Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As has been said previously, this bill is straightforward. It maintains the status quo under the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for a further year, preventing that Act from, effectively, expiring on 1 July 2012. It ensures that compensation payable to prisoners for claims continues to be subject to the existing restrictions on awards of compensation. The bill also ensures that the victims of prisoners who are awarded compensation continue to have priority to claim against that compensation before it is paid to the prisoner.

The existing restrictions in the current Act require that financial compensation can be awarded to prisoners only in extraordinary circumstances where no other remedy is deemed appropriate, and only after the prisoner has made use of the existing complaints mechanisms that are available to them. If financial compensation must be awarded, the Act requires that deductions are first made to pay any legal aid debt in relation to the claim, any outstanding reparation, and any earlier orders in favour of victims. The Act then allows victims of the prisoners to seek redress for the harms they have suffered through a simplified victims’ claims process. The prisoner can access the compensation only once the victims’ claims process is complete.

Without the bill, sunset clauses in the Act would take effect next week, claims for compensation filed by prisoners would not be subject to the Act’s restrictions, and any compensation awarded would not be subject to the deductions or simplified victims’ claims process. The 1-year extension in the bill maintains the status quo until the policy to redirect prisoners’ compensation to support victims of crimes is progressed. I commend the bill to the House.

As we have heard, there are two sunset clauses in the legislation that is under consideration by the House in this third reading debate of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. The requirement for this legislation arises because of those sunset clauses. As has been canvassed in the previous debates in the House, the history of this matter is as follows. Between 1998 and 2004 there was operated by the Department of Corrections a behaviour management regime or behaviour modification regime, the BMR. There was High Court litigation, the Taunoa case, about the validity of that regime. It led to the awarding of damages—substantial damages, in fact—to inmates who had been physically assaulted under that regime and whose human rights had been infringed. As a result of a concern that the victims of those inmates, if they wanted to try to seek a share of the compensation that those inmates had been awarded, would have to go through all the ordinary court processes in order to do so, Parliament put in place, as we have heard from the Acting Minister of Justice, an expedited process whereby victims of offending could apply, through a special procedure, to get paid to them some of the compensation that would be paid to the inmates, under the High Court principles that were set out in the Taunoa case.

The original legislation, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, was always time-limited. There was a sunset clause built into it, and clearly that indicates that it was appropriate to see whether or not the regime that I have described was working—and, frankly, on that question, the jury is out. There has not been a proper review of whether or not it is an adequate regime. There should have been a review by now. Everybody knew that there was a sunset clause in operation. Members opposite had been members of the Government for 4 years, and yet no review was commenced.

So the question arose as to what ought to happen in these circumstances. There were three choices: let the Act expire and have the discussion about whether a replacement was needed and, if so, what it should be; agree to extend the Act for a short period of time so that that discussion could still occur; or attempt to pass through all its stages the replacement legislation for the substantive Act, which is on the Order Paper. But there are, I think it is agreed, a number of concerns about that substantive replacement. I think there is a general consensus around the House that there should be a discussion based on evidence and rational principles about what sort of prisoners’ victims compensation claim regime should exist going forward.

I just want to say one or two words about what that replacement regime might look like, if it is the case that there is agreement to create such a regime. Here is the problem, in my view, both with the existing scheme and with what is proposed on the Order Paper to replace it. First of all, it is not sufficiently victim-centric. It looks at the position of inmates who get compensation and then talks about how that sort of compensation can be paid to their victims. If we are taking a properly victim-centric approach in this area, then we ought to look at the position of victims and say that we believe that victims should be able to easily get some sort of monetary compensation from those who have offended against them. It should not matter whether those offenders are inmates, subject to a community sentence, or otherwise. That is the first point that I think ought to be borne in mind in any review of the current legislation.

Secondly, it should not matter whether the offender gets compensation from the Crown through a court order. Any person subject to any sentence who receives some form of unexpected windfall payment ought to have some obligation to make their victim whole by paying them some sort of compensation as a token of apology and redress for the wrong that they have caused. So whether it is a Lotto win or a testamentary bequest under a will, if the person who has offended receives an unexpected payment, there ought to be an expectation that some of that money should go to their victim.

