at the time was the member of Parliament for Northern Māori, a man by the name of Hone Mohi Tāwhai, who served in this House from 1870 to 1884. History tells us that he was asked to sit on what was called the West Coast Royal Commission on the grounds that he would be impartial, not having been in any war, and, for his part, he decided to take some pretty radical actions. He opposed the prisoners detention bill that was being rushed through the House. He refused to support blindfolded such a hurried set of measures. He publicly criticised the shipping of Māori prisoners from Taranaki to jails in Dunedin, because he knew that that was just a move to get rid of them. He also knew that they would die in the colder climate. He also refused to sit on a commission with a gentleman by the name of William Fox and another gentleman by the name of Francis Dillon Bell because of their involvement in the land confiscations in Taranaki. Mr Tāwhai, an honourable member of Parliament in his time, had one clear message during the discussion: laws not made in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi would be the cause of ill feeling between Māori and Pākehā, and he urged Parliament not to pass laws from which such evils would flow.

I recall Mr Tāwhai as we consider this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, because it is desperately important that we remind ourselves always about our commitment to human rights, just as I also remind us of the 2004 United Nations Committee Against Torture review of New Zealand, which expressed the concern about “the findings of the Ombudsman regarding investigations of alleged staff assaults on inmates, in particular regarding the reluctance to confront such allegations promptly, and the quality, impartiality, and credibility of investigations.” That is a damning finding, which emerged, as members may well recall, from the inquiries into the running of the Mangaroa Prison in Hawke’s Bay some years ago. The inquiries found systematic beatings and torture of prisoners by senior prison officers. They used hit squads to beat the inmates. They held inmates naked in overnight pens and lock-ups outside. They also denied inmates medical attention for injuries for injuries such as bruising, black eyes, and cracked ribs. The key is that although the public expressed its outrage that the nine prisoners were awarded compensation and a public apology, very little attention was given to the fact that some of the prison officers who committed those criminal acts were later re-employed and apparently compensated for wrongful dismissal.

So, yes, let us have a debate about the definition of rights and victims, but let us also be clear that the people whom we do not like are not always the offenders, and the people whom we want to feel sorry for are not necessarily the victims. Yes, we are comfortable in talking about the role of the State in punishing offenders and depriving them of some of the privileges of citizenship, but we cannot sanction the violence against inmates that some people in this House may well turn a blind eye to.

Offenders lose their freedom when they get sent to jail, but that does not mean they should also lose their lawful human rights. Imprisonment is the punishment, not the site for ongoing additional punishment that goes way beyond the scope of the court sentence. Yet we know that the rights of prisoners are breached on a daily basis. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” It also says: “The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.” Yet member of the House have just spoken recently to a bill that would deny inmates the right to vote. We are about to get another bill denying them compensation.

The Māori Party supports the rights of victims to be restored to their full potential, and we welcome a broader approach to victim support that strengthens and empowers individuals and their families. But we cannot ignore the fact that prisoners, who are themselves vulnerable to violence, who have nowhere to escape to and no one to turn to, often become victims themselves of brutal rape, assault, and murder in jail. Those inmates will not be in jail for ever. They will return to our communities, and if they have been taught that extreme violence is their pathway to success, and that a brutal ignorance of the law is acceptable and accepted management practice, then that will be the future they will bring back into society.

The Māori Party supports a radical rethink of our penal system, but not along the lines of the uninformed comment that the Ombudsman referred to in his 2007 inquiry into the criminal justice system, which stated that denying prisoners their human rights and booting them while they are down would simply not work. So, in closing, we urge this House to think about ways in which we can create a more effective criminal justice system, a system that punishes offending, supports victims, and helps offenders become more positive members of our society. The Māori Party will not be supporting this bill at its first reading.

I want to pick up on what my colleague from the Māori Party, Te Ururoa Flavell, was saying. On the face of it, I suppose it was a reasonably powerful point that Paul Quinn’s member’s bill, the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, takes away prisoners’ right to vote, and with this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, we are taking away their right to get compensation. We have, apparently, done that previously, and we are continuing that with this bill. But I do not think that is the case. In fact, as I understand this bill and previous bills, none of them have done that. They have not said that prisoner A, who has suffered an egregious harm in prison, cannot go to court or to the independent authority and get compensation. That still occurs, and, in egregious cases, compensation is forthcoming. What Acts passed under the previous Labour Government did, and what this extending of that regime does, is simply state that, if prisoner A does get that compensation, it is right and proper that he or she also is legally obliged to pay reparation, or the like, to a victim or to various victims. That money can be used for that. When members think about it, that is no different than what happens in civil cases where someone goes to court, wins compensation, and that money goes to pay other debts. So I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing at all.

