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

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill is straightforward. It prevents significant parts of the existing Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 from expiring on 1 July 2010. The bill maintains the status quo for 2 years, giving the Government the opportunity to pass new legislation that will direct compensation payable to prisoners to the victims’ services appropriation after any victims have claimed against it. This bill ensures that compensation payable to prisoners for claims made before 1 July 2012 continues to be subject to the existing restrictions on awards of compensation. Those restrictions require prisoners to make use of the many existing complaint mechanisms that are available to them before they seek compensation through the courts.

If a claim is made through the courts, compensation can be ordered only where it is absolutely necessary to redress the harm done. If compensation is ordered, victims of the prisoner may first seek redress for the harm they have suffered. The prisoner can access the compensation only once the victims’ claims process is fully complete. In effect, this bill creates a transitional period whereby prisoners with outstanding grievances have an incentive to seek resolution before the second set of planned changes comes into force. If their claims are made before 1 July 2012, they will be subject to the existing regime. However, prisoners who make a claim after that date will not receive the benefit of compensation if it is awarded. Their victims will still be able to claim against it, and anything remaining will benefit victims generally through the victims’ services appropriation. Let me restate that prisoner mistreatment should not be tolerated. However, it is time to resolve historical grievances and ensure that where compensation is necessary, victims have an opportunity to seek redress for the hurt they have suffered. I commend the bill to the House.

This has been an interesting debate. Mr Guy—the second or third Minister, I think, who has dealt with this piece of legislation tonight—described the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill as straightforward. He is right; it is a straightforward piece of legislation, which in theory, given that everybody in this House apart from the Greens and the Māori Party supports it, should have flown through the House with a high degree of ease. The bill may be straightforward, but the issue of assistance and support for victims is not.

I say again that the Labour Party is supporting the passage of the bill for a very simple reason: we wrote the Act it amends. A member opposite said we helped it go through the House. No, no, we wrote it, and we passed it when we were in Government. The Government today is extending its provisions by 2 years, and we have no problem with that. This bill extends the provisions we put in the Act, which we wrote and passed.

The bill is straightforward but the issue is not. Throughout this debate it has been very instructive to listen to the words that have not been spoken, to listen to the silence exhibited by especially the ACT Party. We have raised an issue as an acid test of one’s commitment to victims. I agree with my colleagues who say they suspect that no one in this Parliament does not have a genuine belief that victims should be supported, despite all the political gasbagging that we have heard from some people on the other side of the House. The ACT Party believes that it has a monopoly on supporting victims, that it comes from a higher plane, and that everybody else’s commitment to victim support is lower than its commitment. I say to those members that their silence on this issue tonight has been absolutely deafening. On the one hand, Mr Garrett and those members say that they support victims; on the other hand, on the issue raised tonight that this Government, which ACT props up, has pulled the rug out from under victims of sexual crime and sexual abuse by cutting their funding, aided and abetted by the ACT Party, which purports to support victims, we have not heard one word tonight about that policy stance.

It is interesting that every Minister who has been in the chair or who has introduced a stage of this bill has not made one contribution that addresses that issue. The only member who had the guts to raise it and at least address it was Chester Borrows, and I think he made a reasonably robust contribution. Chester Borrows said—and it was tantamount to admitting that his Government had cut funding—the Government will make addressing the issue a priority. He said that, and I respect him for it. But not one other member opposite did so.

Government members prattled on and listed all sorts of legislation that they had passed, and that is an undeniable fact in this House. The quality of much of that legislation is in question, as is its effectiveness or lack of it to support victims, but it is an undeniable fact that this Government has fired through various Acts that it claims will assist victims—and the jury is out on that. But that does not negate the issue that has been raised time and time again tonight about the lost souls, and there are a number of them, who have committed suicide because they could not get the support and the funding that they needed and that they used to get under the last Government, and that is an undeniable fact—

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: Prove it.

The member should look at the last Budget and at the general policy statement on the bill. That is the first time the member Tariana Turia has squeaked any words in this House about that issue. All she has done tonight is grin about it and laugh about it. I say again to the member that when a constituent comes to her office who is a victim of sexual abuse and cannot get funding because Nick Smith and the National Government have cut that funding, I wonder what she will say to that woman, man, or young person. Will she grin and say, as she did tonight, “Prove it.”? Thanks to her vote, she could say that she is part of the problem, because she voted for that cut, she aided and abetted it, and she supports it today. The proof of that is that not once in this debate did she get up and express even mild disapproval on behalf of those lost souls, the men and women who every day and every night wait for some assistance.