There is another important principle here, though, and that is that everyone’s human rights should be protected, including those who are subject to a sentence, so people should not be punished twice. How do we get around this? Well, one way might be that at any sentencing a judge might be asked to give an indication as to the percentage or quantum of payment that ought to be payable to an offender’s victims in the event that the offender comes into an unexpected payment during the time of their sentence. And to ensure that there is not double punishment, there should be an indication as to what discount ought to be applied to the custodial or community-based sentence that the offender is being subject to, in the event that they later make a payment of monetary compensation to their victim. It seems to me that if we could come to an agreement across the House that some sort of system along these lines could be brought into being, then we would actually have legislation that did start with the interests of victims—where it should start—but that did not seek to double-punish those who have committed offences, because that is in itself offensive to our constitution. That is the sort of discussion that I am hoping we will have across the House.

I know that one of my Green Party colleagues in the earlier stages of this debate expressed scepticism about the likely quality of that debate. Well, I just want to say this in conclusion. The reason that Labour has agreed to this extension is in the hope that we will have that sort of discussion. We are willing to have it without preconditions, provided that it is a principled discussion. But we will say this up front. Any proposal that starts with the idea of wanting to help victims get compensation for suffering wrong without having to leap through a whole lot of legal hoops need not be, in itself, offensive to human rights, and I think that is where we depart from our colleagues in the Green Party. Equally, insisting on a rational debate as to how to achieve this without trampling on human rights, including those of offenders, is not being soft on law and order or being anti-victim. I think if we get rhetoric along those lines from across the House, that will undermine the opportunity that we could have for a sensible discussion about what should be in place going forward on this particular subject.

With those words, I want to conclude my contribution. This Act, I think, given the votes in earlier proceedings in the House, will be extended for 1 year. In that year Parliament has an opportunity to make sure that there is a rational and evidence-based discussion on how we look after those who suffer from offending without compromising human rights across the board. I hope all members of this House will actually take that opportunity up in a bona fide way, and I am signalling that, certainly, Labour members are up for that.

I thank Mr Chauvel for that indication, and I want to reiterate that the purpose of this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, is to extend the restrictions on the awarding of compensation for 1 year from 1 July. That is just 2 days away. This is very important to ensure that the victims claims process continues to apply to any compensation awarded or to be paid pursuant to an out-of-court final settlement in respect of a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July this year.

It is a bill to bridge the gap between the expiry of the current regime and progressing the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill, which is the 2011 bill, through the House. The 2011 bill provides for the existing victims claims process to be made permanent, and redirects any prisoners compensation remaining after that process to fund services and programmes for the victims of crime. Although I appreciate that most parties in this House are supporting this bill’s passage through the House—and I do thank them for that—I am also aware that some members opposite have been critical of the Government’s management of this measure in the previous debates on it, and during the Committee stage, in particular. So I would like to place a couple of facts on the record about their own management of the legislative process.

Part of the reason for this particular measure is the fact that Labour left behind a criminal justice system in disarray. It was lacking accountability, and it certainly lacked a focus on victims. Labour promised a victims compensation scheme in 1994, 1996, 2005, and at the beginning of 2008, but it never delivered it. So it is a bit rich to come into this House now and criticise the fact that we are having to pass this measure.

This Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill must be enacted tomorrow. That is how important it is. The consequences of failing to do so would be significant and clearly contrary to the public interest.

I conclude by simply repeating the observations of the Minister of Justice that this is a very straightforward bill that maintains the status quo for a limited period. I remind the House that the Government has introduced a bill to give effect to our policy of redirecting prisoners compensation to support victims of crime, as the public overwhelmingly expects and demands, rather than paying it to prisoners, and to make that new regime permanent.

Rather than rushing that measure, this interim bill will bridge the gap and ensure that the redirecting prisoner compensation bill that has been introduced may be accorded proper consideration and a full select committee process. All members should welcome that, and I know that interested members of the public who will want to have the opportunity to submit on that bill and to be engaged in the process will also appreciate that consideration.

I welcome the anticipated passage of the 2012 expiry bill this afternoon and its enactment tomorrow, and I look forward to working on the measure that will replace it on a more permanent basis during the months ahead.