With the exception of the Greens and maybe the Māori Party, as well, this bill really has widespread support, because it is just technical. I think the explanatory note puts it well when it states that it is a bill that “bridges the gap between the expiry of the current regime and the enactment of a second Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill to be introduced in Parliament later in 2010.” So this is no great shakes. It is not, in any sense, doing anything controversial or anything radical; it is continuing what we have. As I have already said to the House, I think what we have at the moment is pretty good. There is room for improvements, and that will come in legislation to be introduced later this year. But what we have is, nevertheless, a good start.

I think the other thing I will say, lastly, is that this bill can be located in a wider context, and I appreciate that the Opposition has some difficulties with that. But last year, and continuing on this year, the justice policy and theme of this Government is to put victims at the centre of the justice system in order to do better by victims. So it is good that this bill is continuing that. We will expand upon that, making things even better with a bill in the same vein later this year, which will improve on previous law in the area of compensation for victims.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill seeks to extend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 passed by the fifth Labour Government. That Act regulated the awarding of compensation to prisoners for breaches of their rights, and this is in line with our international obligations and with the practice in other Western democracies.

The original Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act was about respecting the rights of both perpetrators and victims of crime, allowing prisoners compensation for breaches of their rights while at the same time providing a regime whereby victims of prisoners who received compensation could make claims for damages, payments of which would come out of the compensation.

The bill currently before the House is a minor technical change extending the restrictions on the awarding of compensation for a further 2 years, from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2012. It will ensure that the victims’ claims process will also apply to compensation awarded in respect of a prisoner’s claim made between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2012

💬 Paul Quinn: It’s only a two-page bill; you don’t need to read from speech notes.

While the current Act states that the awarding of compensation expires on 1 July 2010 and the victims’ claims process applies only to compensation claims before that date, this bill extends the provision of the Act by 2 years, I say to Mr Quinn.

Labour will support this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee as it makes only a minor technical change. But we do have a question for the Government. When will the Government act on the promises that it made at election time? They were promises made to protect the rights of victims of crime, but to date we have seen no evidence whatsoever of that happening. These promises were made during the election campaign, yet since then victims have been worse off in practice. In particular, sexual abuse victims are worse off. They are no longer able to access the support that they need under accident compensation, because of new rules put in place by National. Instead of struggling with the barriers to accident compensation funding that National has put in place, sexual abuse victims have turned to Rape Crisis centres for help, but these centres have had their funding also cut by National. Sexual abuse victims feel betrayed by this Government, which promised to make their lives better but, in fact, has made them worse.

We heard Mr Chester Borrows earlier discussing the fact that it does not matter which bucket of funding is being accessed to address the needs of these victims, but the issue is that this Government is not making any funding available for victims. So when the Government takes away the opportunities through accident compensation that were afforded to victims for the counselling that they need, there is no other avenue for them to go down with regard to getting the support that they need, which is sometimes a matter of life or death for individuals and has far-reaching impacts in terms of repercussions. The fact that victims are unwell and have not received the support that they need has impacts not only on them as individuals but also on their wider family network, and on New Zealand as a society.

National promised action on crime rights so that fewer New Zealanders would be victims of crime. However, the latest crime statistics show how hollow that promise really was. The number of crime victims is growing, not decreasing, under this Government. In 2009 violent crime rose by close to 10 percent and murders rose by 25 percent, and this is unacceptable. Those voters who bought into the National Party slogan that it was basically going to do away with crime altogether must be sitting there now and asking themselves what they voted for. Although National and ACT claim that their “three strikes” law will help to prevent crime and deter criminals, officials have warned us that it may even force our homicide rate up even higher.

