Wednesday, 1 June 2005

Wednesday, 1 June 2005

Wednesday, 1 June 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

China—Human Rights

1. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Was freedom of speech one of the human rights issues she discussed with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during her meeting with him this week?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Rod Donald: Was it a mark of the high regard in which the Prime Minister is held by the Chinese Government that it censored her answer to a question about human rights in China during a live CNN broadcast, or was it indicative of the intolerance of that oppressive regime?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As we all know, freedom of expression in our sense does not exist in China. But it is probably true to say that things are better now than they were when my old friend Keith Locke was an enthusiastic supporter of the Chinese regime.

Keith Locke: I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the statement the Minister has just made that I have been a supporter of the Chinese regime. At no time have I supported the Chinese regime. I have always pushed for multiparty democracies. I have defended Chinese dissidents over many years. The Socialist Action League, a political organisation to which some people in this House sometimes refer to and that I belonged to over 20 years ago was, as the Minister will know, a very strong critic of the Chinese regime, because that regime was undemocratic. The Minister is implying that I was in some ways a Maoist and was supporting that regime, and I object to that totally. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I withdraw and apologise. I do correct myself. The member was not, indeed, a Maoist; he was a Trotskyite.

Madam SPEAKER: When a member withdraws and apologises, no other statement is to be made.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Government’s concern for freedom of speech extend to the situation that occurred before the private dinner hosted by Madam Speaker last week, when I was taken aside and cautioned by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff that I should not raise any topics relating to Taiwan during that dinner with Chairman Wu Bangguo, and can the Minister advise whether that direction came from the Prime Minister’s office or the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or whether it was just something dreamt up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot advise on that. I do not have that information. New Zealand, like every other Western democracy, recognises only the regime in Beijing as the legitimate Government of China.

Rod Donald: Why is the Prime Minister negotiating a free-trade agreement with a country that continues to occupy Tibet and oppress its people, and what was Premier Wen’s response when she raised the issue of Tibet with him?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have no information about Premier Wen’s response. Obviously, there are still issues around Tibet. I notice that recent statements from the Dalai Lama indicate that even the Dalai Lama is no longer pushing for Tibetan independence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister see any great distinction between communist regimes such as that which invaded Afghanistan and that which was involved in supporting Pol Pot—two regimes heavily supported by Keith Locke; if she does, can she pray tell us what it is?

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I was anticipating the point of order.

Keith Locke: In the past, members in this House have been required to withdraw and apologise for calling me a supporter of Pol Pot. I have never been a supporter of Pol Pot or of his crimes against the Cambodian people. In light of that previous ruling, I think Mr Peters should withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was not the previous ruling. The fact of the matter is that a number of members have tabled in this House two sets of documents, both of which emanated from one Keith Locke, an MP in this House—not that he was an MP when he wrote them, of course. The articles support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the emergence of Pol Pot. That is a fact, and if he wants to deny it then I am happy to table the documents all over again.

Madam SPEAKER: The member has taken offence at the comment that was made, and it is the normal practice in these instances that the member withdraws and apologises.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I am ruling on a point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: This is fairly important.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sure it is very important. Would you please sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, you asked me to withdraw and apologise, and I do. I seek leave now to table these documents. One is “Cambodia Liberated: victory for humanity”, edited by Keith Locke. [Interruption] Sit down.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: The Speaker will say who is to rise and who is to sit. Members will sit when another member is on his or her feet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is my point. I was on my feet and the member was rude to interrupt me. I also seek leave to table an article regarding the rightness of the invasion of Afghanistan by the heinous communist regime of the Soviet Union.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. By way of personal explanation, the article the member has just tabled does not mention Pol Pot or state that I support Pol Pot.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I note, however, that the supplementary question bore little relation to the original question, which related to China. If the member wishes to put his supplementary question again, could he please relate it to China.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It cannot be right that a person can come to this House years after having written articles in support of a regime, and then expect us to believe his word that he did not do so. He may want to recant and say that he was sorry, stupid, and naive, and we may accept that he has changed his mind. But he cannot deny that black is black and white is white when these articles clearly set that out. That is what he is expecting us to do. He is using the Standing Orders in an abusive way to get away with it.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I ask the member to restate his supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When we look at despotic, undemocratic regimes, is there a great difference between that of Pol Pot, the Soviet Union at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, or, for that matter, communist China—the new-found enemy of the Green Party?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is fair to say that all known communist regimes have been repressive regimes to a greater or lesser extent. But, of course, that has been matched by any number of oppressive regimes at the far-right end of politics as well.

Keith Locke: How bad does China’s human rights record have to become before the Prime Minister would think again about giving preferential trade access to that regime?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If we were to choose with whom we traded purely on the basis of total support for every action Governments took, we would be confined to a very small range of trading partners, indeed. It would not even include Australia and the United States.

Rod Donald: Does the Prime Minister recall her own passionate opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa and the sanctions that she supported to help bring down that regime, does she recall accusing that former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley “prefers to build links to oppression while democratic voices are silenced in jail” during her speech to the 1998 Labour Party conference, and does she accept that her own behaviour towards China leaves her open to that same accusation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, yes, and no.

Iraqi Immigrants—Investigation

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: With respect to the three men named in question No. 1 in the House yesterday, what investigations, if any, has he conducted into their applications to enter New Zealand, and does he have any concerns arising from those investigations?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration): The department is looking into allegations made in Parliament yesterday by the member. However, one of the concerns I have is to ensure that the information provided is both accurate and sufficient. For example, the department will need a little more to go on than “a man named Jazwan”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That being the case, what information does the Minister lack, with regard to the Ali family, on 16 fraudulent applications into this country, all of which were given to his Prime Minister in April of this year, and which he said had been handed on to the Serious Fraud Office, yet, as of today, no one from any official office has seen them; is that the kind of reaction one gets when the information is provided with specific detail—relationships and all?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I said that they had been handed to the fraud unit in the department. I am advised that that matter has been followed up, and I am also advised that contact has been made. I will say that the problem with getting accurate information—for example, correct spelling, and other matters—leads to the case whereby a man who thinks that he has been attacked has felt the need to come forward and reject the allegations that were made in the newspaper yesterday. The critical point is that virtually everybody, apart from New Zealand First, knows what this is about. It is trying to get a few cheap points in election year and casting a shadow across our immigration communities.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the light of that explanation, can he explain the reluctance of the New Zealand Herald, and others, to ask the Ali family why they will not take a DNA test, which will conclusively prove that they are lying; and why have we had 7 days of deafening silence from those people who are happy to print the Prime Minister’s photograph with this family of crooks, but without any investigation taking place?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It is the same old formula from the New Zealand First Party: attack immigrants and attack the media.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are not having that indolent Minister getting up and giving that as an answer. I asked him a specific question with regard to that family and the fact that he is reporting the media’s views of it, yet he gets up and makes a contemptuous answer, both with regard to his duties and to his obligations to the House. Can we please now have an answer.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The last part of the question required the Minister to make some comments on the acts of the New Zealand Herald. Luckily, he has no responsibility for the New Zealand Herald.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. I need no further assistance. The Minister is not responsible for the New Zealand Herald. Perhaps rephrasing would help the matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Dr Cullen gave you some assistance when he said “the last part”, which presumes there was more than one part. Can I have the answer to the first part?

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member repeat the first part.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister why there has been no inquiry by him of this family, as he has taken the view of others that somehow a longstanding MP is lying and that they are as pure as the driven snow.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Unlike that member, who seems to be the one who will be leading the hit squad through the country, I leave those investigations to the Department of Labour.

Dianne Yates: How has the Government demonstrated its commitment to improving border security?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It has done so in a range of very, very good ways. The Government has allocated more than $30 million over the past 2 years to strengthen border security. We have established a fraud unit, which was not available at the time when that member was Treasurer. We have introduced the advance passenger profiling system. We have set up a review over 2 years of all applicants from the highest-risk countries, and started the process of bringing back to New Zealand decision making in applications, starting with the highest-risk countries.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with Iraqi community leader Dr Umara in this morning’s New Zealand Herald that Mr Peters’ allegations are smearing the 3,000 to 4,000 Iraqis living here and that some of them are so distressed they are talking about leaving New Zealand; and will he reassure the person he referred to earlier—Mr Amer Salman—who has denied, completely, Mr Peters’ scandalous claims?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I do agree with comments from a number of community leaders, who are saying that the attacks now coming out are smearing the good name of a range of people in those communities. Of course, as most people know, the reality is that Mr Peters does not care about that, because he is after a few cheap points in the poll.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I must insist you do your job here. He is not going to get away with that in this House—

Hon Ken Shirley: That’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a point of order—because he has gone way outside the question. He is now attacking a member of Parliament and imputing motives—

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please be quiet while the member is making his point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters:—and he should be stopped. It is the third time he has done it. I know he is having difficulty in answering the question properly—

Madam SPEAKER: The member has taken offence. Would the Minister please stick to the answers, and now withdraw and apologise.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I withdraw and apologise, and—

Madam SPEAKER: And that is all that is required at this moment.

Hon Tony Ryall: Would the Minister advise the House when his department met with the Ali family, as he answered previously to a supplementary question; and would he describe what he understands happened at that meeting?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I have simply been advised that contact has been made. Of course, that is a matter for the department, and I do not get myself involved by getting in a car and going around streets trying to collect up names—as, apparently, that member from New Zealand First does.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister understand the irony of the person he is seeking to defend today being quoted as saying that he has been mixed up with “the real bad people” who are in this country today; and what would the Minister’s response be if he were to know that that man has been responsible for sending massive sums of money out of this country to Iraq—how does he do that?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I think it is: “See all of the above.”, but in answer to the question, the reality is that that man considers he has been besmirched, so needs to come forward. The irony of the matter is that when names are mentioned in Parliament that may or may not be accurate, potentially innocent people get offended by it.

Kenneth Wang: Why has the Minister not expelled these three men without more investigation, when last month he expelled the wrong person in a panic reaction to Mr Peters?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Perhaps the member was referring to the revoking of permits. No one has been expelled yet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister name now which person in New Zealand First has named in this House a person the Minister regards as having been improperly named and who should have been given the defences of Parliament, from the lists of those named for Lianne Dalziel and the ones I have given to him—which ones is he talking about when he says they have been improperly named?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am referring only to someone who has felt the need to come forward after allegations were made in the paper yesterday. I am saying that investigations are under way, but the point of the answer to the member’s question is that one needs a little more to go on than, for example, “a man named Jazwan”.

Sexual Health Campaign—Minister's Statement

3. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement last year with reference to the No Rubba, No Hubba Hubba campaign that “A sexual health campaign aimed at young people is not going to work if it doesn’t get buy-in from young people.”; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Yes.

Judy Turner: Is she concerned that $630,000 more funding, on top of the $1.3 million already spent on her No Rubba, No Hubba Hubba campaign, is simply throwing more money into gimmicky slogans that fail to give teenagers substantive information about the risks of sexually transmitted infections, let alone question whether sexual involvement is even appropriate for them, and will she commit to implementing a more realistic programme, given that a recent evaluation of the campaign stressed that a more multifaceted approach is needed to produce meaningful changes in teenage sexual behaviour?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. If the member is talking of the survey that was on television last night, I think that survey was undertaken before the commencement of the No Rubba, No Hubba Hubba programme. I can tell the member that an evaluation has been carried out on the programme, and it showed that 97 percent of respondents were aware of the campaign, 65 percent had discussed it with their friends, and 49 percent indicated that the campaign probably had increased the likelihood of their using condoms in the future. The number of respondents who said that they would still have sex if no condom was available had decreased from 46 percent pre-campaign to 36 percent post-campaign. There were also other results from that evaluation. I would prefer to rely on that evaluation than on a survey that—although it may have been perfectly good—was taken before the campaign on which the member based her question began.

Lesley Soper: Does the Minister agree with Dr Sue Bagshaw’s comment on Close Up last night that education alone will not make a difference in young people’s awareness of the need to use condoms?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I do agree because I agree that education needs to go alongside the development of other life skills, including learning to negotiate in a relationship, which in some cases is learning the skill to say no.

Judy Turner: Has she read the study released yesterday by the Otago University school of medicine that showed that only 44 percent of sexually active teens use condoms, and then only because they fear pregnancy rather than contracting a sexually transmitted infection; if so, does she agree with the view of the author that advertising campaigns and sex education in schools are not enough to change students’ attitudes towards sexually transmitted infections?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, and that result is a worry. That survey was taken before the campaign that the member mentioned in her first question. As was pointed out on television last night—and I agree, as I said in my previous answer to my colleague—the issue does require more than education.

Judy Turner: Does the fact that the latest No Rubba, No Hubba Hubba advertisements on bus stops feature only the cartoon character and the slogan mean that her Government thinks teenagers are not smart enough to absorb more informative messages, and does she think the slogan gives the impression that being in possession of a condom is the only consideration needed when contemplating sexual involvement?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No and no.

Education System—Performance

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he think the education system has got worse during the time in which he has been Minister of Education, as indicated by 44 per cent of respondents to a survey by the New Zealand Herald; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): No. New Zealand has a very good education system. Our students are among the top in the OECD at reading and maths. Students are staying at school longer and are leaving with higher levels of qualifications. More children than ever before are participating in quality early childhood education. More people than ever before are completing postgraduate degrees. We have nearly 140,000 people involved in industry training and Modern Apprenticeships. Our Government is committed to further raising the standard of education. We know we can do better, but, unlike the member, I am not willing to go around the country running down our polytechs, our schools, our teachers, and our students.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister explain to the House his role in the following problems that have affected public confidence in education: the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and New Zealand Scholarship shambles, the wānanga being out of control, dodgy tertiary courses, millions more in fees for parents of children at State schools, multiple reviews of every public education agency, sackings of senior bureaucrats and board members in education agencies, and a ballooning bureaucracy that starves schools of funds; and given that all those things have already happened, why should the public have any confidence in him or the Labour Government in their stewardship of education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is a long list, and I will deal with the first item. I will quote Chris Haines, the president of the School Trustees Association, who is well known to the member. He said, about the NCEA: “It is clear that the former system had long outlived its usefulness as a fair measure for student learning. We now have a system which more fairly recognises student achievement.” That is why the previous National Government decided to introduce it, and why I agreed with the member.

Hon Brian Donnelly: What is the Minister’s explanation for the result that 44 percent of the people who were polled believed that the education system has got worse under his watch?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Probably the habit of the Minister of getting on with improving things, rather than talking about it. I think I should change, and public relations campaigns in the future would be a very good idea.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Can he tell this House what evidence he has seen to suggest that the Government’s policies are resulting in students staying at school longer and leaving with higher qualifications?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The number of students leaving school with no qualification has dropped from 18 percent in 2002 to 13 percent last year. For Māori, those leaving with no qualifications have decreased from 34 percent to 26 percent—[Interruption] That failed woodwork teacher had just better be quiet, or his records will come out. In terms of retention, the number of students staying at school right through to the end of year 13 has increased from 57 percent in 2002 to 61 percent last year. There is a lot more to do, and this Government will take at least the next 6 years to do it.