Mr Borrows said that the Government will make it a priority. Good on him. At least he is prepared to say that. But, sadly, the problem with Mr Borrows is that he ain’t in a position to deliver. I am sure that he is knocking on the doors of his Ministers and saying that they have to do it, they have to make it a priority, an agency has to fund those people, and something has to be done. He is a constituent member; he has probably had these folks in his office. But not one other Government member has addressed the issue. Government members talk about everything else. They talk about the fact that they have passed legislation for victims’ rights and other things. That is all well and good, but not one member from any party opposite will address this issue, apart from “Miss Laugh A Lot” down there, who has grinned and laughed about the issue throughout the debate. Not one of them will say that they will make it a priority, that they will make it happen tonight, tomorrow, or on Monday at Cabinet.

My colleague Brendon Burns mentioned Ken Clearwater, a constituent of mine, who is doing the Lord’s work with male survivors of sexual abuse. Ken Clearwater and his clients wait for help every day. They waited for help in the Budget before last and they waited for help in the last Budget. Every man, woman, and young person who is the victim of a sexual crime has waited for the help they used to get under the last Government. And I say to Ms Turia that I do not have to prove it. The proof is every person who got counselling, psychological assistance, and their medical needs met by accident compensation over the 9 years of the Labour Government. The proof is the men and women who survived the trauma of sexual abuse and sexual crime because over the 9 years of the Labour Government they got accident compensation funding and they got assistance. I say to Ms Turia that that is the proof—that they are alive today. That is the proof that the system is broken.

An injustice has been perpetrated, and it has been aided and abetted by every last one of the members opposite who would not stand up to take a call—there is a word for that, and I would love to use it—to even talk about the constituents who have walked into their offices. They will talk about everything else. They will talk about legislation, the Bail Act, or anything else. I ask them what they will say to the constituents in their electorates who walk into their offices. Many will not walk in. Because of the shameful acts that were done to them, they will hide in places, they will hide from their families, and they will not ask for help. They hope and pray that the Government will stand by them. Because of the nature of the crimes perpetrated against them they feel ostracised, and they rely on the Government to protect the most vulnerable.

I would have thought there was not a lot of politics in this issue. I would have thought there was a lot positive politics to be gained for a Government and a Minister that did as Mr Borrows did and said that that assistance should be made a priority. But not one Minister—not the Minister for ACC, not the Minister of Health, and not Nathan Guy—did that, nor any member of the two parties that are led by the nose like lambs to the slaughter, including the “tough on crime” party. Not even the Sensible Sentencing Trust has ever decried the fact that the National Government has cut the funding for the victims of sexual crime. I wonder why it would not make a comment. Why would it not express anger? I challenge members opposite to use Mr Borrows as an example and at the conclusion of this debate get off their chuffs, go to their various Ministers, and demand funding for those victims. I do not care whether it comes from the Accident Compensation Corporation; I do not care where it comes from. But they are the victims. That is the acid test, not a couple of clauses to extend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. The acid test is whether that crew over there will help the most vulnerable, who have nightmares every day and night because of what was done to them.

It is good to come to the third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill and to see it progress. I was pleased to hear the member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, say that there is not a lot of politics in the bill; I thought he actually beat quite a bit of politics out of it.

I am pleased that the bill will progress through the House tonight and that people will be in a better situation as a result of it. I am disappointed that it is only interim legislation until another bill comes in to fix the problem on a permanent basis. I am very sorry that although the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 could have been fixed before 2008, it was not. It is one of this Government’s priorities to deal with it. This bill is one of a number of very worthy bills that address the range of issues affecting victims, offenders, and their behaviours in our communities.

I look forward to the bill being passed and I commend it to the House.

I rise to speak to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill and to say why Labour will be voting for it. As has been expressed previously, the bill comprises a technical amendment to extend restrictions on the awarding of compensation brought in by the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for 2 years, from 1 July this year until 30 June 2012. The Government has indicated that this is an interim measure. It is interesting that the Government member Chester Borrows said that he is disappointed that that is the case. We understand that a more comprehensive bill may be introduced later this year.