Can I begin by correcting the member who has just resumed his seat, Tim Macindoe. He has not been in the House very long so I guess he can be forgiven for not knowing that far from the previous Labour Government leaving the justice system in disarray, the two biggest pieces of legislation—the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act—were both passed in 2002. Shortly after that there was a Victims’ Rights Act, also passed by the Labour Government. That replaced a previous Victims of Offences Act, also passed by a Labour Government in the previous term. So I reject entirely the facile arguments raised by Tim Macindoe that the system was in disarray. In fact, the pieces of legislation that are most important in the justice system today were passed under the last Labour Government, not the pieces of legislation that have gone through in the first 3 years of the National Government, which are basically window dressing and do absolutely nothing.

Secondly, the member had the effrontery to tell the House that this legislation is so important it must be passed by tomorrow. Do you know why it has to be passed by tomorrow? Because with 3½ years’ notice the Government did nothing, knowing full well that the existing legislation, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, expires tomorrow. That is political mismanagement. This Government should have acted in a timely way to get the new legislation into the House.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Your filibustering prevented it. It reflects your filibustering.

And the fact that we are doing it now, the day before the adjournment, is an indication not of filibustering, at all; it is an indication of incompetency in management of the legislative agenda.

This Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill is a simple bill. It would have been unnecessary if the Government had acted in a timely way. That is, the Government has had 3½ years to come up with replacement legislation, knowing that the existing legislation had a sunset clause, and that should have happened. The one advantage of that is that the Minister of Justice gave a commitment earlier in this debate, which I hope she intends to honour, that she would use the year ahead to review the legislation and to determine the most appropriate way of replacing it. I know that there is a piece of legislation that the Government has drafted. It does not do the job that I believe needs to be done if we are to put victims at the centre of the justice process.

At the third reading I think it is important to give the context of the existing legislation. It was passed in 2005 and it was passed when I was Minister of Justice. That was because we had an unprecedented number of claims being made by inmates within the system for compensation for a system that had not upheld their rights. I do not justify the fact that the corrections system, in its behaviour modification regime, got it wrong. We are bound by international law on this, not just recently, but for the last 40 or 50 years.

Mr Ryall is in the House today and he might remember this little speech that he gave at the time. He was the leading speaker for the National Party in Opposition. He said National was opposed to the bill, and believed that the payments should be “blocked, stopped, and wiped out”. He said: “We do not believe that New Zealand should be constrained by the figment of what the United Nations may or may not state in various conventions.” That “figment” was a series of the most important human rights standards passed by the international community to be signed, ratified, and observed by New Zealand for 40 years, and they were observed by all of the countries that we would like to compare ourselves with: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. I suppose I should say while Mr Ryall is in the House that after that rabid statement I am pleased this Government has at least resiled from Mr Ryall’s awful claims, and acknowledges that you need to uphold the international standards that we have committed ourselves to. So I suppose that is progress of some sort.

Notwithstanding the fact that the inmates concerned had committed some of the most serious crimes, and that they had been amongst the most recidivist of offenders, we nevertheless have to have a system where we set rules, and the people we put in charge of the corrections system have to follow and observe those rules. I did not believe, however, that the only way of doing that was to provide huge compensation payments to those inmates. I will tell you why I thought that at the time. First of all, I thought that only in exceptional circumstances, where there was no other proper remedy of the breach of rights, should compensation be granted, and I hold by that statement.

Secondly, I thought that it was really important that if these inmates were to receive compensation, the victims they had created—people who were badly damaged physically, who had had their property destroyed, and who still bore the scars of the offending by this group of people—should not be left out in the cold while the inmates whose rights were also abused came into a huge sum of money. Not one of these offenders would have given reparation to their victims. They left behind people who they had badly damaged without any sense of remorse, without any attempt to make a payment, and no payment ordered by the State because they were on their way to jail. So here were the victims of these inmates, who had been badly abused—much more so than the inmates themselves—and they were getting nothing while the inmates were going to come in for a windfall. I thought that was wrong, and I still think that is wrong. So what we wanted to do, and what we did in this Act, was to restrict the circumstances for payment, and to allow the victims of that offending to make a claim against the inmates if the inmates got compensation.

