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

Given the wide-ranging nature of this debate, but within the scope of the bill, that the Government whip has indicated, I want to touch on a couple of things that were said that are germane to this Committee stage, which were noted in the previous debate. We touched on a number of points. We said that Labour would support this legislation. Why? Because we wrote it. The extensions to it are technical in nature. They simply extend the provisions and the timing provisions for 2 years, which were put in place by the previous Labour Government. I listened to the debate with interest, but we noted that if this Government was serious in respect of how it deals with victims, the acid test was not a technical extension to this bill. The acid test, as colleagues on this side of the Chamber have alluded to, is how we deal with victims as a whole. The most germane example that members on this side used was the lack of resources that have been cauterised by this Government in respect of victims of sexual abuse and sexual crime. I waited and watched other members, and I noted Mr Borrows’ contribution on two points. I invite the Minister to rise and enlarge on Mr Borrows’ point. He said he acknowledged the lack of funding and the denial of funding to victims of sexual crime. He went on to say, because I wrote it down: “This will be a priority for this Government.”

I commend him for the sentiment, but the victims are still waiting. They waited at the last Budget, they waited at the Budget before that, and they wait tonight. They are sitting in dark and cold places, waiting for a Government to stump up with some sort of money so that they can get the counselling and the help that they so desperately need. If funding is a priority, I say to the Minister I would be very interested to know when, where, which agency, if not the Accident Compensation Corporation, how much, and how the wrongs that this Minister and this Government have perpetrated will be put right in the denial of funding for victims of sexual crime and sexual abuse.

I listened with interest to the contribution from the ACT Party members—those bastions who say that they stand beside victims more than anybody else in this Parliament. Was there a contribution? Well, I listened very diligently. There was no contribution from the ACT members—none, zip, silence. What does that say? I then listened to the Māori Party members’ contribution. It was an interesting one. There were some fair points made, I have to say, about some very tragic and appalling circumstances many years ago. But I also waited for that Minister and that support party to get up and also say: “Hang on. We think that the Government that we aid and abet every day has done wrong by pulling the rug out from under victims of sexual crime and abuse by cutting their funding, by not allowing them to get the help that they received under the previous Government.” There was not a word. Oh, no. That would be a bit of a tough one, would it not? It would be tough to stand, grit one’s teeth, and criticise the governing party that stands over us every day and demands our vote, demands our support, and demands our accountability.

What about the Māori victims of sexual crime who are denied funding under this Government? Did we see the Minister and the co-leader of the Māori Party stand up for her constituents, and the constituents that her party purports to represent, and say it is wrong that her constituents who are victims of heinous and tragic crimes that they live with every day are denied the funding that they need because of this Government? Oh, no. That would be a bit tough, would it not? We can talk about history. We can talk about other injustices that occur, and we pay respect to them. But, oh no, it is being a bit meek and a bit mild. It is a bit tough to stand up and say: “We don’t agree with what they have done.”

I challenge Ms Turia, Mr Boscawen, and others who were very silent on this issue, because, of course, every day they aid and abet the injustice that is perpetrated by that party. I acknowledge that at least Mr Burrows addressed the issue, and at least he said it would be a priority for the Government in the future. The difficulty for Mr Borrows is that he does not sit in Cabinet; maybe he should, because at least he is prepared to address it in the debate. His Cabinet colleagues every day on a Monday morning sit there and do nothing about it. I say to Mr Borrows, good on him! He said it would be a priority for this Government. I take him at his word that he is knocking down the doors of Nick Smith’s office and other colleagues and asking what priority means. When? Where? What agency? How much? When will we help these people?

But I challenge every member over there, Mr Bakshi and others, to stand up and tell us what they will do to assist the victims of sexual abuse and sexual crime. Because of their Government, their vote, and their aiding and abetting of their party, when will those constituents actually get assistance? It is not good enough to say that it will be a priority in the future. I say again that these people waited in the Budget before last. These people waited in the Budget we have just had. These people waited tonight and every night this week, and will wait next month and the months after. They have their own nightmare every day and every night as they live with what was done to them, and they live with the fact that because they do not have the means, they cannot access the resources that they desperately need, even though there is probably somebody in the clink, and there is no dispute that a crime was perpetrated against them—there is a verdict that says they were done over, assaulted, maligned, and treated tragically and disreputably. No one disputes that.

The acid test is not this legislation; this legislation is about extending what we did when we were in Government. The acid test as to whether the Government is committed, as I have said before, to assisting the victims and the most vulnerable is what it is going to do about those victims whose funding those members over there in that Government cauterised. Oh, no. Members can hear a pin drop in here, can they not? There is not a word. Mrs Turia smiles. Well, I say to Mrs Turia, as she grins away at me, that when she does her next clinic and a member of her constituency, Māori or Pākehā, walks into her office and says: “I need help; I was raped, I was assaulted, I was abused.” and that constituent cannot get the assistance that he or she had in years past, because of the vote that that member and her ilk give that Government every day, I wonder whether Mrs Turia will sit there quietly, meekly, and mildly as she does in that Mother Teresa - like way, and grin at that constituent. I wonder whether she will.