Contributions on this side of the House have raised a flag and asked the Government to think about the victims of sexual abuse and to reinstate funding to the Accident Compensation Corporation to support those victims through counselling and support services. Members of the Labour team have given numerous local examples expressing just how important those services are to women and men throughout the country. It is not good enough for members on that side of the House to purport to listen to the rights and interests of victims when those who have suffered sexual abuse and are vulnerable are suffering both physical and mental abuse and continue to do so. They are not able to receive accident compensation funding to break through some very dark places. A number of us have been told at a personal level some stories that we would not repeat in this House. Suffice it to say, they are the types of stories that would urge this House to think again, and certainly urge members of the Government to get their Ministers to act now, address this issue of funding, and ensure that women can get the types of support and counselling services that they need—women and men. Men are victims too, I say to the Minister of Justice, and they need help.

I have also listened to other views expressed in the House. I agree that the Government must not create further victims as a result of its policy flaws and the flaws in some of its thinking—policies like double-bunking, which increases the risk to both prisoners and security guards. I say to members to go and visit a prison and look at just how small those rooms are with single beds, let alone double beds. None of the prisons were designed to be double-bunked; they are such small, closed, and confined spaces. Policies like container cells are creating conditions that I believe are inhumane, no matter how we dress it up. If one puts lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. These are inhumane conditions, and I do not think it is the way to go.

The Government has policies like profit-driven incentives through private management of prisons, where the bottom line is more important than rehabilitation initiatives and programmes aimed at reducing long-term recidivism—yes, it takes investment. The Government needs to rethink its “three strikes and you’re out” policy, which is just a dumb policy. Those policies are all a range of measures that the Government has introduced, creating victims in some sense but also not creating a very good approach to a way forward that supports restorative justice, supports rehabilitation, reduces recidivism, and promotes greater investment in the system.

I raise these issues to draw attention to the numerous matters resulting from the Government’s broader policy ambitions. At the end of the year the House will be waiting to see how the Government intends to stitch together a comprehensive approach to addressing victims’ rights—we cannot wait. However, this country can ill afford to take a “lock ’em up and throw away the key” approach. Restorative models of justice are necessary; long-term rehabilitation to reduce recidivism is absolutely critical. Investing at the front end of youth development initiatives will go some way to making a long-term difference to the lives of many New Zealanders, and will make for a better New Zealand. But will the Government listen? That is the question.

This bill contains one minor technical amendment; the bigger debate is yet to come. We can already see the writing on the wall in terms of the policy ambitions and the devastation that will result from them. The country deserves more from this Government, and it should do more.

I must begin by acknowledging the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage, the Associate Minister of Justice, for his very prompt and complete answer to the question I posed as to the number of victims who had been compensated under the terms of the Prisoners’ and Victim’s Claims Act 2005 over the last 5 years, and the amount of that compensation. I am now informed that a total of $25,000 has been awarded to the victims as reparations, and a total of four victims have been awarded a total $38,000 under the provisions of that Act. So we know that in 5 years some $65,000 in total has found its way into the hands of victims who otherwise would have received nothing. That is an extraordinarily small amount of money. My expectations were not high; I have not been disappointed in those expectations. I would have thought it not beyond the wit of this House to come up with a mechanism that would deliver a great deal more real, practical compensation to victims than a very paltry $65,000 over 5 years. It seems hardly worth the time of this House to extend the life of this Act in order to perpetuate legislation that has clearly failed in its intention to return even a small amount of compensation to victims.

Clearly the Greens and the Māori Party are alone tonight in this House in terms of our opposition to the extension of this Act through the Prisoners’ and Victim’s Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. But we know that others outside this House support the position we are taking. We know this in part through the submissions that were made to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will quote from a couple of those submissions, firstly from Caritas, the agency for justice, peace, and development that is the social services arm of the Catholic Church in New Zealand. It is quite clear: “Caritas opposes the bill. We originally opposed the 2005 Act on which it is based because victims of crime will only benefit and be compensated if the offender is mistreated by the State and awarded compensation as a result of this mistreatment.” A point that has been made tonight is that it is a very perverse mechanism to award compensation to a victim only if the human rights of another person, an inmate, have been transgressed. That is a very strange daisy chain and a very peculiar mechanism for delivering compensation to people.