Bernie Ogilvy: Is the Minister aware that during his time as Minister of Education the average student debt has got worse, rising from nearly $12,000 to over $14,000, and would he consider United Future’s policy to reduce a portion of a caregiver’s debt when he or she has had a child for 2 years, in order to relieve the burden of student debt on young families?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: They don’t have to pay it back.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Minister of Finance has pointed out that if people who are caring for children do not have income, they do not have to pay their loans back. I must say that we have a dilemma. The idea has superficial appeal, but what we, in fact, do for people in that circumstance is to extend their loans, at no cost to them—something that is very generous and costs the taxpayer a lot of money.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that despite the fact that he has increased education spending by over $3 billion per year, or by about 60 percent, a poll by the New Zealand Herald found that 84 percent of the public believed that education was “worse”, “the same”, or did not know; and what responsibility does he take for being regarded now as a failed education Minister?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No.

First Home Ownership—Government Assistance

5. JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) to the Minister of Housing: How will the Government be assisting people to become first home owners?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing): Budget 2005 has provided the resources to assist 8,000 Kiwis per year to get their first home. This will be done by extending the Mortgage Insurance Scheme from 1 July this year, allowing 2,000 Kiwis to acquire their first home in the coming year, then rising to 5,000 per year. Through KiwiSaver, individuals who join KiwiSaver will become eligible for a deposit subsidy of $1,000 for every year they save with KiwiSaver, up to a maximum of $5,000. We expect a further 3,000 homeowners to arise from that scheme, making an overall sum of 8,000 Kiwis per year reaching the Kiwi dream.

Jill Pettis: Can the Minister advise what the risks are to the success of this package of homeownership assistance?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I can. There is only one threat, and that is the threat to axe the KiwiSaver programme and deprive thousands of Kiwis of the chance of attaining the Kiwi dream of owning their own home. The package that has been offered is one of tax cuts by 2014! I predict that, well before then, John Key will U-turn on the KiwiSaver, as he has already U-turned on the “Cullen fund”.

Jill Pettis: What other options for homeownership assistance has he seen?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen one scheme, which is opposed to the measure in this year’s Budget that will see 8,000 Kiwis per year reach the dream of owning their own home, and that is the scheme that prevailed in the 1990s, which saw $3.6 billion worth of Government mortgage portfolio sold off, and plaques to commemorate the selling off of those houses—like the $900 million one I am holding. Kiwis will need to get used to the notion that National intends to sell their houses.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the latest building permit figures, which show the biggest drop ever in the records of building consents and the number of houses being built, as a consequence of the Government’s Building Act.

Document not tabled.

Taxation—Consumer Price Index

6. Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Following his confirmation that the carbon tax will have an inflationary impact, what is the best official estimate of the combined impact on the consumer price index since December 1999 of all Government sector increases in taxes, duties, levies, or charges?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): That calculation is not available from Statistics New Zealand data. The data include local government charges also, and they show that the two together had no significant impact on inflation over the period. However, those data do not include excise duties as being separately calculated, at all—they are included within the price of the goods that they refer to. The data also take no account of the deflationary impact of strong operating surpluses, particularly by transfers into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minister accept that inflation would be lower if the Government did not increase petrol taxes, and that future inflation would be lower if the carbon tax was canned?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, all else being equal. But it is equally true that if increased funding was borrowed to pour into roading without an increase in excise duty, that would also have an inflationary impact via interest rates, because of the Government running a looser fiscal policy.

Larry Baldock: Does the Minister accept, given the inflationary effect of the carbon tax, that no regrets - type policies to deal with our Kyoto commitments are a better solution—like United Future’s proposal, to be announced on Friday in our environment policy, to replant a riparian strip of bush along our streams, rivers, and lakes that will filter the runoff from agricultural land use—because policies like those would mean we would be doing something positive for our environment as well as earning carbon credits, rather than punishing our economy with a tax that may or may not be effective?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Although I am sympathetic to the notion of planting along riparian strips—

Shane Ardern: It’s already happening.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, it is already happening in part. Indeed, I have done some myself, as we happen to have a riparian strip at the back of our place. But apart from that, unless the Government is going to pay for it—and I am afraid United Future has already committed too much in tax cuts to have money left over for that—there will be demands as a cost upon homeowners and farmers, and then presumably Mr Copeland will argue that there has to be compensation for that.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister continue to believe that when he spends New Zealanders’ money, every dollar is well spent and it is not inflationary, but, when New Zealanders spend their own money, they always waste it and it is inflationary; and is he starting to realise that many New Zealanders do not share his views?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have not argued that. What I have argued—and the member should understand this, as a former Minister of Finance—is that the looser the fiscal policy is that the Government runs, the greater is the inflationary pressure that is created by the Government and the greater is the likelihood, therefore, of high interest rates. The ACT party, of course, has the very strange view that one can basically abolish taxation and still continue with expenditure, and that somehow that will be non-inflationary. I suggest that a long period of discussion with a former Governor of the Reserve Bank might disabuse him of that strange idea.

Stephen Franks: Why does the Minister not accept what the evidence shows: that it is the explosion in Government spending that is driving inflation and interest rates, and that the best remedy for that would be to reduce taxes and spending, not to increase them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: For the last 3 years that member and every member on the Opposition side of the House have attacked me for running too contractionary a fiscal policy. They have suddenly decided, sometime out from an election, that we have been running an expansionary fiscal policy.

Hon Ken Shirley: Why does the Minister not accept that giving taxpayers back their own money would be no more inflationary than the Government taking that money and spending it for them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is absolutely right, with this one proviso: as long as, basically, for every dollar reduction in revenue there is a reduction in expenditure. That, of course, is precisely the point that we have been making on the Government side of the House for the last week, with, I think, some impact on commentary from outside the House.

Genetically Modified Corn—Unapproved Presence in Food

7. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Food Safety: Is food made with the unapproved, genetically modified, and insecticide-containing Bt10 corn on sale in New Zealand; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety): As I have advised the member in a series of responses to her recent questions for written answer, food derived from unapproved GM varieties may not be legally sold in New Zealand. A recent survey by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority found no unapproved GM food or ingredient being sold in New Zealand.

SUE KEDGLEY: Can she confirm that Bt corn has never been approved, and therefore is illegal in our food supply, and has the Food Safety Authority ever conducted any tests to establish whether this illegal, genetically engineered corn is or has been in our food supply, or instituted a recall of corn products; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Bt10 corn is not allowed to be sold in New Zealand. It is not legal for it to be sold in New Zealand. It has not been approved for sale in New Zealand. As I said in my primary answer, the Food Safety Authority recently conducted a survey and found no unapproved GM food or ingredient being sold. That includes Bt10.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I specifically asked whether any tests had been conducted. I would appreciate it if the Minister would answer my question. I did not ask about surveys; I asked whether any tests had been conducted.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I cannot inform the member as to whether a test had been undertaken. However, any test can be undertaken, should there be a view that the product is in New Zealand. There is no reason to believe that it is, and therefore, as far as I know, there has not been a test, but I will find out for the member.

Sue Kedgley: How would the Food Safety Authority know whether it was in our food supply, without undertaking any testing, and why, when other countries like Japan and those in the European Union, require all shipments of corn from the United States to be tested, or certified, to ensure that they do not contain the illegal Bt corn, is New Zealand not doing the same thing and testing all imported corn from the United States to ensure that it does not contain the illegal, unapproved corn?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Because a very small amount of Bt10 corn was grown in the United States—0.01 percent—and it was this unapproved Bt10 variety, which was never intended for commercial production. That variety was either destroyed or put in quarantine for destruction.

Sue Kedgley: Why do other countries, such as Japan and countries in Europe, take this issue seriously but our Government does not, and why, given that the Government instituted a major recall of unapproved, genetically engineered Starlink corn in the year 2000, is it doing nothing about this unapproved Bt10 corn—not instituting a recall, and, basically, turning a blind eye to it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Because there is no evidence that it is in New Zealand; what would we recall?

Health Services—Waiting Lists

8. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Health: Does she continue to stand by her statement that “people are not culled. They are sent to their general practitioners to be monitored”; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Yes. The principles of the booking system were put in place in the mid-1990s, with implementation commencing in 1998. One of the principles is that people must be told if they are going to get an operation, and when. People whose condition meets the priority criteria must be either booked for an operation or given certainty for an operation within 6 months. If a person is not operated on within that time, he or she is placed on active review. Under active review a hospital specialist assesses the patient’s condition at 6-monthly intervals. If the patient’s condition changes, he or she will be booked or given certainty. If a person does not meet the priority criteria, that person is returned to his or her general practitioner. That is how the system has worked since 1998.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why does the Minister continue to think patients culled from the waiting list, like Mrs Peggy Griffiths, are monitored, when despite my bringing her case to the attention of the House 2 weeks ago, Mrs Griffiths told me yesterday that she still remains in agony, hardly able to walk across the floor, and nobody has told her how, when, or by whom, she will be monitored?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can tell members why I think that the system is working as the previous Government envisaged. I am informed that Mrs Peggy Griffiths, whose case the member raised in the House recently, will have confidence in the system, because she has been reassessed and she has been given certainty of an operation.

Nanaia Mahuta: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that the current booking system should be or would be changed?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. Although Dr Hutchison makes a lot of noise about elective operations, he has not proposed a single change to the current system, because members opposite know that the system is fair, that people who need operations get them first, and that people whose conditions do not enable them to get access to publicly funded services are not misled into thinking they have a chance of an operation and spend years languishing on a waiting list, like the case that Dr Hutchison sent to me of a person who had waited 12 years.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the hospital system in Christchurch cannot deal with routine cases because its emergency department is frequently inundated with hundreds of waiting-list patients seeking urgent attention who have to be stabilised and who are then sent home to resume waiting; if so, does she consider that that state of affairs is acceptable?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am informed that over 65,000 people go through the emergency department at Christchurch Hospital and that there are many people who need urgent attention. I have been told that about 1,200 of those people were on a waiting list, and it was concluded that maybe 400 of them had something related to their condition when they turned up at the emergency department. The department is required to manage that, and the staff must also see those people who have had an accident or are having a heart attack. They do the best they can. There are troughs and flows of people—sometimes there are many, sometimes there are not so many, and the staff do very well. This happens around New Zealand, and around the world.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why are things so bad under Labour that Mr Leon Draper, a patient with a serious deteriorating arterial condition has, after over a year of waiting, been notified that he cannot even have a first specialist assessment, when he has written to Counties Manukau District Hospital Board, saying: “You do not have to go through constant pain and clutch for support when walking to the shops only 100 metres away.”, and he also has no formal monitoring?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am advised that Mr Draper was referred to a vascular specialist at Middlemore Hospital by his general practitioner. His general practitioner said, in a letter to the specialist: “I would be grateful for your assessment and advice regarding further management of Mr Draper.” Based on this information from the general practitioner the specialist decided, based on his clinical assessment, that the patient should be referred to the general practitioner for monitoring. So the member is not being quite straight with the House.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has just said that I am not being quite straight. Fourteen months ago, when Mr Draper was first assessed, he could not walk 200 metres without having severe pain in his legs. Today, he cannot walk 100 metres without severe pain in his legs. I am being absolutely straight; this is right from Mr Draper’s mouth.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am speaking from the general practitioner’s letter.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister tell me whether Mr Anthony Russell of Harrybrook Road, Green Bay, a case that has just come to my attention, was culled from the waiting list; he was assessed in early 2000 as in need of operations to ease his feet and ankle problems and waited, only to be told in May this year by the Counties Manukau District Health Board that although he would benefit from an operation there are limited resources and there are others whose needs are greater, and therefore he has been taken off the waiting list—has he or has he not been culled?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I cannot speak about an individual patient in that way, although if the member is prepared to give me the name and I am aware of the case, I can then look into it for him and give him the information. However, in principle I would say that if the patient has been told that he does not meet the criteria for priority for an operation at the moment, that is correct. He will be under the care of his general practitioner until such time as his condition changes and he is entitled to an operation. Everybody knows that not every case has the same priority, and that everybody cannot get an operation at the same time.

Stephen Franks: Can the Minister tell the lay people in this Chamber why she says that the sick people who have been “sent back to their general practitioners to be monitored” are wrong to think they are waiting, and what sort of list made up of waiting people is not a waiting list?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, they are not told they are waiting; they are told that if their condition deteriorates they will be assessed to see whether they need an operation. This is different from taking everybody who ever came into the health system and putting them on a list—89,000 of them by the mid-1990s, many of whom never had an opportunity to get an operation. This system is much more open, honest, and transparent. I challenge the Opposition to give us one policy that tells New Zealanders it would change a single thing.

Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister tell us what is happening to the 15 people who have been waiting in the active review category?

Hon ANNETTE KING: This was raised in the House last week, I believe. These are people who have been waiting for 5 years. First of all, the national reporting database is a relatively complex system, and one cannot always assume that each number actually represents a person. The 15 people actually turned out to be 12. Of those, four had received operations, one no longer needed an operation, three had had their conditions reassessed, and four had conditions below the treatment threshold and were returned to their general practitioner.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does the Minister deny that senior Ministry of Health officials have informed district health boards and orthopaedic surgeons that they must manage their waiting lists by culling patients or risk not receiving funding for the orthopaedic initiatives, and that the reason orthopaedic surgeons are deeply concerned by this unethical coercion is that they do not believe that suitable protocols are in place to monitor the culled patients safely?

Hon ANNETTE KING: First of all, priority for an orthopaedic operation is given by the orthopod himself or herself. So if a case is a top priority, the orthopaedist has said that that case is a top priority. Health officials are not telling boards that they must cull people and that if they do not, they will not get the extra orthopaedic money. The whole programme is based on doing additional operations. So if a board does 1,000 hip replacements this year, it must do 1,000 hip replacements and it will get the extra money when it reaches 1,001. We will not do what was done in the 1990s, when waiting time money was put in for extra operations but no extra operations—over and above the normal number—were done, because the money went into operational costs, not operations.