I think better of that member, actually; I suspect she will not. But again, it is the acid test. She is a Minister. She has incredible power. She actually has the power as a coalition partner to not only stamp her feet but to say that she and her party are out of here, that she is not going to tolerate this. But no, they are—to use the biblical phrase—like lambs to the proverbial slaughter. Well, I say to Mrs Turia, Mr Boscawen, Mr Garrett, and the Sensible Sentencing Trust that those who stay silent and do not protest this injustice against protecting the most vulnerable, those who stay silent and bear witness to it will have to be accountable to their various constituencies, both at an election and in other places and other times.

I invite the Minister in the chair to deal with Mr Borrows’ pertinent point: he said this will be a priority for the Government. I invite him to get up—we will give him as long as he wants—and tell us when this injustice will be righted, when the money will flow and become available, and what agency will administer it. These poor folk live with it every day and every night. As I think my colleague Lynne Pillay said, some are no longer with us. They have taken their own lives because they cannot cope, they cannot deal with the crime that has been perpetrated against them, and they receive no assistance from this Government. How many lives could we have saved if we had ensured, despite the bureaucratic bickering over there from Nick Smith and others, that—to hell with it—these people would get the assistance they need? How many victims’ lives could we have saved?

I say to people who get up and make lofty statements about victims that here is where the rubber hits the road. We will wait and see what happens in the lead-up to the next election, because I suspect all of us on all sides of the House have had victims of these crimes come to us in terrible circumstances, begging for assistance. They should not have to beg. The Government that they are governed by in this country is there to assist them, support them, stand by them, keep them alive, and give them the assistance they need.

One of the problems with the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill—and it is a problem with the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, which it amends and which came into force under the last Government—is that it gives the impression that victims are getting serious financial compensation. In fact, they are not. It is just crumbs from the table for a few victims. The real question of proper compensation for all victims of crime is not addressed in the bill.

It is interesting that when the original bill came through under the Labour Government and became an Act, the victim support organisations were amongst the harshest critics of it, because they saw that it would give some pretence that there was real compensation for victims, when there was not any universal scheme for providing appropriate financial compensation. There has been some development—and the police have done a good job in this area—of victim support immediately after a crime is committed, when people are suffering badly from psychological trauma. There is a great volunteer system across the country of people who give freely of their time to help the police and to be with victims at their time of greatest trauma. But when we come to the follow-up system of proper financial compensation to put people back on the road and to compensate them for what they have suffered, we find that it is not really there.

In fact, as has been commented before, there is a perversity in the legislation in terms of the crumbs from the table that some victims might get. Victims almost have a vested interest in criminals in jail being beaten up then making a compensation claim, because the victims will get a little bit of the compensation themselves. It is a twisted way of a victim of crime getting compensation. The whole concept of punishment is distorted by this bill. When people commit crimes they are sentenced to be punished by a term in prison. That is the punishment—the term in prison. They are not sentenced to have other things done to them, like being beaten up, or anything like that. There is almost a concept behind this bill that they deserve a bit of beating up, a bit of punishment, because if that happens they will not be rewarded so much in terms of any compensation.

There is the concept that prisoners are lesser beings, in fact, with lesser rights, and that is a very bad concept that eats away at our ethics. The root of all prejudice is defining a category of people as lesser beings, and perhaps subjecting them to mistreatment and beating. In extreme cases, we have fratricidal conflicts and ethnic conflicts where people beat up and kill each other because they treat the other lot as lesser beings. Prejudice in this society towards prisoners—and Tariana Turia mentioned this in her very good speech—carries over to prejudice against other races, particularly races that are more highly represented in the prison population. This bill, by treating prisoners as lesser beings with lesser rights, including lesser right to compensation, is feeding that stereotyping of people in a negative way. It cannot be tolerated, and that is why the Green Party is voting against the bill.

We support the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. As has been discussed, it is just a technical change. It amends the Prisoner’s and Victims’ Claims Act, which was an Act that Labour brought in, in 2005. We support it because it addresses the rights of victims.

I will touch on something that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove discussed earlier with regard to the absence of the ACT Party in the debate on this bill. That is concerning because so often we hear from its members about the protection of victims and the rights of victims. We heard that rhetoric over and over again in relation to the “three strikes” bill. Yet when there is genuine legislation before us that actually addresses the rights of victims, those members are nowhere to be seen. That is concerning because it shows that ACT really is not about the rights of victims or the protection of victims; it seems that it is more about punitive measures for offenders, with no real compassion for victims fuelling that. That is of concern to members on this side.