The Caritas submission goes on to say: “We still believe that under this legislation … few prisoners will pursue complaints of abuse and violence and even fewer victims are likely to receive compensation payouts.” Clearly that expectation is borne out by the history of the last 5 years—a very paltry $65,000 of benefit. Caritas further points out that “There is no incentive for prisoners to be compliant with prison authorities. A situation in prisons is created where there is nothing left to lose … The Act creates an environment where prisons are potentially more dangerous, and the extension of those provisions in this Bill repeats that risk.” Caritas is an organisation that is not self-interested; it has no axe to grind. It is an organisation concerned only with peace and justice in this country. It is making very clear and well-informed statements that this legislation is not worthy of extension, and that it sees no value in it.

The Human Rights Commission in its submission supported the continuation of the Act, but only rather tentatively and on the grounds of an assumption that there would be a full review of this legislation, and that by 2012 we will have legislation in place that is more compatible—to use the commission’s language—with article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the body of its submission it makes the point that, in its opinion, the process of awarding compensation in this Act does not amount to an effective remedy in terms of article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Commission went on to say that proposals to deal with the capacity crisis in our prisons—such mechanisms as double-bunking, two to a cell—are short-term remedies and are likely to increase the number of human rights issues that will need to be dealt with and the likelihood of transgressions of human rights. It goes on to say: “the State faces fewer adverse consequences when it fails to meet its obligation to prisoners.” under this legislation.

The Law Society is an organisation that cannot be trifled with. It is a highly credible organisation with a long history of analysis and commentary on legislation and law. It noted that in 2005 it opposed the Act being enacted. It quoted the United Nations Committee Against Torture as having expressed concern that the 2005 Act limited the award and the payment of compensation to prisoners. The society agrees with the Minister of Justice, quoting him as saying that “The best way of preventing future claims arising from breaches of prisoners’ human rights is to ensure that incidents leading to such claims are kept to an absolute minimum.”

Would it not be more sensible to put our energy and our efforts into minimising and reducing the offences against inmates while they were in prison—to get that unlovely proposition out of the way? Would it not make a great deal more sense to put effort into finding and applying the known mechanisms for reducing crime and recidivism, therefore reducing the number of victims? It is about finding real mechanisms and restorative justice processes that will enable victims to feel that they have experienced some closure and received some compensation, be it of a financial sort or simply in being able to let go of the emotional, mental, and occasionally physical trauma that results from crime.

We know that programmes that work are in place. The Sycamore Tree programme works with high-end offenders and has achieved remarkable outcomes in turning round lives and giving victims an opportunity to see that their concerns have been heard and that their issues have at least been confronted by the perpetuator of the crime against them. I mentioned earlier the faith unit that manages to deal with some 60 people a year, but probably could offer useful service and better outcomes for some 2,000 prisoners—that is the estimate of the Prison Fellowship. Some 2,000 prisoners would get benefit, would improve their behaviours, and would reduce the likelihood of recidivism if they were able to get access to programmes of that nature.

We know the solutions that work, and this bill is not one of them. The Act that it seeks to extend is not part of the solution; it is part of the problem. For that reason, we will vote against this legislation. Kia ora.

I have respect for the previous speaker, David Clendon, and I think he has raised some valid points. But I think he has at base proceeded from a misguided sense of what this bill is doing. He is essentially saying to this House that the human rights of the prisoner will be transgressed by this bill. Well, I say to him and to other members of the House that that is not actually what this bill does, at all.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Didn’t the Nats vote against this in 2005?

I will give Carmel Sepuloni a little bit of advice on this bill. I agree that it was originally her party’s bill, and I am supporting it, so there is not really any need for heckling. But I say to David Clendon that he comes from a misguided position. In fact, this bill does not take away any prisoners’ rights. Let us say that a prisoner is wronged in a serious way by a prison guard, and the prisoner receives compensation. I agree that that prisoner should receive the compensation. But the issue then is what happens with that money. Rightfully and morally, the guard owes the victim of the prisoner’s crime some money. Perhaps, the victim has been seriously and substantially put out of pocket because of the wrongs the prisoner has done. Well, I say that morally that person deserves some of that money. That is what this bill does. His rights have been vindicated because the State has had to pay out, for argument’s sake, $25,000 to him. It could be a “her”, but it is more likely be a “him”, going on the numbers of men and women in our prisons. But then from that, his victim of crime is also vindicated.