Nanaia Mahuta: Has the Minister received any feedback on the current booking system from Age Concern?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. Age Concern believes that the current system—which, to be fair, it knows was started by the National Party—is much fairer, more transparent, and more honest, because people know when they will get an operation and how long they will wait.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, they get deferred forever.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, they do know that, because they are either booked, given the certainty of an active review, or returned to their general practitioner. They know exactly what is happening to them. Compare that to the old system—which the previous National Government rejected, because it knew it did not work—under which people did not know whether they would get an operation, and many people were still waiting for their operation years after they had been put on a list. Some of them would not even take a holiday in case their name was drawn out of the hat and they missed out.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does the Minister deny the recent New Zealand Herald survey that stated that 73.8 percent of people think that the health system is the same or worse under Labour, when she has created a system that culls patients such as Mrs Griffiths and Mr Draper from waiting lists to make her waiting lists look good?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will first of all say that the Labour-led Government did not devise the system. I must give credit to the National Party for not only devising it but for implementing it. With regard to the second part of the question—that 73 percent of people think that the health system is the same or worse—I remind members of the TV3 poll of 1996 in which 75 percent of New Zealanders said the health system was seriously worse under a National Government.

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table some documents that outline the circumstances around Anthony Russell, which the Minister said she was interested in.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table a letter from Mr Leon Draper to Chris Fleming, general manager of surgical ambulatory care, in which he states: “You are writing me off as a human being in the great hope that this condition will kill me and you will get a pat on the back for saving the country another pension.”

Document not tabled.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald. It outlines that 73.8 percent of people think that the health system is the same or worse under Labour.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the TV3 Gallup poll of 1996, which showed that 75 percent of New Zealanders thought the health system was seriously worse than it had been before.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. [Interruption] I remind members that they would have all been excluded from the Chamber for talking during that point of order. Can we please settle down.

Meningococcal Disease—Vaccination

9. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made on the roll-out of the meningococcal vaccination programme?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I am delighted to report that as of 15 May, 820,000 doses of the meningococcal B vaccine have been given to our children and young people in the largest immunisation protection programme in recent New Zealand history. Over 390,000 of our children and young people have received their first dose, and over 185,000 now have the protection of the full three doses. A further 2 million - plus doses of the vaccine are planned to be delivered in the next 6 months. The programme is now live in 17 district health board areas and will be rolled out in all districts by the end of the month. Parents are supporting it in droves, with consent rates for school-aged children at over 90 percent in most district health board areas.

Steve Chadwick: Have there been any unexpected outcomes from this programme?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. Nurses have responded magnificently to the call to help with the campaign. About 120 extra nurses came out of retirement—or out of the woodwork—to help vaccinate in the Wellington region alone. That is a tremendous response. It has been the same in other regions. In the Auckland region, 180 additional nurses were recruited for the programme. They came from far and wide, they got out from behind their desks, they took time out of their motherhood duties, and they came out of retirement. We have seen a huge response from nurses in helping with this programme, as well as from our general practitioners.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does the Minister now accept that the delay of the flu vaccination campaign could have been avoided if Pharmac had ensured greater security of supply by way of a split tender, and that the meningococcal roll-out has made it very difficult for South Island health workers to manage two vaccination campaigns at the same time?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have been fortunate enough to visit some of those who are rolling out the programme in the South Island. They are incredibly pleased with what they are doing. They were waiting for it to happen. They are not whingeing and moaning like that member, who wants to make a political point. In relation to the first part of his question, it is all very well having hindsight about whether we should have a split tender. If we should have had a split tender this year, why did we not have one for all the years that we have had this programme—from the time it started 7 years ago?

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that it is a breach of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights to coerce or put pressure on people to have a medical treatment; is she therefore concerned at reports that some children are being left with the impression that they will die if they are not given the vaccination, and will she take steps to put an end to that sort of pressure from enthusiastic people who are rolling out this vaccine?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is correct. Nobody should be coerced into a health treatment. However, I have had no such reports. I wonder whether that question reflects the member’s opposition to any immunisation. That is not the view of most New Zealanders.

Rescue Helicopter—Coordination with Police

10. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Transport Safety: Has he listened to the recorded conversation between the Rescue Coordination Centre and police the night the Iron Maiden sank, and what is the reason it took nearly 2 hours to launch the rescue helicopter?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): Yes, I have listened to the recorded conversation between the National Rescue Coordination Centre and the police on the night of the sinking of the Iron Maiden. The rescue helicopter had been launched by the time control of the incident was formally handed over to the Rescue Coordination Centre.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister accept from the recordings that the New Zealand Police stood the rescue helicopter down and sent the pilot home 26 minutes after the Mayday from the stricken ship, because the police wrongly believed that the Sikorsky S-76 did not have the capacity to reach the two men whom the Rescue Coordination Centre believed were adrift in a life raft, with limited time before they would be capsized over Pandora bank; how can New Zealanders have any confidence in the rescue services of New Zealand, when the police can get it so tragically wrong over the rescue helicopter’s capacity?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: On the face of the recordings, as the members says, it appears that that is the case. But there are a large number of factors that came into this. Obviously, any delay in the dispatch of rescue services is grossly unfortunate, but not always avoidable. However, there was certainly some understandable confusion in the Northern Communications Centre, perhaps due to two rescue incidents happening simultaneously. It is likely that even if the helicopter had been dispatched earlier, the men may not have been rescued. It is unfair for the police to be held responsible when people put to sea in the following circumstances: the crew were not sufficiently familiar with the vessel before attempting the trip; the stability of the vessel was in question; there were extremely rough weather conditions—in particular, gale-force winds and 4-metre swells; the skipper decided not to seek shelter once faced with those condition after rounding Cape Maria van Diemen; the vessel’s life raft was in a position that made it difficult to access in an emergency situation; and, sadly, there was possible drug use by the skipper during that period. Additionally, the Northern Communications Centre had to be sure that the helicopter crew themselves were not in danger by going out to rescue the men, and even in the event of the helicopter being at the scene, it is doubtful, with the equipment that the helicopter was then fitted with, that a recovery would have been possible—particularly in 4½-metre swells, gale-force winds, driving rain, and darkness.

Hon Mark Gosche: Is the Minister satisfied that the National Rescue Coordination Centre is able to handle such searches to give the best possible chance of saving lives?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I am entirely satisfied that the National Rescue Coordination Centre acted efficiently to coordinate the rescue operation from the time it was finally upgraded to class 3 and staff there assumed control. I am very confident that this situation cannot occur again in the future, because on 15 September last year, the Rescue Coordination Centre of New Zealand and the police agreed on procedural changes to strengthen communications between the two during search and rescue incidents. I am advised that those changes were implemented in September last year. So the Rescue Coordination Centre is fully informed and involved from the outset, when appropriate. I think this addresses the issue that Mr Hide raised in terms of the confusion of communication that obviously occurred.

Peter Brown: Noting the rather long earlier answer the Minister gave us, will he tell us what portion of the tape recording gives any sort of indication that those factors had any bearing on the decision not to launch the helicopter? It comes across to most New Zealanders—and, I think, indeed, to the good member himself—that there was a lot of confusion, and that would be the honest answer to give the House.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I certainly do not wish to give less than an honest answer to the member, and I can assure members that I am as concerned as he is about the communication issues and the confusion that occurred. As soon as I heard of the circumstances surrounding the situation, I immediately asked for a review, after I had had the verbal briefing from the Secretary for Transport on 15 March this year, by the New Zealand Search and Rescue Council of the search and rescue classification system. That review was completed on 15 April, and has recommended further changes: one, to reinforce existing polices about who does what; two, to strengthen communication procedures; and, three, to investigate alternatives to the current search and rescue classification system. These changes are currently being implemented. As I said before to the member, I have taken this issue extremely seriously. Two lives were lost in these circumstances but, sadly, it might not have been possible to save them even if the helicopter had been dispatched earlier than it was.

Rodney Hide: Has the Minister had an explanation from the New Zealand Police as to why the police search and rescue liaison officer based in the commissioner’s office, Geoff Logan, assured the National Rescue Coordination Centre three times that the helicopter was on the way to rescue those two men, when in fact the helicopter was not launched for another 58 minutes; if so, what was that explanation and, if not, why has he not sought an explanation as to why the police can so grievously mislead the Rescue Coordination Centre?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I have asked for an explanation of what occurred in this case. There was certainly some confusion in communication between the Northern Communications Centre and the police liaison officer. I do not believe that the police liaison officer misled anybody; I believe he reported what he thought was the correct situation. If the member has questions for the Minister of Police on the operations of the police, I suggest that he raises those with the Minister. I can assure the member that since I was first aware of this circumstance I have taken every step to ensure that the search and rescue side of things has been sorted out. I can tell the member that maritime and aviation incidents will not now be subject, in the way they have been, to some sort of decision part-way through the process, before the Rescue Coordination Centre is in the loop. It will be in the loop from the beginning of the issues, and that action has already been well agreed and put in place.

Rodney Hide: Having listened to the recordings of communication between the Rescue Coordination Centre and the New Zealand Police, does the Minister agree with Superintendent Tony McLeod, who only last week said: “I am very comfortable with how the coms centre responded to the incident.”; if so, why does the Minister accept that the communications centre handled that incident appropriately and, if not, what is being done to stop that botch-up occurring ever again?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I will answer the last part of the question first: I can assure the member that a botch-up cannot occur again, because the Maritime Operations Centre and the National Rescue Coordination Centre take charge of the issues from the beginning, and then a decision is made during the process as to what resources are appropriate. That is a different situation from what we had in the old search and rescue class 2, class 3 system. However, I am not sure whether the police officer involved and I were listening to the same tapes, if that is his view.

Rodney Hide: I seek the leave of the House to table a transcript of the recordings between the Rescue Coordination Centre and the New Zealand Police on the night of 16 August 2004, when the Iron Maiden sank.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I seek the leave of the House to table the official report of the Maritime Safety Authority into the foundering of the vessel Iron Maiden.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Early Childhood Education—Possible Policy Change

11. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on possible changes to the Government’s policy of 20 hours per week free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): As part of Budget 2004, the Government announced that all 3 and 4-year-old children in New Zealand would be entitled to 20 hours per week of free early childhood education. Immediately after that, I saw a report pledging to abolish the policy. Then I saw another report retracting that pledge. Now I have another report that in fact confirms that Bill English wants to slash the free early childhood education policy. Now we know where some of the money for the tax cuts for National’s mates is coming from.

Lynne Pillay: Has the Minister seen any report suggesting that early childhood centres should commit fraud or adopt dishonest practices—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry to interupt. There was an intervention during the asking of this question. I have been very tolerant with chatter throughout this question time, but that was an intervention. Who was the member who made it?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber, please, because that is normally what happens to those who intervene during the asking of questions.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

Lynne Pillay: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that early childhood centres should commit fraud or adopt dishonest practices in order to increase the amount of Government funding they get?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes. I was there at the conference, and I have seen a report—in fact, an email—suggesting that early childhood centres should fraudulently fill out forms in order to claim for funding for qualified teachers, even if they are not there. I have already had feedback from people in the sector that they do not intend to follow Bill English’s suggestion.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is lying. When he was there I did not say that, and he should not mislead the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I seek leave to table a document that states: “I also want to say I was appalled at the advice given at the ECC conference that we falsify documents. The majority of us are honest professionals, and we would never dream of doing such a thing.”

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is; the document will not be tabled. In dealing with the first point of order, I ask whether the member has taken objection to what was said.

Hon Bill English: Absolutely. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Does the member wish to speak to the point of order?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, not to that one.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister then please withdraw and apologise?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: How can I withdraw and apologise for saying I received a document that I did receive, which was totally accurate?

Hon Bill English: Speaking to the point of order, I say that the Minister has made a direct claim that at a forum we were both at, I got up and advised early childhood centre operators to operate in a fraudulent manner and to falsify Government returns. That is absolutely untrue. Those words were never said. In fact, I said that operators were telling me that they were not always as detailed in filling out the forms as they should have been. I absolutely never said that, and the Minister is lying. If he keeps on doing that, it will bring the House into disorder. He is lying.

Madam SPEAKER: The matters raised by the member are matters for the debate. However, the member, in the course of saying that, has accused the Minister of lying, and that is unparliamentary. Will he please withdraw and apologise.

Hon Bill English: I withdraw and apologise.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very, very clear what happened then. You asked the Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard, to withdraw and apologise. He then stood up and contested that ruling. He does not have the opportunity to do that under the Standing Orders. He had an opportunity to speak to the ruling, and he did not take that opportunity. When asked to withdraw and apologise, he then contested the ruling with you. You allowed that to happen, and I am still waiting for him to withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. The member is contesting my ruling. The Minister did speak to it by saying he had that document, which he said contained what he had said. I have ruled on the matter, and I do not want there to be any more discussion on it.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very rarely that I disagree with you and agree with Rodney Hide, but I think you did order me to withdraw and apologise. I do withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: You may do so if you wish, although my understanding was different from that. But if everyone wants to withdraw and apologise, that is fine, and I would then ask the member to sit down

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Is it a new point of order?

Rodney Hide: Yes. I take grave exception to your suggesting that I got it wrong. It was very clear—and I think other members will back me up—that you asked Trevor Mallard to withdraw and apologise. At that point he had to withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: And he has. Would the member please sit down. The point has been taken.

Rodney Hide: No, my point is that you then attacked me.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please sit down. The matter has been resolved.

Rodney Hide: Actually, I would quite like you to apologise to me for your attack on my integrity.

Madam SPEAKER: If the member does not sit down, he is challenging the Chair. The matter has been sorted. Both members have apologised. I accepted the point you have made, and I accepted the Minister’s apology and withdrawal. Can we now please move on.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister not realise that when families are choosing an early childhood centre, they have to take into account the practicalities in terms of their lives—like whether the centre is convenient, what it costs, whether it has parking, whether they like the teachers, what its opening hours are, and whether they match the jobs that the parents have—and that all those things matter a lot more to working families than his politically correct view of who should be allowed to run a childcare centre?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have been involved in that area for quite a long time, and I do know that people who currently have their kids in kindergarten will be appalled at the fees that would be imposed as a result of National’s policy.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister describe the response of the delegates at the conference to which he refers, whose members deliver 50 percent of early childhood education, to the Government’s policy of 20 hours free early childhood education per week?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Mixed.

Bernie Ogilvy: Will the Minister consider extending the Government’s policy of 20 hours free early childhood education per week for 3 and 4-year-olds to all early childhood education centres, as per United Future’s education policy; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This Government will consider anything. A higher priority for me would be better quality and cheaper early childhood education for younger children.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister take the chance to repeat to the House his explanation to the conference as to why he wants to discriminate against 40,000 children and their families, depending on who the landlord is at the early childhood centre, where he said to the conference that Labour just believed the State should do more of it?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is not what I said. I said that there is always a trade-off between the quality of service and profit, and that this Government puts children first.