The bill addresses the rights of victims to any compensation that prisoners may have access to. Victims will be able to make a claim on that money. So the bill addresses the rights of victims. But this side of the House has an overwhelming concern that although the bill does that, it is only one part of what needs to be done. A lot of other things need to be done. A lot needs to be done by the National Government to protect victims’ rights, but, unfortunately, over and over again it has failed to do that, in so many ways.

One of those ways is the Government’s changes to accident compensation policies. It has failed to protect the rights of sexual abuse victims and it has failed to provide the support that those victims require. It has let down those victims and it has let down the extended families of those victims. This side of the House feels that that is intolerable. It is hard for us to listen to members opposite say they support this bill because they support the rights of victims. We know that, on the one hand, National is supporting this bill, that it has introduced this technical change so that the legislation Labour introduced in 2005—the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act—can be extended, yet, on the other hand, National has denied sexual abuse victims their right to accident compensation services, to the counselling that they require. That is a concern, but it is only one example. There are other examples.

I will touch on the increase in crime that we have been experiencing across the country over the last couple of years. There has been an increase in violent crime and in crime generally. One of those places that has experienced that increase is Waitakere, but, unfortunately, the Government cut the number of police in that area by 10 officers. It is difficult to comprehend how we can assist victims of crime or stop there being further victims of crime when we see actual cuts to the number of police available to address call-outs to ensure that those things do not happen or to address them when they do. That is another area where we have seen the Government fail to protect victims. It has avoided doing anything about the increasing number of victims, and it has not represented them by making sure that whatever policies, whatever measures, whatever actions it takes are supportive of victims.

Labour members support this bill. We support it because we introduced the Act in 2005 and we know that it is good legislation. It does all of those things that I said the National Government should be doing in other areas but has failed to do. The bill protects the rights of victims and it addresses the rights of victims, so we are supportive of it. We are happy that the National Government is extending the Act. It is good to see the Government doing something right.

It seems a little odd that all the speakers in this Committee stage so far have come from the Opposition, and that this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill essentially just extends a provision that the Labour Government brought into effect back in 2005. That seems odd, because National campaigned so heavily at the last election campaign on being tough on crime, on being the law and order party, and on being the party that would put victims at the centre of justice and law and order policy. Of course, its campaign was all about what a bad job Labour had done. Well, if National were really serious, if National actually had some ideas, and if National were to follow through on its campaign promises, then it would not be extending something that Labour had already brought in back in 2005.

The party that has had some success in pushing through harsh and Draconian law and order legislation is, of course, the ACT Party, which is also stunningly silent this evening. David Garrett was the architect of the “three strikes” legislation, and I was lucky enough to have an interesting debate with Mr Garrett not so long ago. He came up to Palmerston North to extol the virtues of that legislation, and we talked about all the ways in which that legislation has also failed to put victims’ rights at the centre. We will see victims going through much longer trials as the incentive comes into place to encourage those who have been charged with a crime to fight it to the bitter end by appealing against their sentence because it will be so harsh. We will see victims dragged through all of that.

The “three strikes” legislation did nothing to support victims in the way that the forerunner of this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, went a small way towards doing. We talked about the fact that the “three strikes” legislation has absolutely no preventive character about it, whatsoever. Mr Garrett even accepted that the Ministry of Justice figures were right in that we would see more people going into prison because that legislation simply would not be effective in actually preventing any crimes, or in preventing any more people from becoming victims. It was “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” stuff, which in a way I suppose this legislation is as well. That is why it was always only a temporary measure. Labour brought it in as a temporary measure only, but National is so devoid of ideas and so shallow in its campaigning that it has nothing to follow it up with. The ACT Party, the party that is supposedly tough on crime—it is even tougher on crime than National; they are trying to outdo each other as to who is tougher—has absolutely nothing to say about this bill, whatsoever.

Given that this bill is an extension of what the Labour Government introduced, perhaps it is worth reflecting on what a good job Labour did in putting victims’ rights at the centre. Back in 2002—as long ago as that—the Sentencing Act was adjusted to introduce a presumption in favour of reparation, and that resulted in reparation being used as a sentence far more frequently. In 2002 we also saw an increase in the use of restorative justice, so that offenders would actually be more accountable to victims. That legislation really put victims at the centre of sentencing and of law and order policy.

Labour introduced the Victims’ Rights Act back in 2002, as well. Moving forward to 2008, Annette King introduced the Victims Charter to develop and build awareness about the standard of service that victims of crime could expect. Of course, Labour promised to put a significant amount of money—about $1.5 million, or more than that, I think—into Victim Support to boost that organisation’s ability to provide services to victims. That is the kind of policy, the kind of legislation, that puts victims’ rights at the centre.