The idea that the State pays out for its wrongs is not without controversy. I happen to agree with that. But it was something that the courts did without reference to Parliament, and I think it was through Baigent’s case in the early 1990s. It had another name—Simpson v Attorney-General. That case was not without controversy. I personally agree with it. But it is controversial to argue that somehow dishing out compensation is a basic fundamental right. It is not necessarily the absolute truth. But I come back to the point. This is a good bill, and it does the right thing. I think David Clendon, although working from good motives, is misguided when he says that the human rights of prisoners are transgressed with this bill.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I want my colleagues to listen very carefully to my views on this bill, because the words I am about to express are not necessarily the same ones that my colleagues have expressed. I am told that this bill is an appalling fraud that is being committed on the people of New Zealand. I am told that the fraud being perpetrated on the House and on the public will only re-traumatise victims. Those are not my words or my beliefs.

💬 Hon Member: Whose words are they?

They are the words of the Hon Tony Ryall. In 2004 the Hon Tony Ryall, in the most extraordinary pantomime way possible, told the House that this kind of legislation was an appalling fraud that was being committed on the public of New Zealand. Mr Ryall, in response to an interjection from Labour members about what he would do, said: “I will stop this kind of legislation when I get into Government.” That is what Tony Ryall said. That is the kind of consistency in the justice portfolio that we see from Tony Ryall. In the same way in the health portfolio, at question time today we heard that in Opposition it is very important to close the wage gap with Australia for doctors, and in Government it is an impossible thing to do.

I will give the Hon Tony Ryall one piece of credit, which is more credit than his own colleagues give him. He said that he only stopped these kinds of payments under a Government led by Don Brash—he regaled the country in December 2004. But, of course, do not forget that Tony Ryall was the man who used to scarper along the parliamentary corridors with a big folder under his arm, saying “Te Puke bypass”. That was when he was organising the coup for Jenny Shipley to roll Jim Bolger. So he was on Jenny Shipley’s side. When it came to this legislation before Parliament, he was on Don Brash’s side. He thought he should be the Prime Minister of New Zealand, in respect of this bill. But now that it is back before Parliament, all of a sudden he is in favour of it. But the most amazing thing is that not only did he say those things in Opposition, but he sat in the chair tonight as Minister in charge of the bill, pushing it through Parliament; that is what he did.

I want to say one thing. When Dr Wayne Mapp, who is a Minister I know that members opposite are so proud of, gets up in the House to answer questions we can feel the pride radiating from Government members. It is like a rerun of the great BBC drama when the Rt Hon Jim Hacker, Minister of Administrative Affairs, gives his answers. Wayne Mapp said that this bill is a bizarre lottery. Wayne Mapp, probably never having won many prizes in life, would know. Georgina te Heuheu is an extraordinary answerer of questions with regard to legislation on appropriations. No one is better in the House. In fact, to be fair, the only place where the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs is better at answering questions is on Morning Report. She is pretty good there; she answers good questions on that programme. But in the House she tells it like she sees it. She said this was a fraud perpetrated not only on the House but on the public.

In 2005 Simon Power got up in the House as the Opposition shadow spokesperson on justice. By the time Simon Power spoke, there had been yet another leadership change in the National Party. Don Brash had gone, and John Key had arrived. Simon Power was reinvented in the justice portfolio. He said that the problem with this bill is that it re-traumatises victims, and National will have no part of that, as he led the National members into the Noes lobby. Do members know what Tony Ryall said? He said: “I will not let a figment of the United Nations decide what happens in New Zealand.” Well, the United Nations was going to decide whether we passed the original legislation, which through this bill we are now turning into a revalidation. We were not going to kowtow to the United Nations convention on torture. But of course when it came to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not only were we going to sign up to it but we should do it in secret. We had the stealth jet flying from Māngere Airport, and landing at John F Kennedy International Airport in New York, and the Minister of Māori Affairs scurrying across the tarmac and signing up to this declaration, because by that stage Tony Ryall believed that declarations like this were aspirational. But of course when it came to this bill, he was not going to have a figment of United Nations law taking any part in what we should say about this. He said legislation like this was window-dressing.

I am trying to explain why members, before they commit to the third reading, should decide whether they vote for it. Members opposite, I know, are such staunch researchers of their own party’s history. The great thing about the 2005 and the 2008 intakes is that they have no idea what National has done before, which is why they clap and cheer like performing seals whenever their leaders speak; it is because they are hearing everything for the first time.