Hon Bill English: Now that the Minister has said that there is a trade-off between quality and profit, is he willing to go to the 40,000 working mothers and fathers who send their children to privately owned centres this week, and to say that they are making the wrong choice and are sending their children to low-quality, profit-making centres, and that he knows better and thinks that those parents should send their children to non-existent Government-owned and community-run centres?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Government believes in having quality centres. That has always been our priority. I remind that member that the vast increases in funding that have gone in have gone more into private centres than other centres, to help them to improve their quality—and they are very grateful for it. The member opposes quality, and he votes against it every time it is offered.

Refugees—Criminal Charges

12. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Immigration: Is it possible for a person facing serious criminal charges to be granted refugee status; if so, why?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration): It depends on where the criminal charges are laid. I am advised that if they were laid in any country other than New Zealand, then article 1(f) of the refugee convention states that a person who has committed war crimes, crimes against peace or humanity, or serious, non-political crimes outside the country of refuge, or who acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, can be denied refugee status. I am also advised that if criminal charges were laid in New Zealand, then refugee status could be granted, but it would not automatically lead to the granting of residence. A refugee can be deported if the person is considered a danger to the community as a result of criminal convictions.

Hon Tony Ryall: How does he explain to law-abiding New Zealanders the fact that a foreign man with serious criminal charges pending for threatening to kill two New Zealanders can be granted refugee status by an appeal authority that knew of these offences?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: My advice would be that this has been around since, probably, the convention was introduced, and certainly during the period of the 1990s when that member was a Minister in Cabinet.

Georgina Beyer: Will the review of the Act consider issues relating to refugees?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes. The Government has already indicated that it will honour its international obligations. However, the review will consider matters relating to refugees and refugee status. For example, the issue of refugees who have come from a third country in which they could have applied for refugee status, but who failed to do so, will be addressed.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why did no one from his department go to the appeal authority hearing to try to get this man out of New Zealand, when the department knew about his crimes?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: That is a matter for the department. But the member will know that part of the convention is as I outlined in my original answer.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can this man come to New Zealand on a student visa, and, after being held in prison as an overstayer, later be accepted as a refugee, with no one from the Minister’s department appearing before the appeal authority to stop that from happening?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: What the department does or does not do is a matter for the department, but what I can say is that the whole issue around the status of refugees is one of the matters that will be addressed as part of the review of the Act. It has been around since that member was actually a Minister in a previous National Government.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the Refugee Status Appeals Authority ruling in refugee appeal No. 75081.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What on earth does the Minister think he is doing in his job, if he cannot supply a satisfactory answer to the question that was just put to him by the member from the National Party?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: On the contrary, I thought my answers were fabulous.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee

Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege

Hon MATT ROBSON (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege referred on 21 July 1998 concerning Buchanan v Jennings. The Privileges Committee has many matters referred to it, and all are important, but this matter, I would suggest to the House, is possibly more important than a number of others because it deals with a fundamental issue of the House, and that is the question of free speech in the House, the protection of that free speech, and what should be the responsibility of members outside the House.

The question of free speech in terms of the New Zealand Parliament is often built around article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which was passed in the latter period of the 17th century in England. Dr Cullen will explain whether it was 1688 or 1689—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: 1689.

Hon MATT ROBSON: —but it has been there for quite some time, and, flowing from that, has built up the privilege that has meant that in the New Zealand House of Representatives what a member says, even if it could be actionable for defamation outside, is privileged, and no defamation action should take place.

In the case of Buchanan v Jennings it is possibly useful for this House—in fact, I would say that it is useful for this House—just briefly to look at how that arose and why the matter then came before the House. In 1998 Mr Jennings, a member of the ACT party in this House, made reference to officials of the Wool Board, and they considered that what he had said was defamatory. When he went outside the House he was asked by reporters, basically, whether he stood by his statement, and he used the words: “I do not resile from the statement.” He did not say any more; he did not say any less. The matter was taken by the people concerned to be defamatory, and it went to the High Court. At that stage the leader of the ACT party, the Hon Richard Prebble, went to the Speaker of the House and submitted that, in his opinion, there was a breach of privilege—the breach of privilege being that a member of the House was being sued for defamation for something that he had said in the House. Members should bear in mind that at that stage there was no repetition of the words “in the House”—nothing more than “I stand by my statement.” The Speaker referred the matter to the Privileges Committee in 1998. This case was not like Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Bleak House; it did not go on for decades, but it did go on, in terms of legal action, for 6 years. In 1998 the Privileges Committee decided it would wait until the legal action had been finished. It finished in 2004, which is when the present Privileges Committee took up the matter.

The Privy Council upheld the judgment of the High Court of New Zealand and the Court of Appeal that the matter was actionable, even if a member only said: “I stand by my statement.” One judge at the Court of Appeal, Justice Tipping, dissented and upheld the view—which is largely the view of the academic experts who submitted to our committee, and I will name them in a moment—that the privilege, as had been understood before the various court actions, was that merely saying that one stood by a statement did not make it a matter that could be actionable.

The report, I believe, is very, very clear on the key issues, and I will move straight to the recommendation, then mention some of the key aspects of the report. The recommendation is from the whole committee: “The Privileges Committee recommends that the Legislature Act be amended to provide that no person may incur criminal or civil liability for making any oral or written statement that affirms, adopts or endorses words written or spoken in proceedings in Parliament where the oral or written statement would not, but for the proceedings in Parliament, give rise to criminal or civil liability.” That was the recommendation of Professor Joseph, which was adopted by the committee. The two other legal experts who gave advice on this issue were Professor Burrows, who is well known for his work on defamation in particular but also is a legal expert on constitutional matters, and Mr Geddis of Otago University. All three were in unanimity that it was a privilege for the greater public good, and that for constitutional reasons that should stand.

The key issues are set out on page 5 of the report, and the first issue that Parliament should become apprised of is that what is being looked at is whether the courts should adjudge parliamentary proceedings. It is a very longstanding constitutional provision that there is separation between Parliament and the courts. Historically, if we go back to the Tudor period, I believe, the courts were often seen as the instruments of the King. The struggle was between Parliament, as the representative of the people—or, at least, at that stage, in the nascent parliamentary democracy that was developing, the very small class of people who could vote; it took it upon itself to represent everybody else, as well—and the King. It was a very fierce struggle. There was nothing academic about it. For instance, King Charles II, taking exception, I think, to the Speaker of the time, paid a group of ruffians to slit the Speaker’s nose, when he stepped outside the House, from one end to the other. Members of Parliament thought that that was something they did not want to happen all the time, and that they would prefer to have their free speech protected, both inside and outside Parliament.

We have moved on since then, and we have developed wider democracy, universal suffrage, and the role of the media, which is important. But the key issue is that the constitutional provision in New Zealand is that the courts will not then adjudicate on the proceedings of Parliament, just as Parliament is not adjudicating on what happens in the courts, how decisions are arrived at, etc.

The effect on free speech itself had to be taken up by the Privileges Committee, because what has evolved is a doctrine of “effective repetition”. It is a fiction, and much of the law, of course, is built on fiction. Just as a company, although not really a person, is considered a person because it helps to say it is a person, similarly what the court has held is the fiction that although one did not say outside Parliament the words that are taken to be defamatory, they would be taken as then allowing the court to say that, well, the actual defamation was what was said inside the parliamentary Chamber, and it is going to look at those words. Once the court looks at words said inside the Chamber, it is taking part in, and evaluating the merits or otherwise of, the debate inside Parliament.

We could give a more current example. Yesterday a New Zealand citizen was claimed by a member of Parliament to be somebody who was connected to the murderous Saddam Hussein regime. That was said inside Parliament. If the member who said it then stepped outside Parliament and talked about it, that could be seen to be actionable. If, for instance, a press statement is issued that repeats those words, and it is found to be actionable, the person then can have, under this doctrine, the right to sue for defamation. So it is a matter of degree; it is a matter of whether the words are repeated, whether they are actionable. So it is very important to members of Parliament.

Without this proposed amendment, there can be a chilling effect on debate. The media too, if they carry the “effective repetition”, can be sued as well and become a party to the defamation. What it means, in effect, is that members of the media, if they follow up on a member’s statement and ask whether the member stands by the statement—because the public by then are interested—and ask whether the member has any more evidence, etc., they can be also “effectively repeating” what was said in Parliament. On page 14 of the report—I do not have time to read it out—Professor Burrows has helpfully set out how journalists could be drawn into this.

Finally, I wish to say that the Privileges Committee deliberated long and hard, but not, I would say, as members of Parliament looking after themselves. That is why three academic experts were brought in—so that we could have the benefit of advice on this matter from people outside Parliament with expertise in constitutional matters.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I want to talk on this issue not from a parliamentary point of view—and of course I am not a lawyer—but from a layman’s point of view, and to talk about the possible impact it could have on the freedom of speech of the general citizen of this nation. That is, to my mind, the most important issue. The issue is not about parliamentarians, actually, although it does impact on us. If that were all this issue was about, it would be a much less difficult issue for us to deal with. But the fact is that this decision could well impinge on the freedom of speech of a citizen who wishes to come and make a comment to Parliament in a select committee under what is considered to be a privileged situation. Indeed, it is important for us to recognise that this decision actually reaches out beyond Parliament and may well impact into the courts. That to me is also awfully important—that this decision could impact both on our parliamentary system and on our court system.

I will give an example relating to a member of the public—and let us remember that most people are not as familiar with matters of privilege, litigation, and defamation as members of Parliament are. A person could well be called as a witness in a court case, and go into the court to make the statement: “I absolutely and genuinely believe this is what I saw.” in a murder case, for example. The Mona Blades murder case is a classic one that has come up again recently. A witness could tell the courts what he or she saw. That witness could then step outside the court, and a reporter could ask whether the witness stood by what he or she said in the court. Of course, the witness would not deny what he or she said in court. The witness would not say that no, it was a lot of baloney, a lot of nonsense, or a lot of silly hoo-ha. The witness would say: “Yes, I stand by what I said. I do not resile from what I said.”

Having made that comment in the context of a court case, the precedent has been set by this decision of the Privy Council to allow the accused person—in particular, if the court case then gets thrown out, and it may be thrown out if there is not enough evidence to convict the person who has been accused—to then say: “That person defamed me, because he or she made a public statement about his or her comments outside the court.” The reporter, of course, would have taken the note that the person did not resile from what he or she had said. Under this precedent, it would be deemed that the person could well have repeated what he or she had said in the court publicly, outside of privilege. The person who was accused, but who was found to be not guilty because there was not enough evidence in that case, then could potentially have the right to have the person who gave evidence up for defamation. It worries me that that then starts to impinge, if you like, on the right of people in court to give evidence without fear or favour, and nothing we do in this Parliament must ever stop that from happening. It is absolutely imperative that people have the right—and indeed know that they can do this, without any concern—to give evidence fully and freely, as they believe they saw events happening, in a court case.

Similarly, the public must have the right to come before Parliament and give a point of view on an issue, whatever it may be. It may well be, again, that a person who gives evidence in a select committee may not have the situation right, but from his or her perspective that person genuinely believes that what was said was absolutely true—from his or her perspective. Then, when the person goes outside, a reporter may ask: “Mr Jones, did you say X, Y, and Z?”, and he may say: “I don’t resile from what I said in the select committee.” Again, under this decision, that person could be deemed to have repeated what he said in the select committee. Such a person’s privilege, under this case, is now gone, and then if he or she has made a statement that is defamatory—maybe innocently, because people in this land are not as familiar with the laws of defamation as members of Parliament are—he or she could well be liable to be sued. That could well mean that the citizens of this nation are suddenly fearful of coming before Parliament to give a point of view. It could actually impinge on their ability to give this Parliament the knowledge that we need in order to make decisions.

It goes even one step further than that, of course. We then start to ask about the fourth estate, and its role in repeating or writing about a statement made by somebody in a select committee, who then makes the statement: “I don’t resile.” If that person has been deemed to have repeated the statement he or she made in a select committee, or in a court case, then surely it follows that the representative of the fourth estate who made the statement: “I don’t resile.” and then talked about the story, has actually repeated the story outside a privileged area, as well. Logic has it that it would be so. Therefore the media could possibly also be liable for defamation. Although the fourth estate, and journalists particularly, are well aware of the issue around defamation—and they often have far more resources than the average citizen to fight against it—nevertheless, we have to be mindful that we do not want to curtail their ability to report the activities of this Parliament. We do not want to limit the fourth estate’s ability to have the right to report what happens in a court case, although there are always some restrictions deemed necessary by the court, of course.

But, generally, this issue to me is about an absolutely fundamental and basic tenet of our democracy: the freedom of speech. If it were about only Parliament and parliamentarians, then, quite honestly, it would be an issue that we may well have to live with. But it goes well, well beyond us, the 120 parliamentarians. This issue goes to the fundamental right of a citizen of New Zealand to be entitled to come and give a point of view in this Parliament on a particular issue or matter, or to go before a court and give evidence as that person genuinely believed he or she saw matters, without fear or favour. That is why I think it is absolutely imperative that this Parliament today corrects what has happened as a consequence of the Privy Council’s decision.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I think this is probably the most important Privileges Committee report for many years, and it concerns, clearly, as members have said already, the proper scope of parliamentary privilege and the implications of that for the workings of our kind of democracy.

That parliamentary privilege, of course, is affirmed in article 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689, or, to give it its formal title, 1 William and Mary Sess. 2.c.2., passed on 16 December 1689. As I have said many times, unfortunately lawyers keep repeating a mistake made by one of their own in the 18th century, and at the end of my speech I might explain how that mistake arose. What article 9 does is prevent proceedings in Parliament from being impeached or questioned in any court. It is part of New Zealand law. It is a privilege jealously guarded by Parliaments for over 300 years.

In the Jennings case, as Mr Robson rightly pointed out, although what Mr Jennings said, if he had repeated it outside, was undoubtedly defamatory, he was caught, in terms of the rulings by the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, simply by the fact that he said he did not resile from his statement. This was taken to be “effective repetition”, although, clearly, not actual repetition, of the statement made in the House. So the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council ruled against Mr Jennings, and in so doing, despite what I have said about Mr Jennings’ statements, ruled against the interests of Parliament and, at the end of the day, of free speech, because, of course, the essence of arguments about free speech is not defending free speech when what is said is undeniably true and incontrovertibly so; it is defending the right of free speech of people who say unpopular things, and even, occasionally, things that are incorrect. Even in this House, on occasions we have seen attempts to shout down members whose views are not popular with the majority of those within Parliament.