This bill is perfectly reasonable, and that is why Labour will support it, but the legislation it amends was only ever something temporary. It was a temporary measure with a view to doing more. Frankly, the National Government, midway through its term, has had plenty of time to think up new initiatives to show that it had more to its campaigning, more to its rhetoric, than just a shallow, knee-jerk reaching out to those who felt affected and abused by crime if they had been victims of it. This is a nothing bill. We will support it, but, really, it does nothing for victims.

It is interesting to hear the tirade that is coming from the other side of the Chamber, as Opposition members seek to elevate themselves in terms of the issue of protecting victims’ rights, just as when previously in Government they sought to elevate themselves by claiming to be harder and harder on crime. It is very interesting to note the number of things that they did not do, along with the number of things that they have not supported when they have come up within the House, to actually address things such as preventing crime, preventing the causes of crime, and looking after victims.

For instance, we remember the tirade that we heard about the introduction of the DNA legislation, which provided for the taking of DNA samples from everybody who was arrested for an imprisonable offence. We remember the long speeches that we heard from, for instance, Moana Mackey, who told us what terrible things one could do once one had secured the DNA from somebody who had been arrested for an offence. That legislation allows us to isolate the DNA profile of somebody who has been arrested for a minor offence so that at some stage in the future, if further and more serious crimes are committed against victims, that person can be identified early. That is probably the single most significant legislation that has been introduced to this House in 100 years to prevent victims from being violated in very serious ways. All that we received were brickbats from the Labour members in respect of that.

The previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, talked about this Government having done nothing for victims. I ask, what about the Child and Family Protection Bill? The Opposition members will very quickly say they drew up the provisions that are now in that bill, introduced them in the House, and did a whole lot more than we are doing. But I ask when Labour’s bill was introduced to the House. It was 4 days before the Parliament adjourned for the 2008 election. It was introduced then because Labour had been too busy self-promoting, in terms of the Electoral Finance Act, to get on with the business of protecting the citizens of this country. Although in the whole course of this debate those members have banged on and on about victims, they failed throughout the whole term of the previous Government—9 long years—to address the prisoners who are languishing within our cells and the victims of their crimes. The previous speaker talked about the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. That Act replaced the Victims’ Rights Bill, which had been introduced by the former National Government prior to its leaving office in 1999. Labour waited 2 years before it did anything about replacing that bill. It is all very interesting to hear the Opposition members accusing us of doing stuff while we are in Government in respect of victims, yet Labour wasted and squandered the opportunities that it had to do things while it was in Government.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill maintains the integrity of those people who are in jail, by making sure they receive the best treatment and punishing those who would keep them in a manner that does not give them the best treatment, which they deserve as inmates being held at the bequest of the Crown. But, having been sentenced for a crime, it prevents them from accessing big amounts of monetary compensation that should rightfully find its way to the victims of their crimes. The Opposition members will vote for this bill; in fact, almost everyone in the House will vote for it. We have not heard one single reason why the Labour Party supports this legislation, other than that its members bang on that they might have thought of it first. Any sensible Government would have done so. We do not try to claim lots of points for promoting legislation that Labour put in. Labour agreed with this bill, and it transitioned through the Justice and Electoral Committee very speedily because of the ability that we have on that committee to compromise and understand one other, regardless of which side of the House we come from, and because of the sterling work of that committee.

I will give the previous speaker, Chester Borrows, one reason why Labour is supporting the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill: this is transitional legislation and it relies on the National Government bringing legislation to this House soon, or so those members say. We do not trust the National Government to bring in sensible legislation that will follow on from this. As has been said before, this bill flows from an idea when Labour quite rightfully identified some problems with victims seeing themselves as being ill-treated when compensation was paid out. As a former Minister, I agree that the Mangaroa situation referred to by the Hon Tariana Turia was a sad state of affairs. The process was a lengthy one and compensation was paid out to prisoners. People at that time said it was rather unfair that prisoners got compensation but they or their family member, as a victim of crime, were unable to get any assistance.

In principle, as the speakers before me have said, Labour supports this, but the devil is always in the detail. The fact that the bill and the Government state that we will be bringing back into Parliament later this year another victims’ claims amendment bill makes us wary. That is why we will support this bill, but we have reservations. The question that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, might be able to answer is this. Today we have a prisoner on the run. The Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Police are one and the same, so maybe she can talk to herself and work out who is responsible for this prisoner escaping; but he is on the run. I suppose we can assume that he is under State responsibility, and if he commits a crime, does this bill kick in? Does this bill provide a process for anyone—victim or prisoner—who may be hurt in the pursuit or the recapture of that particular prisoner?