We put a sunset clause in. Why did we do that? Because although the principle was right—that the victims should be properly compensated for the injustice done to them by the inmates—we were not sure that the mechanism was going to achieve this. I am grateful that the Minister came into the House and said what this Act had actually done. It had enabled five victims of inmates to receive compensation, I think totalling around $45,000. Well, that is good, but it is tiny. It is not a remedy for the wrongs done to victims across the board. My concern at the time, and my concern now, is that I was dealing with a fraction of the victims of offenders.

And there are all sorts of other circumstances that were arising. Some people in jail were writing books about their crimes, and if it was a sufficiently dramatic and dreadful crime, they would come into a whole lot of money from the proceeds of selling their book. Where is the justice in that, while their victims are left without anything? What about the inmate who receives a bequest—you know, they come into a whole lot of money that they have inherited? They are now in a position to set things right for their victims, but there was no requirement for that. There is another set of circumstances—and I was reminded of this by a situation in the paper the other day where a former gang enforcer is now living a relatively respectable life as a businessman on Auckland’s North Shore. He has a whole trail of victims behind him. He has now got the means to set things right. He will never have shown remorse, and he will never have given any compensation to his victims.

What I say the Minister should be doing, in this year that we have got now, is to think laterally, and to look at other systems where victims are better treated than they are in our system. You know, we have court cases, and they are described as—if you will excuse an example, Mr Deputy Speaker Roy—the State against Roy. So you have got the State, which is the prosecutor, and you have got Roy, who is the offender, but nowhere in that case is the name of the victim mentioned. We say that the victim should be at the centre of the process, not an adjunct. They should be there.

You get real justice when you follow a restorative process. What does restorative justice mean? It means an expression of remorse. Maybe that is a bit easy, but it means that the offender is required, to the extent possible, to set to right the wrongs that have been done. I would hope, instead of this half-baked measure that the Government wants to introduce, we would look more widely at a system whereby we respected the victim and we required the offender to put things right, even if it is some years after the offence was committed, because at the time of conviction hardly any serious offender will be able to make payments to the victim. But if they are in the position later on, why should they not, even at that stage, be required to put right their wrongs to the victim? So I ask the Minister to uphold the undertaking that she has given to the House to talk to all sides of the House, to try to come up with something that does actually provide genuine justice for victims. This is an opportunity, and we should take that opportunity.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It would be disingenuous to say that I am happy to rise and speak to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. As we have made clear, the Green Party does not support this bill. We have covered the reasons why pretty comprehensively. In brief, firstly, we do not think that the Government’s inability to manage its Order Paper efficiently is a good enough reason to pass laws. Although we appreciate and support the Minister of Justice’s stated intention of a full debate on the forthcoming redirection bill, that does not mitigate the poor organisation that has led to a shortage of time to accomplish this.

We also do not accept that this bill is either necessary or desirable. It is not necessary, because we do not find the assertion that prisoners would strategically lodge claims in the gap very well substantiated; nor after the Supreme Court decision in the Taunoa case, where the damages were significantly reduced, would it likely create the fiscal burden that the Government is concerned about. Admittedly, we think people being compensated for wrongs done to them is actually not as bad a result as the Government and, indeed, Labour members seem to think. But even if one were to believe that, it is far from clear that the amounts would be crippling.

That brings me broadly to our belief that it is as undesirable as it is unnecessary. As my colleague David Clendon and I have repeatedly argued, this bill creates perverse incentives for prisoners not to bring abuse to the attention of the judiciary, as they would be unable to receive compensation for the wrongs done to them. So that protects the Crown, really, from having to compensate prisoners for gross breaches of rights, and that means that there is not as much of an incentive as there should be for the Crown to look after the human rights of those who are in prison.

I explained earlier this week, during the Committee stage, that the Hon Phil Goff has brought up the idea that there should be a sort of comprehensive approach to getting money for a victims fund, so that no matter where the money is coming from, if the prisoners are receiving money—whether it is through their employment after leaving prison, from an inheritance, or from winning the lottery—victims should have some ability to make a claim on that money. That is a completely different sort of approach to what has been taken in the primary legislation that this bill amends. The approach that was taken in the primary legislation was that there was one breach of rights over here—the prisoner is serving a sentence for a breach of the rights of their victim—and then there was a second breach of rights, which was a very gross breach of rights in the Taunoa case, on the part of the Crown of the prisoner serving a sentence. Those two things are conceptually very different, and it does not make sense, I do not think, to legislate specifically for those cases in which prisoners have had a breach of rights and you take away their compensation and their incentive to seek compensation by saying that, in fact, they cannot actually touch it, and that you are going to take it away from them and use it to remedy this other breach of rights over here.