There was clear evidence of the chilling effect that that will have on free speech from the leading constitutional lawyers who appeared before the select committee. Firstly, because of this, as the report rightly says, the court begins to directly challenge the quality of parliamentary proceedings, and that is an inappropriate extension of the court’s powers in relation to Parliament. I do say, however, that sometimes within this House we had better be more careful about some of our comments about court proceedings and court judgments, as well, because this is traditionally a two-way street and not a one-way street. Secondly, the judgment renders nonsensical the right of free comment within the House, because, in effect, all it enables a member to do outside the House with safety is to say “No comment.” in response to any question. If a member of Parliament is placed in that position, then it renders stupid the ability to make statements within the House, and, indeed, is not in the interests of free debate. That chilling effect does, then, as Mr Carter has explained in more detail, extend to public debate, including debate within the media. The final point made by the witnesses to the select committee, which I think was the important one, was that the nature of the ruling was such that it could well extend beyond defamation to other matters, and that would further add a chilling effect on the ability to operate free speech within Parliament.

I cannot allow this occasion to pass without allowing some small piece of self-indulgence, because our own statute book refers to the Bill of Rights 1688, and historians remain continually baffled as to why lawyers have kept repeating that error for, now, something like 250-plus years. The reason is quite simple. The bill was introduced into the English Parliament in February 1689. The fact that it is 1 William and Mary should tell people immediately that it could not have been passed in 1688, as James II would scarcely have given the royal assent to the Bill of Rights. But in 1689—indeed, until early in the 18th century—the New Year did not begin until Lady Day, and that is March 24. So, in the old style, February 1689 actually would have been reported at the time as February 1688. Somewhat lazy lawyers in the 18th century read the introduction of the bill in February 1688, and ever since lawyers have referred to it as the Bill of Rights 1688. However, it was not passed until 16 December 1689, so it is incontrovertibly the Bill of Rights 1689. I hope that some day a future Government will take the opportunity via a Statutes Amendment Bill to correct that error within our own legislation.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Anyone who listens to this debate will think that parliamentarians are taking their responsibilities very, very seriously, except that anyone who understands the background to this debate will know what an indictment it is on doublespeak, doubletalk, and worse when it comes to this Privileges Committee. The reality, of course, is that we have a decision of this committee that is not unanimous, and those members who were on the committee—and I am one of them—knew from the word go that I was opposed to the Buchanan v Jennings thing being considered by the committee, because I believe that Jennings was guilty, and I will tell members why.

Effective repetition as a test is a very serious test, but it is totally different, utterly different, and utterly opposite to say the following, as opposed to the last thing I will say, and that is this. To say “It is true that I said that in Parliament.”, is nothing like saying “What I said in Parliament is true.” All the same words are there, but the reality is that the meaning is utterly different, and those members should know it.

Mr Jennings said that what he said in Parliament was true. He said: “I don’t resile from anything I said.” In short, he was affirming, and reaffirming, his belief that what he had said was correct. That is utterly different from someone saying “It is a fact I said that in Parliament.”, or “It is true I said that in Parliament.”

Why those members of the committee should be brought to account is to explain how they have had a Damascus experience on this matter. What makes the Jennings case special when he was as guilty as sin for repeating his allegation, when in fact another member of Parliament—namely, myself—went to this committee, and those arrogant sods had the effrontery to say: “Well, why don’t you suck it and see.”?

Pita Paraone: Is that what they said?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is what they said. If members look at the decision of the Privy Council appeal with regard to the case of Jennings v Buchanan, the first reference to Peters v Cushing is on page 18. It is dealt with in a short paragraph that states: “For his first cause of action”—that is, Cushing—“based on these defamatory remarks”—that is what he claimed—“the plaintiff could not succeed with relying on the naming of him in the House. This was held rightly, in the opinion of the board, to be impermissible.” So tell me how come I got sued and how come I had all those cases all the way up to the Court of Appeal where I was recommended to get a strike-out at the District Court? I went to my parliamentary colleagues and they would not raise a muscle. The Privy Council is saying that I am innocent, and people like Mr Robson, his party, Labour, and National—

Edwin Perry: Hidden agenda.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They did their best to bankrupt me. What do members think of that? They talk about lofty principles, which they are forever going to be fighting for, for the rest of their parliamentary life! If people believe that, they will believe anything. This is what the Court of Appeal said about that case: “Thus the defendant had to be free to name the plaintiff in Parliament if he judged it right to do so without fear of adverse civil consequences. Such a case is, however, to be distinguished from a case such as the case of Jennings, a precedent case where the extra-parliamentary confirmation followed the parliamentary publication.”

How do members like that? What will Mr Robson say about that, or his colleagues, the Labour Party, and people like Mr Caygill who sat on that committee and told me to suck it and see, and $250,000 later they sit there with that precious lazy look on their face as though they are men of honour? What a disgrace!

I shall tell members what I see in this judgment. I shall go back to it, because it is very pertinent. This is the matter I brought to the Privileges Committee on 11 June 1996. This is what the committee said, amongst other things: “Mr Peters seeks to distinguish Hyams v Peterson on two grounds—first, that in that case identification in the House occurred before any defamatory statement was made”. What does the Court of Appeal state right there? It states that I am right on that matter, for a start, and that illustrious little committee should not be given any respect whatsoever when it comes to doing a thing that is honourable and right, or upholding the law.

The committee went on to state: “first, that in that case identification in the House occurred before any defamatory statement was made and, secondly, that no member was a party to the action, and hence the member’s statement was there called into question.” It stated: “Judge Willy”—this is a District Court judge, I might add, not a High Court judge, a Court of Appeal judge, or a Privy Council judge—“has rejected Mr Peters’ argument” and that I therefore had invited the committee to intervene. It is a great committee, when one thinks about it. It goes on: “What this committee has to determine is whether to recommend that the House should seek to intervene as amicus curiae.” What did it do? It could not wait to try to bankrupt the member, and they would not raise a finger.

Here is what it went on to state: “A decision to intervene should never be made lightly and only when it is in the public interest to do so.” Where is the apology for the disgraceful victimisation of a member of Parliament, simply because he did not hold to their views about flogging off all the State assets to every foreigner and every one of their friends and hiding every bit of corrupt action in this country, and that is how the case started in the first place?

The decision goes on to state: “The House’s role is, in an appropriate case, to protect its privileges if a case of sufficient importance arises and if it appears that the court can profit from arguments adduced on behalf of the House.” Tell me, how was Jennings’ case more meritorious than mine? It was not, was it?

Dail Jones: He lost.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of course, he lost. I had to appeal all the way back to the High Court. There were two courts. I had already been to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal said to me: “No, Mr Peters, we think that a District Court can decide this issue on a case such as a strike-out.”, and then a bum at the District Court was saying that the Court of Appeal does not know what he is doing. That is what was going on, and there was a Privileges Committee with experienced members of Parliament saying: “We’ll ignore the Court of Appeal. We’ll just go out there and see whether we can get this guy stiffed up as hard as we can.” That is what happened.

The committee went on to state that it “does not consider that the conditions for the House to intervene are satisfied here.” No, they rushed off to defend Prebble in London, even though he was not a member. He was just plain Richard Prebble, citizen. They rushed to the Privy Council at all that expense and paid for it themselves to defend him, but they could not raise a finger for a member who had a meritorious case.

Then, of course, they joined this action. At all points they made sure that they were represented. Is that not amazing. There is a word for that that starts with “h” and it stinks.

There was a clear attempt on the part of one of the litigants to question the motives behind statements. Members should listen to this. They were distinguishing my case: “In Prebble’s case there was a clear attempt on the part of one of the litigants to question the motives behind statements that members had made in the House. There is no evidence that such a question will arise in the present case.” Members should look at the District Court judgment against me. I did not turn up, of course. I knew it was a contempt of this Parliament. I knew that it was a breach of my civil rights. I knew the Bill of Rights 1689 was being held in contempt by that court, but not one of those flash Harrys over there, or behind me, in that committee was prepared to raise a finger. Therefore, I am utterly opposed to this report, because it goes far too far. They seek to usurp to themselves a right that no other citizen can have.

If one says: “It is true I said that in Parliament.”, one should be safe, as I was eventually proven to be safe. But if one says: “What I said in Parliament is true.”, one should not be.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): People who listened to the Rt Hon Winston Peters might have assumed that this report is not unanimous. In fact, it is unanimous. The Rt Hon Winston Peters sits on the Privileges Committee—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it very clear that if a member was not there, silence is not consent in any part of the law as I understand it, so you should stop the member right now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that that is a debatable matter.

RODNEY HIDE: It is a unanimous report—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No.

RODNEY HIDE: It is a unanimous report.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s not.

RODNEY HIDE: It is very interesting, is it not, that New Zealand First wants to call out that somehow it is Rodney Hide’s report. No, it is a report of the Privileges Committee, which the Rt Hon Winston Peters sits on. I think we met about 10 times on this matter, and I think that Mr Peters turned up twice.He had plenty of weeks—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Wrong.

RODNEY HIDE: That is a debatable point. I tell Winston Peters to sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no.

RODNEY HIDE: Yeah, yeah, the member should give up. Mr Peters had every opportunity to object to this report. We had several weeks in which to get back to the chairman on it. The Privileges Committee met several times. [Interruption] Mr Peters’ brother calls out, saying that Mr Peters has objected to the report. I have been across the Chamber and spoken to the chairman of the Privileges Committee, Matt Robson, who says that not once did Mr Peters object to the chair about this report. Mr Robson is over there, nodding his head and saying that that is right. It is quite a surprise to us, having had Mr Peters on that committee, that he has come down to the House—[Interruption] No, he is not right, because he is saying that it is not a unanimous report, when it is. His name is on it. Mr Peters is on the Privileges Committee, he did not object to the report, and he did not write a minority report.

I have to correct quite a few things that Mr Peters had to say about this issue. The committee took its work very seriously, and that is why we got the help of Professor Burrows—[Interruption] If the New Zealand First member wants to sit beside me in order to try to chip in and say that Professor Burrows has got matters wrong, I suggest he stand up and take a call. Any honourable member would do that, rather than sitting on one side and chipping in.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a public debate that Mr Hide is making that statement in. I would ask him to withdraw now, and I will then continue my speech and enliven this debate again. What we are hearing now is just total drivel and rubbish.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I do not think Mr Hide was offering to yield.

RODNEY HIDE: No, I was not offering to yield. I was suggesting that Mr Jim Peters take a call to speak, rather than sit to my right and chip in. Professor Burrows, Professor Joseph, and Mr Geddis came to the committee. They had prepared reports for the committee, which are appended to its report.

Professor Burrows made this point—and I will accept from the history professor that the year is 1689, and that there is a principle—[Interruption] Well, I have never had to apologise to TV3 for 2 hours and offer a correction, as the Acting Prime Minister has had to—not once. I accept that the year is 1689, and the principle is that the courts cannot look into Parliament. That is the principle that has been overridden here. Although Mr Peters may say he can go out and say: “Oh well, it is true that I said that in Parliament.”, I do not believe that Mr Peters would actually be safe if he said that. I do not think he would be safe if that went out on the media.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of course I would be.

RODNEY HIDE: He may be, but the court case would be very interesting, because the advice we had is that if Mr Peters said that, he would not be safe at all. We have a very interesting situation. When someone says, as Mr Jennings said: “I don’t resile from what I said in Parliament.”, none of those words are defamatory. Not one of those words is defamatory.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, it is.

RODNEY HIDE: No, it is not. Not one of those words, taken on its own, is defamatory. What we then have to do is to get the Hansard and find the bit that is defamatory, and when someone goes out and says: “I don’t resile from that.”, the decision states that he or she is actually repeating the whole speech. That cannot be right, because it is not a repetition, and we can see that in the language used. The decision states that it is an “effective repetition”. An “effective repetition” is not a repetition in the way that I understand the English language.

The decision has an immediate impact, as John Carter pointed out. If a member of the public comes along and makes representations to a select committee, and if that person is then called out of the meeting and asked about them, that person can be pinged immediately for what he or she says outside the select committee and be up on a defamation charge. Interestingly, I remember going on Morning Report with Mr Peters. He would not stand by what he had said, nor say that what he had said was untrue, or anything like that, on Morning Report. Sean Plunket put this question to Mr Peters several times: “Do you stand by what you said in Parliament?”. Mr Peters dodged all over the place, and said he would not answer it. The interesting thing is that if Mr Peters had said: “Yes, I do.”, Radio New Zealand would have been in the cart, as well as Mr Peters. Radio New Zealand could have been subject to a defamation proceedings. If someone stands up and says: “I don’t resile from what I said in Parliament.” and a newspaper prints that, under this ruling that is defamation by the newspaper. There is no parliamentary protection applying.

We can imagine the impact of that. The impact is that politicians who get up and exercise the privilege of this House cannot then go out and talk to journalists, and journalists cannot report what politicians were talking about afterwards. It is not because what they are saying outside the House is in any way defamatory; it is because if they say anything outside the House that has any possible link back to Parliament, then they can be pinged. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is not in his rightful seat. He cannot interject from there.

RODNEY HIDE: That has a huge impact on the conduct and business of this House. It is interesting that this ruling will have a potential impact, we heard, on our courts. This report does not address that issue, but if someone is appearing in a court and he or she makes representations in the court, sure that person is protected by privilege. But what happens when that person goes outside the court and is interviewed? What happens when a judge says something outside a court? In fact, the understanding we have of the law is that judges, too, could be in trouble, following the principle that was established in this court case.

This is not an easy case to deal with. The committee took its duties very, very seriously. I think it is a shame that Mr Peters did not turn up and hear the various arguments and the debate that took place in that committee. I certainly appreciated the efforts that Professor Burrows, Professor Joseph, and Mr Geddis went to, and I certainly appreciate the efforts that the chairman, Matt Robson, went to in giving the opportunity for all members of the committee to have a say, and giving extra time for them to take this report back to their caucuses, for their opinion to feed back into the committee. I am just very, very sorry that Mr Peters did not avail himself of that opportunity. This is a difficult issue. I think the report is a good one. We support it.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I am also a member of the Privileges Committee. First, I want to thank the chair and the select committee staff, the other members on the committee, and particularly the Clerk of the House, who provided the committee with exceptional advice and assistance in dealing with such a serious issue.

This report concerns the extent to which members of Parliament can affirm, outside the Parliament, potentially defamatory statements made inside the Parliament. Parliamentary privilege is a very old principle, established to protect the freedom of speech of members of Parliament in the House. It derives from article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which prevents proceedings in Parliament from being impeached or questioned in court. This right ensures that MPs are able to explore, debate, and investigate within Parliament any relevant issues and concerns, without fear of legal proceedings being brought against them. This privilege plays a crucial role in what we like to think is our open and transparent democracy.

The issue before the Privileges Committee arose out of legal proceedings taken against Owen Jennings for a statement he made in the House. While in Parliament, Owen Jennings made a defamatory comment about the actions of an employee of the Wool Board. That statement was protected by parliamentary privilege, but later Mr Jennings said to a reporter outside Parliament that he did not resile from his claim about the official’s relationship. The employee took an action in defamation against Mr Jennings on the basis that, because he said to the reporter he did not resile from the defamatory statement, he was effectively repeating it.