One man with a future in the National Party—and I say this to make sure he does not have one—is Simon Bridges, whom I endorse. He spoke with such pride on the Government’s bill, but he would have no idea that his neighbouring MP, Tony Ryall, had said those things in 2004 and 2005. Get this. Do members know what Tony Ryall, of all members, said? He said of this legislation: “This is nothing more than a public relations exercise.”, yet here we are today, passing this law. At least our bill was several clauses and several parts long. This bill has only two parts and seven discrete clauses—seven deadly sins, one might say.

National finished up by saying that this bill should be blocked, stopped, and wiped, which is exactly what the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Date) Amendment Bill does, does it not? Oh no, sorry. What it does is to give the Act new life. It resuscitates and breathes new life into it. I tell you what, I would not want to take any advice from him.

I will finish by saying that we should quote somebody who is a man of great substance and a person who is always over the detail. I can quote no other such person than the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee. He said: “Why would you vote for a bill that just lines up New Zealand with other countries? This bill is out of touch and should not be supported.” He also said that this bill was a load of rubbish. Well, we have heard a lot of rubbish from members on the other side of the House tonight as they have got up and tried to say why they are revalidating legislation that just a few years ago they said they were against. I do not mind that they do things like that. I understand that conservative politicians are always years and years behind where they need to be. No matter what the issue is, they wait 10 or 20 years, and then they say: “Oh yeah, that is status quo now. I am conservative. Status quo is for me. I am all for it.” All that the Opposition asks tonight is, if those members are going to flip-flop on a bill, then they should at least have the good grace to get up and say that they might have been wrong.

I intend to take just a very short call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. All night we have been asking why the Government has been so quiet on this bill, and why the ACT Party has been absolutely silent on it. Of course, now we have figured out what that was all about. They were not prepared to put themselves in the position where they had to accept that, actually, this bill, which extends legislation that the previous Labour Government brought in, turned out to be extending legislation that the National Opposition had voted against at the time.

It was interesting that the one member of the National Government who got up and spoke on this bill during the Committee stage was Chester Borrows. His contribution was quite good; it was quite a reasonable and measured contribution to the debate. Interestingly, from what I have been able to find in the last few minutes—although I am not sure about it—Mr Borrows did not make a contribution to the debate when the legislation was first debated. But Tony Ryall spoke for him. Tony Ryall spoke on behalf of Mr Borrows, and he stated: “… Chester Borrows will tell the people in Wanganui, that under this legislation offenders will still get the money.”, and that is why people like Mr Borrows and Mr Ryall were going to vote against it.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: What’s he saying now?

Well, this is the thing. Just a few years later, Mr Borrows got up and did not tell the people of Whanganui that this is a terrible bill, at all; he got up and told us why it is such a fantastic bill and why it represents such progress from the Government on law and order issues. Tony Ryall said that he would stop these payments. Of course, he did say, as my colleague Darren Hughes pointed out, that he would stop them under a Don Brash Government, so he has managed to keep that promise. But he also said that the Labour Government was prepared to mislead the public about the effects of this legislation. Well, I ask what is more misleading to the public than standing up and abusing legislation, and telling the country that it will do nothing for victims’ rights, that it will simply be in favour of offenders, and that it is misleading legislation. And what do we get from a National Government just a few years later? National members have finally figured out what good legislation it is and why they should vote in favour of it.

The ACT Party was doing exactly the same thing. It was pointing out all the areas in which it thought this bill was so deficient, but very quietly—silently, in fact—it has supported the Government. It has bowed down, done as it was told, and done what the National Government has told it to do, and it has allowed this bill to go through. It is amending legislation that ACT members such as Stephen Franks got up and spoke so vehemently against when it was first mooted.

As we have said throughout the night, this bill is a nothing bill. It is quite innocuous and it really does nothing harmful, so Labour is happy to support it. But we have been asking all night why the Government is so quiet. Why is the Government so quiet? It is because it was not prepared to tell the New Zealand public just how much it misled them and how much of a U-turn this is. That is why this Government will never be the Government that puts victims’ rights at the centre of its policy. It has no ideas on victims’ rights. All it can do is regurgitate the ideas of the previous Labour Government that National thought were so bad when it was in Opposition. We are happy to see this bill go through, but this Government has been found out tonight.