It is strange to think that prisoners should not have recourse to compensation when their rights have been abused as they are serving their sentences, which is the price that society has determined they will pay for their crimes. They are serving their sentence; they are in prison—that was the price that we decided they should pay. If victims believe that they need further financial compensation, they have the ability to take the course of action of taking a law suit. Of course the Green Party wants to put victims at the heart of our justice system, and we support restorative justice for that reason. It is in the very first lines of our justice policy that it is important to put victims at the heart of our justice system. But it is very strange that Labour members consider that receiving compensation for a gross breach of human rights is a windfall. I do not think they would describe it as a windfall if they had been condemned to years of solitary confinement with no right to go outside and take exercise, fresh air, and sunlight, as was the case with Taunoa.

It is in this last bit of the call that I would like to take the time to respond to the theme coming from Government members during their calls on this bill. For example, Alfred Ngaro—for whom I have considerable respect—suggested that it was disappointing, but unsurprising, that the Greens do not support the bill, and that he did not hear concern about victims from us. We have the deepest concern for victims, whether they be in prison or not, and in this case the prisoners were victims. We are getting pretty used to the Government building straw men to tear down, in regard to our policies and beliefs. The Green Party fully supports the rights of victims. Our disagreement lies in the fact that this bill plays a zero-sum game of trading off people’s rights. That, in our view, is not justice.

I think the fact that only five claims have been made under this legislation and $45,000 paid out in the last 8 or 9 years demonstrates that this does very little to support victims when there are many other courses of action we could take that do not involve trampling on the rights of others. This bill, which extends the sunset clause for the primary legislation, does nothing really to compensate or protect victims or to put them at the heart of the justice system, and it also does nothing to reduce abuse in prisons. It protects the Crown and limits the liability of the Crown. I just do not think that is justice. We do not win justice by subjecting our fellow human beings, no matter what wrongs they have done, to the potential for abuse, or by denying them the right to have that abuse compensated—victimising them doubly. Nobody wins; newly victimised people lose. That is not justice and it is not good policy, and that is why we do not support the extension of the sunset clause. Thank you.

We are continuing to work for a safer New Zealand. We are doing this through concentration on preventive policing through neighbourhood policing teams and public safety teams. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill extends the application of the provisions of the 2005 Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act to 1 July 2013, by deferring the expiry of the provisions relating to restrictions on the awarding of compensation until that date; 1 July 2013.

The bill underlines the fact that we are putting victims at the heart of the justice system. We are directing prisoner compensation to victims to put them, as I say, at the heart of the justice system. This is just another example of the huge improvements we have made, and continue to make, in the justice system in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

I will be able to make only a brief call about this, because I believe, as the last speaker has set out, that this is a very simple bill, and most has already been said, probably more than once. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill simply extends the current regime for a further year while new legislation is developed. On that basis, the bill will be acceptable to New Zealand First and we will support it.

The final legislation when developed must, in the first place, preserve the rights properly held by prisoners, including the right to compensation for accidents and any compensation that may be awarded for serious abuse while in prison, rare though that may be. But, on the other hand, we must also ensure that there is no abuse by prisoners of that process and the entitlement to compensation. This does mean, therefore, New Zealand First believes, that some special rules need to be developed to avoid inappropriate claims by prisoners while they are in prison—after all, that is an extraordinary circumstance, and some different rules should be developed for that purpose—because there is potential for abuse of ACC processes by prisoners and for spurious or unmeritorious claims for compensation for abuse while in prison.

There needs to be an appropriate balance between prisoners’ rights and the potential for abuse by them. That is what the new regime needs to do, and a good and proper investigation needs to be carried out for that purpose during the coming year. The extension of the sunset clause for that period is necessary and appropriate, and, as I have already said, New Zealand First will support it.

But there is another significant issue that needs to be investigated during that time, and that concerns the provision enabling the transfer of compensation awarded to prisoners to victims generally, or, alternatively, to victims specifically. If the awarding of compensation to a prisoner is to be transferred generally to victims, in a fund for that purpose, then that may not be acceptable. However, if the transfer of the compensation is for the particular victim of a particular prisoner, then that would be acceptable.