Unfortunately, we are seeing too much of this. I suggest that we will see a whole lot more problems with prisoners under National Government control, under the care, protection, custody, or security of the Minister, who has double-bunked up and the down the country and who, in my view, is creating for herself a powder keg. We will see more problems for prisoners themselves, we will see more victims—and many of them will be prisoners, because they may have been assaulted by other prisoners. We know there is a huge gang influence in the prison system.

The question I ask of the Minister in the chair is how this legislation will affect prisoners who might be dealt to or severely harmed in prison under the control of the Government. Does this mean they receive compensation; if so, where should it go—to their family? Perhaps the Minister can take a call, as there is plenty of time for the Minister, who I am sure has some idea of whether this bill will address the issues of compensation that might be claimed by a prisoner who is severely beaten by another prisoner.

💬 Paul Quinn: Come on.

Mr Quinn knows that that happens quite a lot.

💬 Paul Quinn: Do I?

Yes, out at Rimutaka, close to his home. He knows—

💬 Chris Hipkins: He doesn’t live anywhere near the Hutt.

Is he not near the Hutt?

💬 Chris Hipkins: He doesn’t live anywhere near the Hutt.

No, I suppose he never is out there; I guess that is right. Perhaps he lives in Rimutaka Prison. No, I cannot say that. There are some legitimate questions that the Opposition has about this legislation. The previous speaker asked why Labour is unsure about this. I tell the member that it is because it is being passed on the basis and on the assurance that the next legislation coming through will address and assist victims. We have already heard from my colleagues that if someone is a victim of sexual assault, then he or she is likely to continue to be a victim because no assistance will be provided by the National Government and its accident compensation system. Maybe the Minister can take a call and answer some of the questions I have for him.

While we are here working under urgency, the Committee might be interested to know the rugby score is England 28 and New Zealand Māori 35.

I am very happy to take a call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill in the Committee stage. Of course, Labour is supporting this bill. I was interested to hear the member Chester Borrows comment that he did not know why Labour was supporting this bill. I tell that member that it is because it is an extension of the legislation the Labour Government passed, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. I remember that I was at that time a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered the Labour legislation, and National Party members were very critical of it. I am very pleased to see that they have seen the error of their ways and have decided to extend the legislation Labour put in place.

Labour’s legislation attempted to address a very, very difficult problem. I recall members of the National Party saying that we should have taken away the right to sue altogether. That view ignored the reality that we were dealing with a range of issues from the very ridiculous to the very serious; we felt that that was the best way to address them. I am pleased that Chester Borrows has confirmed that National has seen the error of its ways.

I will also address comments that Chester Borrows aimed at me in regard to DNA legislation. Again, it just confirms that National has absolutely no understanding of this issue, at all—no understanding. Chester Borrows criticised me for raising very valid concerns about the funding of increased powers for DNA use by the police and the funding of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. The point I was making was that when Labour introduced extended powers for DNA use by the police and the criminal justice system, we could be assured that Labour would properly fund the police and the Crown research institutes to carry out that work and avoid a miscarriage of justice in the use of this very powerful technology. Yet under this Government we have seen a broken promise on the funding of Crown research institutes—a broken promise. We have seen science funding slashed and we have seen scientists let go. The point I was making, which appears to have evaded Mr Borrows, was that if the Government will not fund DNA legislation properly, it opens up the very real possibility that there will be an enormous miscarriage of justice.

I remind Mr Borrows of the case that happened right here in New Zealand, when a man in Christchurch was arrested for a homicide. He had given a DNA sample because he was the victim of an assault. Fortunately, he had a very good alibi for the homicide, which was that he was in Christchurch being assaulted at the time of the homicide in Wellington, and therefore could not possibly have committed the crime. That case highlights why DNA legislation needs to be backed up by funding. If Mr Borrows does not understand that fact, I am concerned about what it means for our police, Crown research institutes, and the citizens of New Zealand, who could be wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit.

I also point out to Mr Borrows that it worried me that the Government seemed to think that DNA testing was foolproof. It is not. If the Government thinks DNA testing is foolproof, that having DNA evidence means an automatic conviction and that not having a DNA sample means we will not, it is a very dangerous situation. It concerns me that the member seems to be so scientifically illiterate that he would attack me for raising those very valid concerns in the Chamber as we extended powers of DNA legislation beyond that which already existed. All a DNA sample at a crime scene proves is that someone’s DNA was at a crime scene. It is then up to the rest of the evidence to prove that the person was there, and that what the prosecution says happened actually did happen. It is up to all the other evidence. The flip side is that the fact that there is no DNA evidence at a crime scene does not mean that we cannot get a conviction. I know it has been frustrating for prosecutors around the world that because of what is called the CSI effect, people seem to think that if there is no DNA evidence, we cannot possibly get a conviction.