Mr Jennings pleaded the protection of parliamentary privilege, but eventually the Privy Council agreed with the employee that, by saying he did not resile from his statement, Mr Jennings had effectively repeated his statement outside the House and, therefore, his statement was not protected by parliamentary privilege. Now the law is that if members of Parliament say they do not resile from what they said, without repeating the defamatory words in any way, they can still be held liable in defamation proceedings.

John Carter is quite right in raising the concern that this ruling will also now apply to members of the public who come before select committees. For many people outside this House, parliamentary privilege is an unjustifiable protection that allows MPs to get away with saying vile, defamatory, and inflammatory things in the House, without suffering any consequences. Those who are the subject of those comments suffer the most, as they have virtually no ability to force a retraction or apology from the MP. They do not always have access to the media, and are not necessarily able to tell their side of the story to the public. Their reputations can be seriously and permanently impugned, with their having no recourse, at all.

The Privileges Committee did consider Parliament’s internal controls on the abuse of freedom of speech. It said that such persons can comment on any accusations and that the provisions in the Standing Orders strike an appropriate balance. But I want to consider in more detail those internal controls. There is no doubt that parliamentary privilege comes with a responsibility. It should not be used to incite ethnic tensions. It should not be used to make personal attacks for political purposes that serve only the interests of the MP and not those of the community. Many MPs are careful and measured in their use of privilege, but many are not.

Just this week New Zealand First has named various individuals and impugned their reputations, suggesting that they are part of the Saddam Hussein regime. The truth of those accusations will come out in due course, but we must remember that those accusations were made under the protection of parliamentary privilege. We must ask whether those individuals are being named, their places of residence identified, and their families exposed to xenophobic abuse for legitimate community purposes, or simply to drive up ethnic tensions and to use those people and their families as scapegoats to justify a draconian election immigration policy that is even worse than the dawn raid crimes committed against the Pacific Island community.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech, but Winston Peters to her right and New Zealand First members all around her are interjecting continuously.

Dail Jones: That’s not true. I didn’t say a word. Neither did Winston Peters.

Rodney Hide: Now they interrupt on points of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that points of order are to be heard in silence.

Rodney Hide: When the member giving a speech has people behind and beside her interjecting continuously, it makes it very, very difficult for her to speak, and it is against the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I do not really need any help, but I will hear the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: First of all, Mr Hide’s complaint is not correct with regard to a number of the members about whom he made it. I am happy to say that I was interjecting. If that member gets on her feet and starts accusing people of raising xenophobic expectations and all sorts of racism, she will get bounced around this House, because she is not telling the truth and is saying something highly inflammatory herself. She is bound to get that reaction. That is what previous Speakers would have ruled on these Standing Orders. Why should that member not have the same treatment?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. The second part of your remarks on the point of order actually got into debating material. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 57/5, which states that back-benchers should not interject when they are in close proximity to the member speaking. It is a longstanding convention. The reason is quite simple: it muffles the microphones.

METIRIA TUREI: Are those people being used by some parties as scapegoats to justify a draconian immigration policy—a policy that rivals the unjust dawn raid crimes that were committed against the Pacific Island community in the 1970s? Are the actions of New Zealand First a highly irresponsible use of parliamentary privilege? How are MPs to be held to account for pejorative, prejudiced statements made within Parliament?

One mechanism is that under the Standing Orders a person who is impugned may respond to the allegations recorded in Hansard. While that may be useful, it does not hold the MP himself or herself to account. An MP may take a complaint to the Privileges Committee if it fits into one of the established grounds, but, again, the person impugned does not get an effective defence.

The Green Party has been a strong advocate for the establishment of a member of Parliament code of conduct, to be incorporated into the Standing Orders, setting out the standard of behaviour that we and the community expect in this House. This code would be enforceable as an internal control within Parliament. It would assist in controlling the currently very high level of unpleasantness, aggression, and verbal abuse that simply would not be tolerated in any classroom, playground, workplace, or home in this country.

Of course, the community has other opportunities to hold members of Parliament to account for their irresponsible misuse of parliamentary privilege—at the ballot box. New Zealanders expect a much higher standard of behaviour from their highest and most privileged representatives than, for example, that demonstrated by Winston Peters, who used the term “Ying Tong” to refer to Asian members of the New Zealand community. That sort of intolerant, vicious, extreme abuse is not acceptable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, you ask us not to interject but when a member, and a new member at that, gets to her feet and starts talking about parliamentary standards—she does not say, of course, whether that includes pot smoking, marijuana, and every other illegal activity—

Dail Jones: And what else she does over the holidays.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: She does not say what else she is going to do with her holidays—going around universities and cursing and swearing, using the foulest language. If that is the standard of Parliament now—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will come to the point of order. This is debating material.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Then she makes an allegation with regard to “Ying Tongs” and Asians. That cannot be correct, can it? Asia goes all the way to Turkey, and only certain people in the whole of Asia would have that sort of name. Of course, that member would not know that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member again to Speaker’s ruling 35/3, which deals with misrepresentation. If the member feels that he has been misrepresented, then he does not take a point of order now; he waits until the end of the speech. He should also look at Standing Order 106.

METIRIA TUREI: That sort of intolerant, vicious, extremist abuse is not acceptable in this community and it is not acceptable for members of Parliament to espouse.

Parliamentary privilege is a very important constitutional protection and responsibility. The Privileges Committee, which has considered the issue in great depth, recognises both the freedom of speech principles and the public interests in the fair and responsible use of privilege. The committee recommends that the Legislature Act be amended to return Parliament effectively to the situation that existed prior to the Privy Council ruling.

The Green Party agrees with the principle of free speech. Should such legislation come before the House, the Green Party would give it very serious consideration, in light of the mischief it is designed to remedy and the public interest in retaining freedom of speech and protecting members of the public from unjust, unfounded, intolerant, and extremist personal attacks.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed her seat seems to be in some uncertainty. The first dawn raids were made under the Kirk Government in 1974.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): It is a privilege for me to participate in this debate concerning the report of the Privileges Committee on this very, very important landmark decision of the Privy Council in Buchanan v Jennings. Had the Hon Peter Dunne, the leader of United Future, been here today, he would have been making this speech, because he would have liked very much to contribute to the debate. He has been a member of the Privileges Committee in the many years that have elapsed since this matter first went to the committee, in 1998. I have had the privilege of a briefing from Peter Dunne, which has been very, very helpful, but the words that I will use in this speech, nevertheless, I claim as only my own.

First of all, I agree with the recommendation of the committee. I think the actual wording of that recommendation is extremely important, because it does not give carte blanche, in any shape or form, for members of Parliament to repeat outside this House statements they have made under privilege inside this House. The proviso is: “but for the proceedings in Parliament,”. In other words, if members use words outside this House that are in themselves defamatory, then they remain open to the possibility of an action for defamation. I think it is very, very important to discuss that point, absorb it, and take it on board in relation to what Owen Jennings, a member of Parliament at the time, actually said. He said outside the House that he “did not resile from his claim about the official’s relationship”. Even if the recommendation of the committee is acted upon, which I support, a member of Parliament who uses those kinds of words in the future could still be open to a defamation action. Since I have been here I have heard a number of members quote Owen Jennings as having said that he “did not resile from” his remarks. That is only a partial quotation of what he said. He went on to say, in terms of those remarks, that they were about “his claim about the official’s relationship”. That second part of his quote would not be protected by the recommendations made by the committee. I think that is an important point to make.

However, let us go back to the implication of this whole question of “effective repetition”. As I have said, I very much support the right of Parliament to ensure that the traditional understanding of its privileges is maintained into the future. But we would, of course, have a quite ridiculous situation if the opinion of the Privy Council were interpreted to say that, for example, if a member, after having spoken in the House under privilege, says to a journalist that what was said is on the record, in Hansard, that member could be in trouble. It is not clear from the Privy Council report that even those remarks would not get a member into trouble in terms of a defamation case. It is completely ridiculous for a member not even to be able to say: “Well, what I said is recorded in Hansard.”—in other words, simply to point a journalist to the public record of this House, which is all that would be being done there. There would be no repetition whatever of any defamation statement contained in that, yet, according to the decision of the Privy Council, we could be caught in that regard. It is very, very important that that kind of uncertainty is removed. As other members have said, even the words: “I do not resile from what I said.” should, in my view, not be the cause of a defamation action.

That is in terms of the privileges of this House, but, as other members have pointed out, the decision also has implications in relation to the privilege that is contained in court actions. Let us consider a person who is a witness in a case before the court; in that context, he or she may be deemed to have defamed somebody. If that person were to go outside the court and say to a journalist—who had said that the evidence was very interesting and had asked the person to elaborate—that what he or she had said is in the record of the court, then under the Privy Council ruling even that may land that person in trouble, because he or she had referred back to proceedings in the court. In my view, the Privy Council has even risked restricting the privileges of information given before a court of law, which is an extremely serious matter. That is plainly something we should not allow to happen.

When we think about it, there are also implications arising from that situation—where privilege relates to statements made in Parliament, and also relates to statements made in court—for there to be a blurring of the line of the separation of powers that we have always had between Parliament, on the one hand, and courts, on the other. That separation of powers is a cornerstone of the whole Westminster tradition on which the parliamentary and democratic system in virtually every genuinely democratic country in the world is based. We would be risking the undermining of that by allowing, in both situations, statements made under privilege to become the subject of a defamation action. We cannot and must not allow that to happen.

As the member Rodney Hide has pointed out, there are also implications for the press. If the press was subsequently to print, for example, exactly what Owen Jennings had said, then it also would come under the “effective repetition” principle and also would open itself up to defamation proceedings. In fact, Mr Buchanan could have taken to court for defamation not only Owen Jennings but also all the media that repeated the statement. That would really threaten the whole role of the fourth estate in our democracy.

Really, this is an amazing debate. We are talking about the privileges of Parliament and the privileges of the court, and also about the freedom of the press to make its important contribution to the functioning of a free and open, democratic society. In one fell swoop, the Privy Council looks to have impeded all three, and really has completely upset our traditional understanding of what privilege means, and what is and is not the possible subject of a defamation case.

The other thing I will mention is that I was flabbergasted, in reading the report of the Privileges Committee, to see that the Privy Council made such a mishmash of its interpretation of our Standing Order 396(1). That Standing Order states: “Subject to this Standing Order, permission of the House is not required for reference to be made to proceedings in Parliament in any proceedings before a court.”

Dail Jones: Have you got the right one?

GORDON COPELAND: If Mr Jones does not think I have the right one, then he can take a call later and dispute what I have said, but I am quoting from the right Standing Order. [Interruption] OK, but I am still quoting from that Standing Order.

Dail Jones: 2004?

GORDON COPELAND: Yes, the 2004 version. [Interruption] OK, but I do not think that Standing Order has been changed. But I am open to correction on that point. I say to Mr Jones that that is not really central to my argument, if he will just let me finish it.

I make two points about the Privy Council decision. First of all, no evidence was presented to it on behalf of this Parliament as to the interpretation of that Standing Order, and, secondly, it made no reference to Standing Order 396(2), which specifically states: “Reference to proceedings in Parliament is subject always to article 9 of section 1 of the Bill of Rights Act 1688,”. That seems to me to be an amazing oversight on the part of what we have always regarded as being a very, very fine court. On this occasion I think the Privy Council clearly did a less than stellar job in terms of coming to its decision.

In summary, United Future strongly supports the recommendation on this matter made to the House by the Privileges Committee.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier): The recommendation of the Privileges Committee does not really offer any clear or silver bullet to members of Parliament who speak outside the House following comments made inside the House that subsequently may prove to be untrue and thus defamatory. What can be said outside the House that does not adopt the words spoken in the House, and thus becomes able to be litigated, is not clear. I think that if we look at what “effective repetition” and defamation really mean, we can get a clearer guide on the effect of the Privileges Committee report.

“Effective repetition” is a key concept to explain the effect of publication. Every time a defamatory comment is published, that creates a separate cause of action. So when someone goes outside the House and adopts the defamatory words that he or she said in the House, it is the comment made outside the House that is the subject of the publication and thus the defamation. The way that the Privileges Committee unfolded and came to its very prudent decision was simply by saying that the words used by Mr Jennings by themselves amounted to nothing that could amount to defamation. They could be found to be defamatory only by going to the words used in the House, which Mr Jennings adopted by his comments made outside the House. Any court case—as, in fact, did happen—would be a litigation as to the truth of what was said in the House.

That brings into play the privilege of Parliament. It is one of the few absolute privileges we have in our law. It has been suggested by some members in this debate that this decision of the committee usurps to parliamentarians a right that no other citizen has. Privilege in Parliament is an absolute privilege, but it is not an absolute privilege that sits on MPs; it is an absolute privilege belonging to the institution. Whilst MPs are members of the institution, then the privilege extends to them. But it is a privilege that protects freedom of speech in this House, and thus the freedom of expression, challenge, and robust debate.

Of course, there is a tension between that and the equally important rule of law and principle that no man’s reputation will be sullied without some factual basis. Each of us is entitled to go about our business without having our reputation attacked. The law of defamation essentially protects that. As the advisers to the committee identified, there is a very uneasy tension between the right to free speech and the right to a good reputation. The right to free speech was considered to be of greater public interest when it came to the parliamentary situation, because in Parliament members are entitled to raise any matter they are interested in and to make any allegation they think will advance the matter they are arguing. They should do so without fear of subsequent recrimination or litigation. Of course, effectively the media convey to every New Zealander what is being said in Parliament. It is part of that process that the media will engage with a member of Parliament and seek some comment.

Of course, every time a member of Parliament is engaged by the media, every person who votes tries to make an assessment on the veracity or reliability of that member. If that then puts a member in the position whereby he or she prevaricates, or tries to avoid the issue, that member is in the very difficult position of having made a statement that he or she believes should be made in the House but that can then reflect badly on his or her public persona outside the House.

If the member remembers that the “effective repetition” is to protect the second publication that is outside the House, and if the member does not elaborate on what that publication was but simply says that he or she accepts or adopts what was said in the House, then this rule will protect that second publication under the rule of “effective repetition”. It is a very restrictive finding of the select committee. It is a finding that goes beyond the law of defamation—it extends to criminal law and, perhaps, to other civil liabilities—but it is still a very restrictive law. I have some difficulty in grasping the concept, which has been enthusiastically bandied around this Chamber, that it should extend to courts of law. A witness in any proceeding is supposed to be a witness as to fact, not an advocate. We, as members of Parliament, speak as to fact and opinion, but essentially we are advocates for our cause. So we must take positions whereby we break eggs, we break ground, and we push the envelope in the effort of challenging what has been going on, or of leading to a greater insight into what really should happen.