Compensation of victims, where awarded, is of the highest importance, and I see that there is a clamour amongst the members in the House to ensure that they are on the bandwagon ensuring the rights of victims. New Zealand First is certainly amongst them, because, as I have already said, it is a matter of the highest importance to put victims in the centre of the position with regard to this particular matter.

The devil, of course, is in the detail, as I have already indicated. Therefore there needs to be discussion about that. In the end, there needs to be in particular a genuine and objective review during the next 12 months. We are likely to find that we cannot let this legislation expire, and that we do need to sort out what the proper balance is between prisoners and their rights and the rights of victims on the other hand. In particular, we need to settle that question about whether the transfer of compensation should be generally for the victims of crime or should be restricted only to a particular victim of a particular prisoner. That is a debate that I particularly look forward to having, and that is a discussion that will be vital if we are going to reach any sort of consensus on these issues.

So, in the end, let us have that review. Let us make sure that it is genuine and objective, and that before debating the substantive issues we do receive the results of that investigation and past legislation, based on real results and a real, genuine, and objective review. In the meantime, New Zealand First certainly supports this bill to extend the sunset clause of this legislation for another year while that review takes place.

I am very pleased to take a short call in the third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. It is a very straightforward bill. The Justice and Electoral Committee received just 5 submissions on the bill and recommended it proceed without amendment. It does extend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for just one further year, as the House has heard.

This bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, which will come through the House in due course, will therefore bridge the gap between the expiry of the 2005 Act while progressing the Government’s Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill through the House. It really just maintains the status quo, and will ensure that victims of prisoners who are awarded compensation will continue to have priority to claim against that compensation before it is paid to the prisoner.

We are focused on placing victims at the heart of our justice system and directing prisoner compensation to victims, and this supports this focus. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

I am glad to be taking a short call at the final stage of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. I understand that there is huge international interest in this particular bill today, because I know that there are at least two people in Toronto, Canada, watching this bill, and I just acknowledge my son and my daughter-in-law who are watching. There you are; I have done that.

This is not a complicated bill. Two sunset clauses are being extended, and that is where we find ourselves. The decent thing to do is to support it, and that is what we are doing on this side of the House. But what has been interesting is just observing the process and reading the earlier speeches that people gave about this particular bill and the various stages of this bill.

The original 2005 Act was designed to address a particular problem that occurred then in a particular case when prisoners were getting compensated, and, as the Hon Phil Goff has said, it was not acceptable. The provisions of that legislation were put in place so that any moneys prisoners were getting were then to be channelled through to victims so that they could get fully compensated, and that was the decent thing to do. This bill simply extends those provisions for now.

It is interesting that some Government members—in the first and second readings of this bill and also during the Committee stage—have taken this very simple bill to inordinate lengths to make a different kind of statement. In the first reading, Tim Macindoe said this, and I think it is still his view: “This bill is part of a large measure, a large arsenal of initiatives, to improve public safety and respect for law and order”. Well, this bill does nothing of the kind. It never did, but, of course, members opposite never miss an opportunity to drive home that the only party that wants to push law and order is the National Party. Yet this legislation was put in place under Labour.

Alfred Ngaro in the first reading also said something very similar: “National is reforming our criminal justice system to put a stronger emphasis on the victims, and, as our colleague has said,” etc., etc. He was again calling up, through this particular bill, National’s focus on victims. In fact, this bill does nothing of that sort. It is two simple provisions; it extends the sunset clauses. But they were not talking about that. Here was an opportunity—never let it pass. But, of course, Cam Calder is the other one. In fact, Mr Calder did it again as he took a very, very short call just a few minutes ago. For him this bill is just another example of the National Government working to improve the justice system. This bill—

💬 Mike Sabin: The best thing you can do to support victims is have less of them.

—Mr Sabin, does nothing of the sort. All this bill does is fix something the Government should have fixed a long time ago. This bill, truth be told, is really, under these circumstances, 2 days before it is required, fixing a problem that Government members did not fix before. They may not be big enough to accept that, but, indeed, that was the case.

