Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill

When the House rose last Thursday, I was 2 minutes into my speech—and what a rather extraordinary series of events we had in the debate on that day. I note with interest that the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the bill contains minority views from virtually every party in the House—specifically, every party that is represented on the select committee, except Labour.

What do those minority reports state? Consistently they oppose the bill, which raises an interesting question. How could this bill get passed through the House by the Government when even its coalition partner and—I am not sure how to describe the “Poodle Party”—its partners in sin, which give it supply and confidence, oppose it? United Future even states that it opposes this bill. Indeed, it went further. Mr Marc Alexander, in his derision of the bill, in his strong criticism and well-argued points against it, went on to say that his party supports it.

It defies logic. It is logic that defies gravity when a member stands up in this House and says that nothing about this bill is right, that everything about it insults one’s sense of fairness and insults the victims of crime, and then that his party will support it. However, he did conclude his speech by saying that if the amendments that United Future put up are rejected in the Committee stage—which is quite obvious they have been, because the amendments do not feature in the tabled copy of the bill at its second reading—then he will not vote for it. So clearly, the discussions that United Future members have had behind the scenes with Phil Goff, and with other Labour justice and law and order people, have not produced the amendments the member wants in this bill.

He is now signalling that United Future will put up Supplementary Order Papers and seek to make changes. He said that if those amendments are not supported by the Government and the Labour Party, United Future will not necessarily vote for the bill. He said further that he would not be in the House. We are all confused as to whether he means that United Future members simply will not be at work that day—that they will let the Government get away with it by just not turning up. Or will it take the poodle option? The poodle option is when all those members of United Future who disagree with this bill simply do not turn up on the day and their whip will cast their vote for them in favour, so that they can go out on the hustings and tell everyone that they did not agree with it. We all know that their party voted for it. The country deserves to know precisely where the “United Poodle Party” sits on this issue. Is it simply rolling over and letting Helen Clark scratch its tummy, in supporting the Government in making all those pointless and meaningless objections, or is it firm in its resolve? Will it do what New Zealand First is doing and vote against this bill? That we want to know.

Why is New Zealand First voting against this bill? It is clearly stated in our minority report. New Zealand First’s belief is twofold. Firstly, if the Department of Corrections, its employees, and its officials break the law they should be charged. If a man who is in charge of inmates breaks prison regulations, he should be charged. If that man is subsequently convicted and locked up in the same cells with the inmates he abused or beat up, then clearly that is tough.

The only compensation those inmates deserve is the knowledge that the man who abused them, the prison authority who abused them, is now in the cells beside them. There should be no monetary compensation; end of story. That is exactly what the Labour Party said on the hustings in 2002, and then flip-flopped on. Members should remember that. When Margaret Wilson was the Attorney-General a young man who bashed the teeth out of a barber in Dunedin was paid $40,000 compensation. He still owed $500 reparation to that poor, unfortunate citizen. Did he pay it? No. Did he give any indication he was likely to pay it? He did not. Quite the contrary, he went on TV and said that he would not pay it, and no one made him. The Labour Government gave him a cheque for $40,000 and looked the other way as he went to the pub and spent it.

Then what happened? It became worse than that. The Government ended up writing cheques for hundreds of thousands of dollars for inmates, one of whom stabbed a policeman with a screwdriver and made him a paraplegic. Government members now come to the House with this bill, which seeks to endorse the rights of inmates to get money. New Zealand First states in its minority report that if the Government is to do that, if it is to allow compensation for inmates who have had their feelings hurt—a classic example—then it should not pay one red cent to any inmate concerned. The money should go into a victims’ claims rehabilitation account, and appropriations from that account should be made to victims who need support. That is what New Zealand First says.

It is common sense, logical, and fair, and it ensures that people who break the laws of this land—be they prison officers or scumbag gang members—get equal application of the law. It makes sure we do not see the abhorrent practice of inmates who have committed murder, committed violent acts against children, and bashed the teeth out of an innocent barber on the sidewalk in Dunedin, receiving any form of compensation whatsoever for such horrendous crimes as having their feelings hurt.

This Government is spending a lot of time behind the scenes right now, trying to figure out on what day it will call an election. New Zealand First says to make its day, do it tomorrow, do it next week, do it next month, but please bring it on. This sort of legislation is sticking in the throats of average New Zealanders. As Gareth Morgan said in his New Zealand Herald column, one needs only half a brain to see what has been going wrong in this country. Clearly, the Government does not have half a brain. If it had, it would not progress this bill. It would send the bill back to the select committee. Government members would sit in meaningful discussion with parties like New Zealand First, and then they would find a common-sense way through it. This is not the way.

This legislation, as it currently stands, is unacceptable. Whilst United Future members may be dithering around, not quite sure how they will vote—up, down, for, or whatever—New Zealand First is very clear. We will be voting against this legislation. We find it absolutely unacceptable that any inmate should be paid any monetary compensation at all, for any reason, for a crime that might have been committed against him or her. After all, no victim of that inmate’s crime ever received financial compensation for the original crime committed by the offender, which resulted in him going in jail. Logic suggests that the very same principle should apply throughout the justice system, without deviation. New Zealand First will be opposing this legislation.

I am very pleased to take a brief call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. There have been some good speeches on this bill. Most people in New Zealand believe that it is thoroughly wrong to compensate offenders for wrongful treatment but not to require them, in turn, to pay restitution to the victims they have harmed. This bill is a good bill. It has been thoroughly considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. It sets out, first, to ensure that prisoners can be compensated only in exceptional cases and after they have exhausted all other avenues of complaint. The second important aspect of the bill is that it provides for opportunities that have not existed before and new assistance mechanisms by which victims can pursue compensation from those who have offended against them.

There has been some interesting debate, with some conflicting views from Opposition parties that are really more interested in playing politics than in trying to resolve an issue that concerns a large number of New Zealanders. Some rather bizarre statements have been made. We have just listened to a justification from one Opposition member. Also, Dr Brash has done another of his flip-flops—he is lining up for yet another jandal award. He has had one position one day and another the very next day, literally. Between 14 and 15 September last year he changed his position on this issue yet again. So there is no surety from the National Party at all.

This bill has been well considered. It is seriously and primarily motivated by the Government’s belief that offenders should not enjoy financial compensation for wrongful treatment without first having to redress the harm that they have caused to their victims. This Government—although it is not widely acknowledged, as can be seen from some of the breathless headlines in the newspapers, which pay little attention to the facts of the matter—has paid real attention to the matter and has delivered on addressing victims’ rights through legislative means. This bill is yet another step in looking out for the innocent victims of the terrible incidents that occur in New Zealand. I clarify the point that prisoners can be awarded monetary compensation only in the most exceptional cases and that they must have pursued a wide range of avenues of complaint beforehand.

This is a good bill. I know that the public will welcome it and that a majority in Parliament will welcome it. I look forward to its rapid passage through the House and to the constructive debate that will ensue.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We might give United Future a moment to consider. The United Future speaker said that he would vote against the second reading. I wonder whether he has been muzzled by his party.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order.