I challenge this Government to act on its election promise. Fewer New Zealanders should be victims of crime, and those who are victims should have their rights protected. We do not need hyped-up policies like a “three strikes” law that may not change crime statistics at all, or may even result in more crime. We need a society where New Zealanders are safer from crime and a society where victims are helped, not hindered, on the road to recovery. The current Act states that the awarding of compensation to victims expires on 1 July 2010, and the victims’ claims process applies only to compensation in respect of claims made before that date. This bill will basically extend that provision to 30 June 2010.

National made some lofty promises at the election about looking after victims’ rights, but in practice victims are worse off under this National Government. Sexual abuse victims are no longer able to get the support they need under accident compensation, thanks to the changes that the National Government has made. National and ACT are pushing through a “three strikes” law that officials have warned will make things worse, not better, for victims. It will result in fewer guilty pleas and more appeals, meaning that more victims will have to go through lengthy and difficult trials and appeals processes. Officials have also warned that the new law could lead to an increased rate of homicide. Why is the Government not doing anything to prevent more people from becoming victims of crime? The latest crime statistics show that the number of victims is growing, not decreasing, under that Government, and that is something New Zealanders are genuinely concerned about.

I want to touch on Labour’s record on victims’ rights because it is pertinent to what we are discussing at the moment. In 2002 Labour introduced and passed the Sentencing Act, which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation, and it resulted in the sentence being used more frequently. In 2002 the Sentencing Act also recognised the potential of restorative justice processes to make offenders more accountable to victims, and it enabled courts to take both financial and non-financial offers of amends by an offender into account.

Labour introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002. It extended a number of rights to victims, such as rights to information and the ability to have input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements. In 2003 the Ministry of Justice launched a campaign to trace those who owed money, and it spent $385,000 on advertising an 0800 number for people to call. The establishment of new collection centres further bolstered the collection and disbursement of reparation, and $9 million was allocated in the 2003 Budget for that purpose.

Labour passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act in 2005. It ensures that victims of inmates who are awarded compensation could claim against that compensation. Labour introduced the Pay or Stay initiative in September 2006, which enables the Ministry of Justice to stop people who have unpaid fines or reparations if they are travelling overseas, or stop them on their return to New Zealand. The Evidence Act 2006 provides for the needs of vulnerable witnesses and victims by making provisions for witnesses to give evidence in alternative ways, such as from behind a screen, via closed-circuit television, or on pre-recorded video.

Those are only a few of the things that Labour did to protect the rights of victims. I could go on with that list, but I will not. At the end of the day, we need to remind this Government that National campaigned very hard prior to the 2008 election on the fact that it would reduce crime and would protect the rights of victims. To date, 15 months later, we have seen no evidence of that.

Labour will support this bill at its first reading because we have a commitment to the victims’ claims process and because we believe that the National Government can and should be doing more for victims’ rights. Thank you very much.

I stand in support of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, which is a technical bill. It amends the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. It will extend the restriction on the awarding of compensation to prisoners for another 2 years, from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2012. This provision applies to the victims’ claims process with regard to any compensation awarded to the offender. It will also apply to any settlement that takes place out of court. This bill recognises that victims should have the first claim against any compensation that is awarded to a prisoner.

Is it fair that victims of crime have been neglected for a long time? This National Government feels that it is time we gave them the support that they deserve. We are committed to addressing the physical, emotional, and financial stress that victims have faced due to crime. This Government wants to put victims at the heart of our justice system.

I have seen recent incidents where families are suffering both financially and emotionally because of crime. I cite the incident of Navtej Singh. He was a young man who was working at his shop when he was killed. His aged parents, his young wife, and his children are suffering both financially and emotionally. Another young man, Hiren Mohini, who was a taxi driver, was killed in Auckland while he was working the graveyard shift. I have full sympathy for his mother, wife, and two daughters.

This bill states that where a prisoner is awarded any compensation, the victim of that prisoner has the right to claim against that compensation. In conclusion, I say that victims’ rights should come before the rights of offenders.