The comments that I have just quoted, and Mr Saban’s comments a moment ago, simply show that members opposite have really not grasped the essential nature of this bill. It is very simple—it is just extending two sunset clauses. Wear it proudly and say: “We should have fixed it before, we didn’t, but now we need to.” It is a bit like the Minister of Police last week wanting to push the button to crush the car, then standing on the car—

💬 Mike Sabin: I thought we were talking about the specifics of the bill.

—as if she had climbed a mountain and needed to plant a flag, Mr Sabin. That was obscene. That was obscene and unnecessary, but it was just another one of those instances of taking the opportunity to show that here is the Government, tough on law and order. One car has been crushed, and the provisions of the legislation have not been used to any great extent.

I just repeat that this bill has come before the House, in this form, now, simply to fix something the Government should have fixed some time ago. That is worth repeating, and others have said that quite clearly. Mr Charles Chauvel has actually taken it further, because there is another bill before the House, a Government bill, that will say how compensation systems should work for prisoners, etc., and how that compensation should be passed on to victims. I think Mr Chauvel has put a lot of thought into his first reading speech; he has said there is more to it than that. The Government should do a first principles review, and then go back and say: “What are we trying to do here, and why is it that we are talking about only what happens to our prisoners and what compensation our prisoners get?”.

Why are we not talking about windfalls that others get, even if they are not in prison, and why is that not to be channelled through to victims as well? That would be putting victims at the centre, as Government members have been saying. At the moment, that work has not been done, and we certainly encourage that work to be done, because there is an opportunity—there is a bill, and there is 12 months to do it. I hope that well within that time frame the thinking will be done and it will be brought back.

Finally, there is another lesson in there, which is a warning, if you like, to those who devise programmes in our institutions or elsewhere to ensure that those programmes are organised in such a way that they do respect human rights. I know that Tony Ryall, judging by earlier comments he made about human rights, does not respect human rights, but it still is something—

💬 Louise Upston: Oh!

Well, the Hon Phil Goff actually quoted him. He actually quoted him, and I did not see the Hon Tony Ryall standing up and resiling from those earlier comments. Maybe he will, but the point is that human rights are important, and anybody who has been in that role here or internationally knows that we will need to ensure that those rights are respected. It is not that difficult to do, but sometimes, in the kind of rather single-minded approach that some Government members have taken to law and order, etc., you forget those things as well. It is entirely possible to resile from that and bring them together. With those comments, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. This bill has been well debated in the House, especially in the second reading, actually. Both Charles Chauvel and the Hon Judith Collins gave us an in-depth history on how this bill has got here and where they see it going, so I am not going to re-debate the history in this House, because I think Hansard will have that in quite a lot of detail.

This bill is a transitional bill. The purpose of the bill is to extend the restrictions on the rewarding of compensation for 1 year from 1 July, which is next week, until 30 June 2013. The main provision of this bill is obviously, then, bridging the gap between the expiry of the bill next week until the new bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill 2011, comes through the House. That bill is going to progress through the House, so this time next year we will have new legislation in place, because obviously this has got a sunset clause in it, as well, of just 1 year.

The bill provides for the existing victims’ claims process to be made permanent, and redirects any prisoners’ compensation remaining after the process to fund services and programmes for victims of crime, and I think that is really important. This Government is committed to being more responsive to victims and ensuring that their needs are met, and building a safer New Zealand for our children, our families, and the older people in New Zealand—in fact, all New Zealanders. Through this bill we are aiding the change of reforming our criminal justice system to put a stronger emphasis on victims, because that is what the focus of this Government has been on in our law and order policy. We are committed to providing an effective remedy for victims of crime. I think this truly does help victims. It is putting them first. It is saying that they are a priority, and with this levy I think it has made a difference to victims’ lives. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call, so we will start with the Greens.