This goes to show why, as my colleagues have been saying, this Government seems to have absolutely no understanding of those issues.

💬 Chester Borrows: Which ones?

All of them, I say to Mr Borrows—all of the issues that have been raised tonight. We are pleased that the Government is carrying on a piece of Labour legislation, as it has in so many other areas despite saying that Labour’s time in office was the worst 9 years in the entire history of the universe. It seems to have carried on with most of Labour’s legislation and changed hardly anything. The fact is that the comments made by Mr Borrows, which inspired me to come to the Chamber and respond, show just how out of touch this Government is when it comes to victims of crime.

Kia ora koutou. The purpose of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill and the Act that it seeks to extend is clearly about compensating victims, and, indeed, that is appropriate. Victims suffer loss of property, they suffer physical damage, and they suffer emotional and mental injuries, and it is appropriate they should be compensated for that. The Greens have been very happy to support legislation that is effective in compensating victims for the wrongs done to them.

That raises a question that I would like to pose to the Minister or to any of his Government colleagues who would like to comment. How many individual victims have received compensation in the 5 years that the Act has been in place? How much money have those people received? Give us some ballpark figures. Approximately how many victims have actually benefited, and to what extent have they benefited? It is a fairly simple question, but it would be interesting to hear the answer.

There has been quite a lot of activity around the Department of Corrections this year. We certainly cannot accuse the Minister of Corrections of being idle. We have seen legislation that enables the use of court cells as holding cells for sentenced prisoners, despite the fact that we know from the UK and elsewhere that that is quite a dangerous mechanism that inevitably reduces prisoners’ access to rehabilitation. It removes them from their families, and, at worst, makes it difficult for them to be provided with basic, adequate food and sanitation. We have seen an active move towards double-bunking in our prisons. Prisons that were designed for a certain number of inmates now carry significantly more than that number, and that inevitably will raise tensions in prisons. It will make them potboilers, and will increase the likelihood of violence and more victimisation, both within and outside those prison walls. We have seen the “three strikes” legislation, which takes away the opportunity for judges to make considered judgments on individual cases. It effectively takes the mandate away from judges and puts it on to Parliament. Again, that is an imposition on people’s rights to be heard fairly and properly in a court and to be sentenced by that court. We have seen the way opened for private management of prisons, and, once again, we know from international experience that that will degrade conditions within prisons. Inevitably, the profit extracted from them will mean there are fewer services available to prisoners, and there are fewer staff. Prisons will become more dangerous, more violent, and less humane places.

A week or so ago the Law and Order Committee was treated to a show-and-tell from the Minister and her chief executive officer. We saw a demonstration of the equipment being given to guards to protect them, such as helmets, stab vests, heavy boots, batons, and pepper sprays. The Minister’s solution to more violence in prisons is equipment to defend or, rather, to protect the officers who have the unenviable job of going in after violence has broken out to try to clean up the mess, to try to resolve an incident that has already occurred.

All of those measures are reflective of a very busy and active Minister, who has a very busy portfolio. But where is the legislation that would return some justice to the victims of crime? Amongst these bills and these new policy moves, it is very difficult to see anything that will contribute to the well-being of victims. We are all committed, I am sure we agree, to compensation being given for harm done. But where is the proactive policy, where is the drive to find solutions to crime, to find solutions to victimhood, to recompense victims, to reduce the likelihood of reoffending, and therefore to reduce the creation of more victims? We are simply not seeing it from this Government. What we are seeing is activity, legislation, and policies that are symptomatic of a view that prisoners should lose their rights, that they should be locked up for longer, and that they should suffer tougher sentences. That is despite the evidence and the common-sense assessment that those strategies will simply lead to more violent societies and less safe societies, and will leave the victims of crime out on a very long limb, with very little support and very little likelihood of recompense. Kia ora koutou.

I have one question for you, Mr Chairperson Roy. The New Zealand Māori rugby game against England: where was that played? In Napier, I think; the lucky city is in Hawke’s Bay. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is a very interesting bill. Chester Borrows talked about DNA. I think that every now and then the Government has to take a DNA sample to check whether Chester is still alive. Well, he may be at the moment, but I can tell members that the word on the street in Whanganui is that Hamish McDouall is ahead in a poll that was taken recently. He is storming ahead in Whanganui. Here is a tip: if members have a spare $10, they should put $5 on the All Whites, and $5 on Hamish McDouall. Hamish is safe odds in Whanganui. It used to be our seat, and it will be our seat once again, so I say “Go, Hamish!”.