This bill will now go to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is well chaired by Chester Borrows. We have a very good association with the members of the Opposition on that committee. We have very cordial relations with them. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to support the first reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I refer to some comments made by Simon Bridges that I agree with. This bill does not take away all the rights of criminals to get compensation in some cases. We can all, at least in theory, envisage circumstances where the State, through prison officers, could breach somebody’s rights. They could terribly brutalise them, torture them, or unjustifiably deprive them of their liberty. In those situations it is absolutely right and proper that prisoners, bad people though they have been, should have rights to guard against the State acting like that. This bill acts as a curb against inappropriate actions on the part of the State. It would be wrong for this Parliament to take away all the rights of prisoners in such cases. If we look for examples, we find some of the things that happened during World War II where people were imprisoned and treated terribly. Of course those people ought to have had their human rights upheld. If their human rights are abused, then it is appropriate that they have legal remedies through the New Zealand courts. I agree with Simon Bridges that that is appropriate.

The original Act states that that is well and good, and this bill extends that provision to a later date, and that is well and good. However, when a criminal has harmed someone else and that other person may have a reparation order that has not been paid, or the victim had a right to take a civil action against a prisoner and receive some form of compensation but did not or could not because the prisoner was broke and it would be like getting blood from a stone—there was no likelihood of being paid—why would they waste their time and effort on making a claim against that person in prison?

Where there is a change in circumstances as a consequence of compensation being awarded in favour of the prisoner, we need to preserve that money so that the victim of the prisoner’s crime has the ability to make a claim against the prisoner and effectively attach the claim to the money that otherwise would be paid out to the prisoner. That, of course, is very appropriate. I think that just about everyone in this House would agree that, whilst not taking all rights away from a prisoner who has been abused, rare though those cases are, when compensation is paid to a prisoner—and let us not forget that there are high tests before a prisoner would get any compensation, as people will not have sympathy for prisoners; there has to be a pretty gross violation of prisoners’ rights before they get any compensation—it is important that we preserve the sum of money, where appropriate, so that someone who has been injured by the prisoner and who had a right to compensation or reparation can have recourse to the money that would otherwise go to the prisoner.

That is the balance that this legislation sought to achieve. Indeed, if we had gone further and had completely banned any right of compensation, we would be going a step too far and we would be in breach of various United Nations conventions. We would be doing something wrong.

💬 Paul Quinn: DRIP.

I do not know what the member means. This legislation gets the balance right. I will respond to some of the suggestions that were made earlier that tried to defend the Government’s record in respect of victims’ compensation.

Compensation for victims and the treatment of victims in New Zealand largely rely upon the accident compensation system, in terms of the counselling victims receive following a traumatic injury. Nowhere is that more true than in respect of people who have suffered sexual crimes. The victims of sexual crimes are often left in a depressed state, and their lives can fall to bits. If the person who abused them was a family member they can have problems with keeping or making good and strong personal relationships in their lives. I do not think there are many people in this country who do not think that the victims of sexual crimes should have access to proper counselling; they most definitely should. Yet this Government, through Dr Nick Smith as the Minister for ACC, has overseen a huge decrease in the approval of people for counselling. So marked is it that on a year-by-year comparison 300 claims per month were approved in the prior year, compared with six claims this year.

Three hundred claims, compared with six claims, is more than a 95 percent decrease in the approval rate. I do not think that makes sense. I think anyone can see that something has gone seriously wrong. It was pointed out to the Minister last year that this was seriously wrong. It was pointed out by the Labour Opposition, and by the psychotherapists and the psychologists. It was pointed out by the Massey University academics whose work Dr Smith was purporting to rely upon, but which they say the Accident Compensation Corporation has misused under his supervision. For the Minister to now turn round and say that we have to have some sort of inquiry to see what has gone wrong, without restoring the prior status quo until it is fixed, is adding insult to injury on the part of the women, mainly, who have been abused and cannot now receive counselling in New Zealand.

I think that is disgraceful, to be perfectly frank. I think that the very least the Government and the Minister could do is say: “We’ve got this wrong; we’re going to restore the status quo while we sort it out.” But instead the Minister is hiding behind process. He is not willing to admit fault, notwithstanding the fact that the approval rate has gone down from 300 claims a month to six claims in, I think it was, February. The facts speak for themselves. More than 200 women in that month alone suffered the effects of sexual crimes, without receiving any counselling. Counselling sessions generally cost around $100 or more per session. Most of those women who have been abused, who have been the victims of some horrendous sexual crimes, cannot afford that and they have no avenue through which they can get counselling at present.