It is my pleasure to take a very short call on this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, tonight. As our opposition was so clearly outlined by my colleague Julie Anne Genter just earlier, in fact my speech will be quite brief, and will act almost as an exclamation mark to hers. We oppose this bill for four fundamental reasons. First, we do not support legislation to correct the mismanagement of the Order Paper. Second, we believe victims should be at the heart of the justice system, including victims who may have committed crimes. I would also like to note here that many of the prisoners in our prisons are people with significant disabilities, including learning disabilities and other types of disabilities, and to characterise them, as this bill does, as criminals who are a danger to society and acted entirely with ill intent, is to mischaracterise the nature of crime. The third point is that we do not believe the Crown should be protected from gross or, actually, any abuses of human rights, as this bill unintentionally will do. And, fourth, the State has a duty of care under international legislation, and the only right a prisoner should lose is the right to liberty. These four fundamental reasons outline our opposition. Kia ora koutou.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. This is the first opportunity I have had to contribute to this debate, so in this third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill I want to highlight that my colleagues Charles Chauvel and the Hon Lianne Dalziel were members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I thank them for the work they did.

I want to highlight points in three areas. The first is about the importance of striking a balance between victims’ and offenders’ rights. What we do know is that the bill is before the House because the Department of Corrections in its recent history implemented an offender management system that was shown to be in breach of inmates’ human rights and New Zealand’s international obligations regarding our treatment of inmates and offenders. We are also debating this issue because a judicial decision concerning the award of compensation to an inmate struck a chord of unease with politicians, decision makers, members of the general public, and, more important, victims of criminal behaviours.

The second theme area that I want to highlight in this third reading is about addressing the concerns of victims and public perception. At the heart of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 was the concern that inmates, some of whom had committed terrible offences, would receive large monetary compensation for abuse of their rights. But the Supreme Court decision in the Taunoa case largely addressed this issue, and I want to highlight that my colleague Charles Chauvel spoke about this earlier. There was also a very real and valid concern that the victims of offences by some of those inmates who were and are carrying lifelong sentences themselves—lifelong scars that no monetary compensation could fix—were struggling to obtain compensation from the inmates who had offended against them.

Thirdly, I want to highlight that there were questions of trust and fairness about that system. The only other point I want to make is about the piecemeal approach to criminal justice legislation that I think this bill highlights.

Today we are addressing two issues. Firstly, we are setting out the circumstances in which the judiciary can award inmates compensation for any breach of their rights while they are incarcerated. And, secondly, we are trying to strike the balance between victims’ and offenders’ rights by setting out a process where if an inmate does receive compensation, the victims of those inmates can claim against any money they may be owed by those inmates. This is a very important issue that we are trying to fix, and Labour is supporting this piece of legislation, but we should highlight that this issue could have been resolved 3½ years ago. That is all I want to say.

My final point is to support the comments made by my Labour colleagues during the first and second readings of this bill on the need to think about the wider implication of offending by people who are not incarcerated in our prisons whose victims are struggling to cope with the outcomes of the offences committed against them and to receive compensation from the offenders. And, secondly, we need to consider the question of whether it is fair and appropriate that other forms of offenders’ monetary or financial benefit should also be considered as an avenue to address compensation issues for the victims. Kia ora.

I am proud to take the final call on this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill in its third reading. We used to have a saying—and I think it still exists—that if you do the crime, then you do the time. This was a real, punitive approach and view around action and consequence. I know that the public is really clear about the fact that when crime is committed, there should be some action and consequence to that. One of the things that this Government is absolutely committed to is around safety, but also around the balance of rights and responsibilities. I heard from Miss Julie Anne Genter, who talked about the fact that there is a trading-off between the balance of rights and responsibilities. This Government is really clear that the balance is often outweighed at the opposite end, where victims have not been put first. So, we are really clear that we want to ensure that the rights of victims are balanced and put first. Often they are in situations of entering into the criminal justice system through no fault of their own. They have to deal with the financial, the emotional, and the physical effects of crime long after it has been committed.

Clearly, this bill’s intention is—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Phil Goff—around awarding compensation. The bill defers the expiry of the provisions relating to the restrictions on the awarding of compensation until 1 July 2013.

As for the victims’ claims process, the Government intends to progress the 2011 bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill, so that it is enacted on 30 June 2013.

Finally, the point I would like to make—and I have heard some of the comments made, especially those from Mr Chauvel—is around ensuring that there is an approach that is partisan around this bill, so that it is fit for purpose, so that it consults in a way that addresses the issues of safety and concern, and, most important, that in situations like this we need to return a level of trust back into our communities, so that those of us who are part of the Government, those who are in the law enforcement agencies, and those who are in the community can trust that the system responds to the needs and to the rights and responsibilities of the victims in our communities. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.