This bill is about the victims of crime. Of course, it contains provisions that were introduced in 2005 by a hard-working Labour Minister. It is hard to know which one it was, because they were all very hard-working. As we all know, after 9 years Labour had got through one hell of a lot of legislation. It changed society for the better, without a question of a doubt, for victims as well for other people. Chester Borrows stood up and said the Labour Opposition has not given one reason why we support this bill. Well, I will give National one reason why we support this bill: because we support victims’ rights, as well. Who would not? Of course we support victims’ rights. New Zealanders support victims’ rights, because New Zealanders support justice against inequity.

But I will give members a story about how this Government is eroding the rights of victims. There is a house in Napier called Serenity House. It is on the hill. Anyone knows Napier at all will know that the hill is a beautifully treed place. People would not know that this house was beside them, if they lived beside it. It is a house where five women stay for a period of, on average, about 18 months. They are women who suffer from a severe lack of self-esteem and confidence. Eighty percent of those women are victims of sexual abuse. But that house is scared that its funding is to be cut. I ask members, as I asked the Serenity House manager, where those women would be if they were not in Serenity House. There are three places that they would be: firstly, in the psychiatric ward of the mental health unit of Hawke’s Bay Hospital; secondly, perhaps living on the streets and occasionally working on the streets; and, thirdly, dead from suicide. That is the stark reality when we take away the rights of victims, and when we cut accident compensation funding. When I mentioned to the manager that funding for the counselling of the victims of sexual abuse was being removed from the accident compensation scheme, she said she knew that, but she was horrified. She could not believe that any Government could be so heartless as to do that. I know that the women on the Government side of the Chamber must agree with me. How could they not?

Serenity House has been going for a while now, and once the five women pass through their course—these are mothers, and there is a registered nurse in there; a lot of them are educated women—they go out and become productive members of our community. That house does a fantastic job for those women and a fantastic job for our community, but there is a possibility that its funding will be cut. I challenge the members over there, and I challenge Nick Smith, to organise a meeting with women’s groups—with the Women’s Refuge; with the women from Serenity House and from DOVE, for example—to front up to these women, and to tell them why he is cutting the funding for counselling. Why is Nick Smith doing that? Then, in the same breath, the Government says it stands up for victims’ rights. That is an oxymoron. I do not understand it, the women who are affected do not understand it, and New Zealanders do not understand it.

Chester Borrows stood up and asked what Labour had done with regard to crime. Well, I will tell him what we did: we reduced crime. That is what New Zealanders wanted to be done. We reduced crime. As Chester himself will know, we sent the police out into the community, and we set up community police stations. When I talk to the police officers of Napier, they say they think that was a fantastic initiative, because it allowed the police to communicate and integrate with their local communities, and, boy, that has made a huge difference. That “us and them” mentality between the police and the community has all but disappeared in Napier. The police are now part of this community; they are accepted. The community goes to them if it has any problems, and the police are proactive about going out to the community. It is a wonderful initiative, and Labour set it up.

We talk about being hard on crime—like David Garrett and his “three strikes” policy. That harks back to the 19th century, when in England paedophiles were put in the same prison cells as the young children who had stolen loaves of bread. Is that what Mr Garrett wants this country to head back to? Mr Garrett is the voice in Parliament of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Is that not an unusual name—the Sensible Sentencing Trust? We all want there to be sensible sentencing. Garth McVicar is from the Bay, as well; sometimes we throw up interesting characters in the Bay. He is passionate, but he gets it wrong, and that is a shame. Unfortunately for him, he ends up with people like David Garrett in the House, trumpeting the “three strikes” legislation, which, evidence has proven, does not work. In fact, Mr Garrett himself stood up in this Chamber and said he acknowledged that it would not work, but he thought we should still go ahead with it. National, with its blind faith in the ACT Party, said it would support that measure because it had said in its supply and confidence agreement that it would do so. Where is the ideology? Where is the evidence? That legislation will not help ordinary New Zealanders. It will not help the victims of crime; in fact, more than likely it will create more victims. It is a travesty, and it is not what sensible sentencing is all about. It is not about that philosophy; it is about how we deal with those people. But, no, we do not lock them up in cells now.

I will tell members what England used to do. Before it sent prisoners away to the colonies, it stuck them in decommissioned warships out on the Thames. Then they were sent across to Australia. Well, we are not putting prisoners in decommissioned warships these days; we are putting them in decommissioned containers. That is not a far cry, is it, from what England used to do in the old days. I think that if Mr Garrett had his way, he would actually stick prisoners in decommissioned warships. How does that help the victims of crime? It does not help them.