The Government is not addressing the issue. All that Dr Smith says is that we will have a review. But we know that it is patently clear that the first and foremost thing that should be done is to return to the prior system while the Government sorts it out, instead of persisting with this new system that, as I said, in February had only six approvals for counselling throughout the whole of New Zealand. Do we think that New Zealand is such a perfect society that only six out of those 300-odd applications were worthy? Are we saying that the other 294 women were lying? Are we really saying that they had some sort of pre-existing mental illness that meant that they deserved what happened to them? Are we saying that they should not get treatment?

I really take issue with some of the comments that have been made by National members in this debate. They raised the issue of accident compensation, and tried to say how well they are doing for the victims of crime, when this is the real situation and these most-damaged people, in respect of being the victims of violent sexual crimes, are getting no help whatsoever.

In returning to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, I can say that we support the bill. Thank you.

There is really not much more that I can add, other than to say I compliment the last speaker for the front end of his speech, which I think explained in some detail what this bill sets out to achieve. But he was slightly verbose, and could have been much more succinct. None the less, he covered the detail. As he said, all this bill does is extend an existing provision for another 2 years until a more permanent solution is implemented by this Government in the future.

As other people have mentioned, this is a very technical bill. It is only 2½ pages long and, like members on both sides of the House, I look forward to its expeditious consideration by the select committee. With those few words, I commend the bill.

I rise to take a short call on this bill because we cannot miss an opportunity to attack the Government. It is bringing in a bill that we will support because it is about extending the dates for the legislation that we brought into the House in 2005, but we cannot miss an opportunity to attack National members who went out at the election and said that they would fix law and order issues—that was one of their major aspirational goals—and that they were going to put victims of crime at the centre and look after them.

The Government can bring this little, technical bill to the House today to extend the time frame for another 2 years until 2012, but it cannot admit that it has sexual abuse victim services completely wrong. The Minister in the House, at question time today, when put under some pressure, said: “Oh, but I have set up a review committee.”, and he has some very respectable people on the committee, but he does not need to do that. He knows full well that he got the criteria for referral to a treatment pathway for victims of sexual abuse completely wrong. David Parker said that the number of cases being approved per month has gone from 300 down to six, yet the Government is still refusing to say that it has got it wrong. It has put in another review team that will report back. What a waste of time that is, while victims of sexual abuse are suffering every single day. The trauma to a victim of sexual abuse—a child, a woman, or a man—will extend on to the full family. That family belongs to a community, and that community also wears the effects of the lack of treatment services and correct intervention pathways for victims.

Yesterday I met Louise Nicholas, who said to me that this Government has got things completely wrong in relation to sexual abuse care and treatment pathways. Three hundred sexual abuse counsellors in this country have already lost their jobs. They had been working with victims of sexual abuse but they no longer have that work. It is not rocket science to see that if we have reduced the number of cases each month, from 300 down to six, then those skilled health professionals have no work.

What will happen when the review committee comes back with the inevitable finding? And it will. This is just a time-wasting mechanism that the Minister has set in place. He cannot admit that he has got it wrong. We will need to re-enact and get those counsellors back into the workforce to meet the demand. It is wrong. It is a crock. It is everything but putting victims at the centre of crime. I think that the Government will pay a price for this next year during the election campaign because this is an issue that is affecting the well-being of our children and our families. But, not only that, National was going to fix crime. It was going to address the drivers of crime, but the latest crime statistics show that the number of crime victims is growing under National, not decreasing. Crime rates rose by 4.6 percent in the 2009 calendar year, and violent crime increased by 9.2 percent. The rate of murders has increased by a massive 25 percent, yet National members said that they were going to fix crime. When we were on the campaign trail every National candidate blamed the Labour Government again and again for not fixing crime. We will have a Budget in the next couple of weeks. Will that do it for families that have been dispossessed and disconnected? I do not think so.

This Government needs to hang its head in shame over its entire efforts to address the drivers of crime. We support this bill only because it extends the time frame on the legislation that we brought to the House in 2005. National said that we did nothing about the victims of crime or about compensation. I could not resist taking the call. I think this is a disgrace. It is a sad day when the Government has the energy to get this bill before the House but it cannot simply fix the correct service pathway for the treatment of victims of sexual abuse. The Government cannot do that, but it can bring this bill to the House.

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 June 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.