That is a different position from a witness in a court of law. I would hesitate before we gaily say that this also applies to a court of law, because a witness as to fact should not feel any obligation, when confronted by media outside, to make any statement about what was said under oath in court. It may well be that it could extend to that, but I think the committee’s recommendation should be looked at very carefully before it is extended to a court of law.

The real beneficiaries of this recommendation are not parliamentarians, but all New Zealanders. This is because the immediate beneficiary is the press. Members of the press can approach people outside Parliament and speak to them about matters in Parliament, and enable the public to see how those people respond to that—whether they are prepared to stand their ground, or prevaricate, or resile from the matter. If members remember that they are not elaborating on what they have said in Parliament, or repeating out of Parliament the words used, but that they are just confirming their position, then they are committing no greater sin that will lead to any defamation, and the public at large can debate issues that are often overlooked, not heard, and not read about, by what is actually said in Parliament. That gives the press an opportunity to link in the public space that which is discussed in Parliament.

Of course, that is how voters can decide who they should elect to Parliament. This is the extent to which I disagree with my friend from the Greens, Metiria Turei, when she advocates a code of conduct. The privilege that we all have as members of Parliament carries with it a responsibility. One cannot have a privilege without a responsibility. But a responsibility is a personal thing, and we make our own decisions as to how we accept that responsibility. The public at large can make their decision on how we conduct ourselves under the privileges afforded to us as members of Parliament by what they read in the media and watch on TV. This is a channel for the media to portray to the reading public and the television public what goes on in this House. It is a method for those who vote to assess the veracity and character of those who appear in the House.

Although I would hesitate to limit the right of free speech in this House, I think the sense of responsibility that most of us carry means that we can speak to what has been said in the House, without elaborating, and the matter can be taken to the public at large by way of this recommendation of the Privileges Committee.

The experts advising the committee spoke of the tension between the right to a good reputation and the right of free speech. That is fundamental to this country. It is also fundamental to the separation of powers, as referred to by other speakers. The separation of powers is important, because courts cannot attempt to curb the way Parliament does its business. It is not a question of the supremacy of Parliament versus the supremacy of courts. It recognises that what is said in this House can be said without hindrance and control, except that of good sense and a sense of responsibility.

I endorse the recommendation of this committee. It proposes to amend the Legislature Act rather than the Defamation Act. It does that because it will enlarge the privilege to cover acts other than those of defamation. But it does not give members of Parliament free licence to act irresponsibly in the House, and it does not give them free licence to elaborate outside the House on any untrue statements that may have been made in the House, under some guise of extended privilege. All of this is a sensible carry-over to the second publication—that is, when speaking to the media—of what is being said in the House. As long as what is said is not elaborated on, then the “effective repetition” remains privileged.

This is a very thoughtful recommendation of the Privileges Committee. It was well assisted by three experts who are acknowledged as such in this country. I believe this will lead to a sensible amendment and will be a shining light in our Commonwealth countries—our common law countries.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): The heart of this issue is undoubtedly freedom of speech and democracy. Although it would be very easy for the issue to be characterised as parliamentarians claiming some privilege for themselves beyond all else, it is, in fact, about the protection of the nation’s freedoms.

Parliamentary privilege exists for two basic reasons. The first reason is that if it did not exist, courts would be able to intervene in the proceedings of parliaments on a regular basis. I ask the simple question of how on earth this Parliament would be able to conduct its business if that were the case. It would set up a continuing clash and contest between Parliament and the judiciary, whereby each was trying to judge the other all the time. That would not be good for our democracy.

The second reason is that parliamentary privilege enables parliamentarians to deal with issues of public interest, and to discuss the major issues in a forthright and direct manner. Frankly, sometimes that discussion will be defamatory. I had only to listen to Metiria Turei, who was defamatory in calling another member a racist.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not at any time use the word “racist” in the speech that I just gave. I would like the member to apologise for that misrepresentation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 35/3 and Standing Order 106(1). If she is claiming misrepresentation, there is a time and place to do it.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: If those words were said, then quite clearly that would be defamatory. Yet the member would certainly not expect to be sued for that and, indeed, neither should she. This is a robust Chamber, and people have to have freedom to speak in it.

But more than that, sometimes not every single statement that a member of Parliament might say will be accurate. Even if a statement is broadly accurate, one has to be wrong only in some minor aspect to be in breach of the laws of defamation, and, of course, that would mean the issues could not then be discussed. I acknowledge, for instance, the whole issue around the wine box, and the difficulties that Mr Peters found himself in, in regard to that issue. Without those documents being tabled, there would never have been a commission of inquiry. We have only to recollect the number of court proceedings that were undertaken to try to stop that process. I say that because I myself, in terms of legal advice, was quoted in that report some years ago, so I am quite conscious of the importance of that issue.

A fundamental truism is that the law should not be so difficult that one has to be an expert in defamation law to be safe. Surely, that is sensible, and I would like to refer to Professor Burrows, who stated in the report: “It is harmless to say ‘Yes, I did say that’ but not, apparently, to say ‘Yes I did say that and I still believe it.’ ” The first statement would not have breached the Buchanan v Jennings rule; the second statement would have. The expert in defamation law would, of course, understand that difference, but a large number of people would not understand it, at all.

As Professor Burrows said, when the courts provide such fine distinctions, it makes it extremely difficult not just for parliamentarians but also for members of the media, to operate. When one is asked whether one stands by a statement one has just made, it is a natural response to say yes. It is a normal thing for anyone to say, and the law should not trap people for saying normal things or for simply acting as in the normal course of events. That is the problem that the Privileges Committee was fundamentally confronted with, and that is why we had to deal with it.

The solution is to change the Legislature Act. Members might question why there should be a change to that Act and not to the Defamation Act, because, after all, the Defamation Act would cover courts, local authorities, and all commissions of inquiry and the like, where privilege would be normally expected. Our Privileges Committee recommendation is essentially a recommendation for the Government. It has to draft law and put it before this House to be debated in a select committee. It may be that through that process, and after a full debate and discussion, people will conclude that parliamentary privilege ought to be extended. In the space and process of the Privileges Committee, we were not able to deal with that issue directly, but through the legislative process—through the select committees themselves—we will be able to deal with it.

I mentioned that it is not just a protection for parliamentarians but that it is also a protection for the media. I note that just 2 or 3 weeks ago a radio journalist tried to trap a member of Parliament into saying that he stood by what he said in the Chamber. It was put to Mr Peters three times on National Radio, but I also note that he was far too wily to be caught out by that ruse. What surprised me was that the journalist was attempting to trap not just Mr Peters but also his own employer—and, indeed, himself—because that would have been the effect of the repetition, and I suggest that Radio New Zealand probably has somewhat deeper pockets than Mr Peters has. So the media themselves will be protected now, because they will be able to ask reasonable questions, like the common-sense question: “Do you stand by what you said in the Chamber?”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It was fair range.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Fair range—well, there we are. [Interruption] That is interesting. So it is a broad protection of the public.

The final group to be protected is the group referred to by Mr John Carter—members of the public. Every member of this Parliament knows full well that large numbers of the public come to select committees. Some people say some quite amazing things, particularly in the course of inquiries or petitions. Which members of the public, if asked by journalists outside whether they stood by what they said, would not say yes? It would be the natural, human course to say precisely that. The change to the Legislature Act will protect the citizens of New Zealand who exercise their democratic rights.

I think that this is one of those issues—and we have had a lot of them in recent times—in which, once again, Parliament and the courts have a bit of a tussle going on and members of Parliament find themselves having to defend their privileges. The only one way in which they can do that is through legislation. The courts, being the independent branch of Government that they are, obviously have their methods through their decisions. We have seen plenty of examples in recent times where quite a tense constitutional tussle—if I can put it that way—is happening between our courts and Parliament. I guess that this is not the last time we will have to deal with that issue, but at some point there needs to be a better understanding of the relationship between our superior courts and our Parliament, in order to reduce that level of constitutional conflict. We need to think very seriously about how we go about that.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): Pursuant to Standing Order 106 and Speakers’ rulings, I want to correct a misrepresentation by Mr Mapp of what I said in a previous speech. Mr Mapp said in his speech that I had called Mr Peters a racist. In fact, in describing a number of comments made by Mr Peters I used words such as “xenophobic”, “extremist”, “intolerant”, “vicious”, and “derogatory”—

Dail Jones: Mr Speaker, the member is abusing the privilege. She did not say he was a racist, and that is where the matter should end. Instead, the member is abusing the system.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, the member may make a correction. This is similar to the issue we are debating in the House now. The member may not repeat what was said, but may simply give her explanation for it. The member may indicate what her explanation relates to, and then refute it and give the correct version.

METIRIA TUREI: That is what I was doing. The correct version of my description of Mr Peters’ statements included the words “xenophobic”, “extremist”, “intolerant”, “vicious”, and “derogatory”, but did not include the word “racist”, which he himself used in an interjection.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): This debate is about the extension of the right to exercise free speech in Parliament, which we call parliamentary privilege, to outside Parliament, as well. As members of Parliament, we currently have the right to say things within Parliament about people outside Parliament without being sued. However, currently, if we go outside Parliament and make a statement such as: “I do not resile from the statement I made in Parliament.”, we can be sued, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council can find us liable for damages.

Some members of Parliament do not like that. New Zealand First takes the view that we should restrict the right of parliamentary privilege to what is said in Parliament, and that when we are outside Parliament all we should be able to say is: “It is true that I said that in Parliament.” The other parties in this Parliament want to go further than that. They want to go into greater detail about how they can extend that right of parliamentary privilege to outside Parliament. But that would not be free speech; that would be an abuse of free speech. Those members who support the Privileges Committee report want to extend the right that exists in Parliament to abuse people—if I can put it like that—to include the ability to abuse them outside Parliament without being sued. That is what this report is all about.

There was a member of Parliament who made a defamatory statement inside Parliament. He went outside Parliament, but he did not just say: “It’s true that I said that in Parliament.” He threw on a bit of salt and pepper and a bit of garnish. He built it all up and said: “I—big man; macho man—don’t resile from any of that.” It was real macho stuff. But he did not realise that he could not do that, because it was an abuse of his position as a member of Parliament.

I am in New Zealand First, and we do not want to be able to do that, but other members and parties—Rodney Hide, Metiria Turei of the Greens, Labour, and National—want to be able to go outside Parliament and repeat, in a broader way, the defamatory, abusive statements they make in Parliament. That is what this is all about. That is what Mr Jennings did—big-noting—and he got caught up in it. Those Labour members and the Greens want to keep on big-noting outside the House.

Well, New Zealand First says no. We as members of Parliament have the privilege to be able to make those statements in the House. Our judgment day comes on election day. If we abuse those rights, we are out on the street. We will be turfed out. That is when our judgment day is. If members want to make those statements outside the House, their judgment day should be in court. That is where their judgment day should be. They cannot have it both ways. United Future, ACT, National, and Labour members want to have it both ways. They want to be able to say defamatory things in Parliament and be able to repeat them, in a way, outside Parliament. Well, they are two different arenas.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Not true.

DAIL JONES: It is absolutely true, because Dr Mapp said that Mr Jennings should have been entitled to say what he said and not be sued. Well, Mr Jennings should have been sued. The Privy Council said he was defamatory. It does not matter what Dr Mapp says about what the Privy Council said; he should read the judgment. What the Privy Council said is correct. It is as if someone were bowling to Geoffrey Boycott and, say, Mr Peters were the umpire. Someone comes in and bowls to Geoffrey Boycott, and hits him on the pads. Winston Peters says: “You’re out, Geoffrey.”, and Geoffrey Boycott says: “No, I’m not out. You can’t give me out.” We would tell him to look at the scoreboard, and if it said he was out, he was out. When the Privy Council says that one is defamatory, one is defamatory. That is all there is to it. The Privy Council is the referee and the umpire.

The other parties in this House want to be able to be defamatory inside the House and outside the House, but we in New Zealand First do not support that. Listening to the Green member was quite amusing. We have just heard her repeat words about New Zealand First. But, effectively, what she is doing is allowing members of Parliament to repeat statements outside the House. In supporting this report, that is what she is doing. To take up the Green member’s comment, the Privileges Committee’s decision will effectively enable any member of Parliament to make unjust, intolerant, extreme, or racist statements outside Parliament. A member can be asked outside Parliament whether he or she stands by the racist, intolerant, xenophobic, etc., etc., statements the member has made, and the member can say: “Yes, I do, and I don’t resile from them.” We should not be allowing that to happen. That is quite wrong.

New Zealand First is opposed to the committee’s recommendation: “… to provide that no person may incur criminal or civil liability for making any oral or written statement that affirms, adopts or endorses words written or spoken in proceedings in Parliament where the oral or written statement would not, but for the proceedings in Parliament, give rise to criminal or civil liability.” MPs should not be allowed to big-note outside the House without paying the penalty in the courts. If members big-note in the House and make a defamatory statement, or even a not so defamatory statement, their public—the voters—will decide the matter for them.

Dr Mapp was saying how grateful the media will be for the Privileges Committee’s decision. Of course the media will be grateful, because it will extend their right to be more and more defamatory. At times, there is nothing so unctuous as newspaper reporters. They say how dreadful the behaviour in Parliament is and how members of Parliament should not say this, that, or the other thing, but they splash it all over the newspapers. They love dwelling on it while, at the same time, saying how bad it is. The committee’s decision will enable the media to get a member outside the House and put him or her on radio or TV in order to relive the whole experience all over again, without the media being liable in any way for the consequences of the statement given.

I say to members of the House that it will be very, very dangerous to try to live within that new rule. We know what the present rule is. It is very clear. As a lawyer, I would advise a member of Parliament who may have gone over the edge in a debate one night or day and said something that perhaps was defamatory, and who was then held up by a reporter outside and asked whether he or she would repeat what was said inside the House, not to say a thing—not one thing, at all. This particular decision, if it is given effect, will encourage some members to try to say something, and that would be an absolutely tremendous trap. There would be an awful lot of litigation to decide what Parliament meant by allowing parliamentarians to say some sort of thing outside the House. It is best to say nothing at all. This particular provision, if it is ever given legislative effect in any particular way, will be an absolute trap for members of Parliament. We will create a real problem for ourselves if we adopt this provision.

The situation is quite simple as it stands at the moment. As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in his speech—and the point was confirmed by Dr Mapp—the simplest thing to do currently, if one is asked about what one has said in the House, is to say: “It is true that I said that in Parliament.” That is fine. However, if one says: “What I said in Parliament is true.”, then one is in trouble. That is exactly what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said at the opening of his speech, and the point was confirmed by Dr Mapp. But my advice to any parliamentarian is just to not say anything at all, because otherwise one starts to get too subtle. In the heat of the moment, with the microphone under the nose and some TV interviewer having a go, one is never quite sure of what one is saying, let alone of remembering what one has said afterwards. I cannot really understand why parliamentarians would want this amendment, but they think it will help them.