I plead with the Government to think about whom it is harming when it takes away accident compensation funding for the victims of sexual abuse. I would love to take any member from the Government side of the Chamber to Serenity House, to see the good work that that organisation and its staff do, and to see the difference that they are making in our communities with damaged women, 80 percent of whom are there because they are the victims of sexual abuse. I am a huge supporter of the victims of crime. I think anyone who doubts whether any MP on this side of the Chamber supports the victims of crime needs to have his or head read, and does not understand what the Labour Party is about. We support this bill, but we have serious reservations about the words that are coming from the Government benches. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take a call as we debate the Committee stage of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, which deals, of course, with the victims of crime, and tries to ensure that they get some justice from the processes of the courts.

The bill picks up on some good Labour legislation that was brought about by the quite notable Taunoa case, where compensation was awarded to a murderer, and others. The Government of the time—with Mark Burton as a Minister and Phil Goff as the Minister of Justice—was determined to bring in legislation that ensured that although we met our international obligations and did not deny those in prison the right to the justice system, where compensation was provided to offenders inside the prison system it would not mean that those who had been the victims of violence by those offenders would be excluded from benefiting from that compensation. This bill is about extending the date for a couple of years while the Government looks at a replacement model—and that is fair enough. But I would like to comment—and my colleague Stuart Nash touched on this issue—on the difference between the Government’s approach in respect of this legislation and the treatment it has given to victims of an equally serious, heinous part of a judicial system, and that is sexual abuse.

I was interested to note that the number of people seeking counselling support for the trauma of sexual abuse was 200, or even 300, a month last year. Then suddenly, with the changes that were introduced in February by the Minister for ACC, Nick Smith, we saw six people being awarded compensation in the form of sexual abuse counselling. I think about an organisation in my electorate, the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust. It is headed by Ken Clearwater, who does an exemplary job and who was a victim of sexual abuse in the past. The sorts of people who come through his office have often been in court, have been damaged at an early age, and are now perpetrating offences against others as they lash out to try to find some kind of redress for the abuse they suffered, sometimes many decades before.

The idea that we can be a just and humane society but not provide those people with the only support that we can provide—that is, counselling and assistance—that we can cut the number of people being granted counselling support back from 200 or 300 a month to just a handful, is an indication of this Government’s lack of commitment, despite it talking the talk about supporting victims, and about how it really is providing support. We can recall Nick Smith maintaining the pretence that the new guidelines had been conceived under the previous Labour Government by Massey University, but Massey University blew the whistle on that and said that, no, the new guidelines were not of its initiation; they had been devised by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). We had months and months of Nick Smith trying to say that the new pathway that had been developed was perfectly fine and was based on evidence, but only last week an ACC manager finally admitted to Mary Wilson on Checkpoint that the changes might have been introduced far too fast for sexual abuse victims. The numbers very much make that very, very clear.

I think also of the double-bunking that has been introduced under this Government. We know that crime and punishment—

💬 Hon Member: Wonderful!

Oh, it will be! We need only think about the poor lad in the back of the van in Auckland and what happened to him. When we start putting violent criminals with others, it is a recipe for disaster, and the price will be paid very, very quickly.

We know that crime and punishment is about the scales of justice, and they have to be balanced, and they have to be balanced on an ongoing basis. When we see what is happening with sexual abuse victims, we see that the balance is certainly not there, and if the Government is going to do more than pay lip-service to the victims of crime, it needs to acknowledge that it has made a ghastly mistake in respect of savagely cutting back counselling services for victims of sexual abuse, both male and female—both male and female. The Government needs to acknowledge that the least we can do as a decent, just, and humane society is to continue to provide support to people who have been subjected to trauma.

We are beginning to celebrate some of the people who have gone through that kind of abuse. I heard Louise Nicholas on the radio this morning. She is an outstanding New Zealand woman who stood her ground and brought to the attention of the public some of the abuses that can happen when people are not called to account. I think that most people regard her very, very highly. Aaron Gilmore—the dancer, not the politician—was recently in the media relating his story. Abuse happens to males and females, and both sexes need access to counselling. We have heard this Government talking the talk about victims’ rights, but when it comes to delivering services to them we have seen the numbers receiving help fall from hundreds to a handful. That is an illustration of the fact that this Government will talk the talk but not walk the walk in respect of delivering for those who are the victims of violence in New Zealand.

Labour’s record on this issue goes right across the board. We introduced the Sentencing Act in 2002, with its presumption in favour of reparation. We introduced the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002, which extended a number of rights to victims. We introduced the legislation that is being amended by the Government now—the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act—in 2005, and, of course, in 2008 Annette King announced that the Victims Charter would be developed, to build awareness of the standard of service that victims can expect from Government agencies. Those victims include those who have been the subject of sexual abuse, and I would like to see the Government reinstate the counselling that was available to those poor people who have been the subject of sexual abuse trauma and who deserve every bit of support that can be mustered by the State. Thank you.