Dr Wayne Mapp: It’s also for the public.

DAIL JONES: It is not there for the public. It is there only so that those members of Parliament who make a mistake outside the House have a better chance of not being sued for damages. That is all it gets down to. The Labour, National, ACT, United Future, and Green members of Parliament just want another safety net in case they get into trouble by saying too much on the radio or the TV. New Zealand First does not want a bar of it.

This Chamber is where we speak. If we say something here, the electors will decide for us—we should just keep our mouths shut outside the House. Those are the simple rules. We do not want to go outside the House and start abusing people. That is quite the simplest way of it, even though Ms Turei said that we should be able to go outside and do that. She made an extraordinary speech; she did not really understand what she was saying.

When the Independent says “Parliament strikes a blow for free speech”, it is not striking a blow for free speech; it is striking a blow to save millions of dollars in legal fees and damages for the newspapers, and the backsides of those members of Parliament who just have not been able to control themselves when they have walked outside this Chamber.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege referred on 21 July 1998 concerning Buchanan v Jennings.

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 13

New Zealand First 13.

Motion agreed to.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 31 May on the .

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I want to continue this speech on the theme that I finished with last time, when I was asking the National Party whether it had any policies it could put up as a Budget. We occasionally see the Leader of the Opposition on television, and he says he is not going to mislead the country. Dr Don Brash, a man known to be very frugal, who survived on corned beef and peas for so long, and kept his pyjamas from childhood, knows for a fact: “You can’t spend it if you don’t make it.” He knows that much. So how would a National Government give tax cuts but continue to fund the 2,700 extra teachers that Labour has employed, the 3,300 extra nurses we have employed, the 398 extra social workers at Child, Youth and Family Services, the 138 extra probation officers, the 820 extra prison officers, and the 1,080 extra police? How will Dr Brash—the man who is frugal, who knows that if the money comes in one can spend it, but if the money does not come in one cannot spend it—be able to give tax cuts and keep all those other things? How would National continue funding early childhood education for our young children, if it is going to give money away in the form of tax cuts sometime in the future?

Those are the questions we want answers to. We want to hear answers from any National Party speaker among the huge array of members opposite. What sort of economics allows a Government to give tax cuts, and still spend money on teachers, nurses, early childhood education, police officers, and so on? We are looking forward to those answers from the Opposition, and New Zealanders are seeking answers too.

This is a great Budget. It puts money where it is needed. It builds on all the wonderful things that this Government has achieved over the last 5 years. We have seen State houses rebuilt, and income-related rents; we have seen more spending on defence, the police, the health sector, and the elderly. We have seen visionary policies enacted by this Government to make sure that the baby-boom generation knows there will be a superannuation scheme for them. We are also saying to some New Zealanders: “We’ll give you a hand to buy your first house.” We have to start in a relatively small way, because the previous National Government sold all the mortgages, and the State houses. We want to ensure that the people of my generation, whose parents bought their house with a 3 percent State Advances Corporation loan, can look to Labour to reintroduce policies of that sort with a mortgage insurance policy and a KiwiSaver loan.

That is the sort of visionary Budget that New Zealanders need, not some nebulous policy that says to people: “We’ll give you a tax cut some Christmas in the future.” But nobody in the National Party said which Christmas, or how big or how small the tax cut would be. Dr Brash, the man who knows about economics, realises that if he gives the big tax cuts he is promising everybody, he will also have to give those with a mortgage a whopping great increase in their interest rates. Is that the sort of thing New Zealanders are crying out for?

The Australian Government learnt all about that. That is the policy it suggested the Labor Party would be following. How are National members opposite going to answer that one? Do they have any answers? Is anyone capable of standing up and explaining what a National Party Budget would look like? We are looking forward to those answers, but I do not think we are going to get many. This Government is proud of its Budget, but National runs and hides when it comes time to pronounce any policy.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): If there is anything certain about the last Budget delivered by Michael Cullen it is that, in its dying days, the Labour Government gave up on aspiration for New Zealanders and pronounced that the mediocre approach to life was the best any New Zealander could hope for under a Government led by Labour. The message was that people should not think for themselves. The message was that people should not have aspirations for themselves; they should have just whatever Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and the rest of the Labour cabal are prepared to allow. That is what Labour said in its Budget, and that is what New Zealanders heard overwhelmingly.

I can tell all those Labour back-benchers who are going to brush up their CVs soon after the election, that I knew they were in deep trouble when, just a couple of days after the Budget, I was in a supermarket unloading a grocery trolley on to the conveyor belt, and the very nice lady on the checkout said to me: “There won’t be much in that lot for 67c, will there?”. I said: “You’re dead right.” I have to confess that she did not actually make a connection to which party I came from; she just knew I was from Parliament. She said: “I can’t see why you boys couldn’t have done better for us.” I was pretty keen to explain that I was not part of that Budget and that that was not my party. It was Labour that said that 67c in 3 years’ time is what that checkout operator could expect to receive in her pay packet—67c a week one year after that person has had to pay at least $4 a week in “Kyoto tax”.

I can tell members that that woman was adamant she would not vote for Helen Clark again. That is the truth of it, and that was very soon after the Budget. [Interruption] I could take that member over there—what is his name again? He is the guy in the shiny suit, the guy who has brown hair today. It was blond last week, and next week it will be blue, because he will be trying to associate himself with a winning party. I could take that member to the supermarket and introduce him to that checkout operator, and he could find out for himself how deeply in trouble his party is in the electoral sense.

The other nonsense that Government members talk about is what they are doing in housing, and what they are going to do to help people get into houses. Well, I ask that member this. In those few years, when people can get their $1,000 a year grants, and are saving their money in a vehicle or account yet to be nominated—probably one of those 1.5 percent Kiwibank accounts—what will be the value in the meantime? Because the problem is the ability to repay. That goes right back to the issue of income again. National has said that we are going to lower taxes. We get this argument from Mr Gosche, of all people, the great union economist, telling us that if we let people keep more of the money they earn, it will push up interest rates. Well, is he prepared to go down to the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and tell them that if they get a 5 percent increase, that will also push up interest rates? Oh no, he would be silent on that, because he knows that under the current tax regime, if the average worker in that union gets a 5 percent pay rise, it will equate to about $5 a week, with about twice that much going out of his pocket in increased tax. Mr Gosche is silent on that, because it is another great tax grab by the Government.

We are simply saying that it is time to meet in the middle. Yes, wages have to rise. Incomes in New Zealand self-evidently have to rise if we are going to stop the flow of 600 talented, young people a week across the Tasman. But the way incomes can rise surely has to be a mix of paying less tax as well as earning more. The Government argues that it is best that it looks after people’s money, spends people’s money, and makes people’s choices for them because otherwise interest rates might rise. That is utter nonsense, and it is an argument that certainly will not be sustained.

I heard also Mr Gosche bringing up the old Labour trick of saying that National sold all the State houses. Well, I am very proud of the fact that we sold 4,000 of them.

Hon Taito Phillip Field: 4,000!

GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, and who bought them? I can tell this House that the people who bought them were the people who lived in them—the tenants who had paid for them over years and years. I have a question for Labour. If Labour builds one new State house tomorrow and puts a tenant in it, and if that tenant pays the rent for 30 years, is there any point at which Labour would be prepared to say that that rent has covered the capital cost, and that the tenant, probably on a low income, should get some benefit from the asset? No, they are all shaking their heads. The answer is no. Labour does not like the idea that New Zealand is a property-owning democracy. New Zealanders like to own houses, and if Labour were prepared to admit that, it would be able to admit that its pathetic home buyers’ scheme is in the Budget for that very reason.

Labour members are a very confused group of people. I bet that after the caucus meeting last Tuesday—prior to the delivery of the Budget—they walked out of the caucus room feeling smug. They thought they had the winning Budget. They thought it would propel them into a third term of Government. But the Budget fell flat. It fell flat all over the show. The issues poll in the New Zealand Herald published earlier this week showed that higher taxes is the second-biggest issue. The biggest issue is health, and that is where the current Government has failed most miserably. Is any Labour member silly enough to stand up and suggest that more elective surgery procedures are being performed this year than last year or the year before? [Interruption] Well, that just proves how silly they are. They are wrong. The numbers have fallen, but the funding is way up. Where has the money gone? It has gone to pen-pushers, not those who are actually delivering health services.

When it comes to the issues that New Zealanders have outlined, then every time they consider the 6 years of a Labour Government they will see the situation getting worse. Do members know what the great irony for me is in that New Zealand Herald poll? The great irony for me is around the issue of police and police services. I am very heartened to know that New Zealanders are still great people. New Zealanders do care enormously about their community and for the society the live in, and they have great respect for the police. And despite the absolute debacle that George Hawkins has presided over and the terrible situation the police have been put into, New Zealanders still have great confidence in them, and I think that is a wonderful thing. But that may well be—no thanks to the Labour Government—the only thing that has been preserved and is unchanged during the term of the current Government.

It is clear and obvious that the Budget is a disaster for the Labour Government. It has given up any prospect of giving New Zealanders a message that is inspirational. Labour has shown that it is returning to being the kind of Government that Labour has always been—that is, inserting itself deeply in the daily lives of people and telling them exactly how things are to be and when they are to be. The Government’s remaining time in office is very short.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): We can tell there was nothing in this year’s Budget for Mr Brownlee. What a bitter, bitter speech. I say to the people of New Zealand: “Let National and ACT anywhere near the Treasury benches and their first Act of Parliament will be to cut taxes for high-income earners in order to line their own pockets.” National has done this every time when in Government and this time will be no different, despite the rhetoric.

I am happy to stand and take a call in this debate on Budget 2005, and in doing so I would like to congratulate the Hon Dr Michael Cullen on what was a very important Budget for New Zealand. It was a Budget that finally attacked some of the long-term issues facing New Zealand that Governments of all stripes have put in the too-hard basket for far too long. I would particularly like to draw attention to the new funding in this year’s Budget, which will continue to support regional New Zealand and rural New Zealanders. This Labour-led Government has a proud history of achievement for the regions in New Zealand. Anyone who lived in regional New Zealand under the National Government’s reign in the 1990s saw first-hand how the National Government sucked the lifeblood out of regional New Zealand. One could measure it week by week by the increasing number of empty shops appearing on the main streets of regional New Zealand, or by the increasing number of students leaving high school and going to university, knowing they were unlikely ever to return to their home towns, or measure it by the increasing number of unemployed workers, as business after business shut their doors.

This National Government’s legacy has not been forgotten, despite the leaps and bounds that rural New Zealand has made under this Labour-led Government. Many of my colleagues have highlighted the enormous benefit that will flow from increased spending on health, education, police, and small business, and in other areas. But I would like to outline a few of the announcements from Budget 2005 that have not been as high profile but will be of particular interest to the regions. Under Budget 2005, $36 million annually will ensure that thousands more rural New Zealanders will be eligible for assistance when accessing specialist health services, thanks to the Government’s new travel and accommodation policy. This policy will significantly improve rural people’s access to specialist services. Currently, about 30,000 people nationwide get assistance under the current policy but this number will exceed 100,000 under the new scheme.

There are existing travel and accommodation subsidies but eligibility, reimbursement, and administration do vary between different regions. The new policy will standardise this service across the country and target those who have to travel long distances, and those who, regardless of their income, incur high travel costs as a result of frequent specialist visits. It will also continue to support those who have a community services card. This is particularly important in regions like Opōtiki, where the previous National Government closed the hospital and promised such a scheme but, true to form, never delivered it. So what would the National Party do now? Would it scrap this assistance in order to pay for tax cuts for its mates? We do not know.

The $137 million being spent to establish a new drinking water subsidy scheme will help to improve drinking water systems in small New Zealand communities and allow them access to the good-quality drinking water that people in urban areas take for granted. The Drinking Water Subsidy Fund will provide funding to councils and suppliers for technical advice and direct capital assistance, which would otherwise have had to come from rates or water charges. This is great news for many small rural communities.

The fund is one of a number of initiatives in this area that have been established by the Government to ease the burden of basic infrastructure demands on regional communities and ratepayers, including $133 million appropriated in 2003 to help councils pay for sewerage systems and a $10 million fund appropriated last year to help communities to cope and position themselves for rising tourist numbers. These initiatives are helping rural New Zealand to cope with infrastructure pressures that come with the increased growth, population base, building developments, and tourism, which have underscored the recovery in the regions under this Labour-led Government. Would a National Government cut this funding to pay for tax cuts for their mates? We do not know. Maybe it would simply drive us into another recession in the regions, and hope that as many people leave as they did last time National was in Government, in order to reduce these pressures.

These are just a few of the initiatives that will be of direct benefit to regional New Zealand and continue the fine tradition of Labour supporting, rather than ignoring, the regions. I welcome also the announcement in this year’s Budget of the extension of paid parental leave to self-employed women. The Labour-led Government introduced paid parental leave, fronted by the Hon Laila Harré, for the first time in New Zealand in 2002. Since that time, 45,000 people have accessed the scheme. The scheme was extended last year to cover more parents, and the duration of the payment was increased from 12 weeks to 13 weeks, and will be extended again to 14 weeks in December this year. The extension of the scheme to self-employed women will be of great benefit to many rural mothers and addresses a glaring gap in the scheme. I pay tribute to the Hon Ruth Dyson for the work she has done over the last few years to ensure we have a robust scheme for self-employed rural women and their families.

This poses an interesting dilemma for National Party members, who oppose the scheme in principle but know that it is not a popular position to take, so have been using the lack of provision for self-employed women as an excuse to oppose the bill thus far. What will they do now? Will they scrap this scheme to support new families, to pay for tax cuts for their mates? I suspect not, given that one of their MPs took leave, on full pay, from her job as an MP in order to have children. I have no issue with her doing that, as I believe she has a lot to offer this House as a talented young woman, and I am pleased she has managed to combine her family life and her career so effectively. It is the inconsistency that is hard to take.

Increased funding to support trade negotiations has also been welcomed by local primary producers. Budget 2005 allocates a further $31.1 million over the next 4 years to conclude trade agreement negotiations and ensure we are better placed to access key markets for our goods and services. This goes hand in hand with a huge amount of new spending in biosecurity, which has also been welcomed by this country’s primary producers. This Labour-led Government has boosted baseline funding of biosecurity every year since we have been in Government. Will the National Party cut this funding to pay for tax cuts for their mates? We do not know. Maybe National members think we do not need any biosecurity funding, because in the event or threat of a biosecurity outbreak Dr Brash will just not tell anyone. I suspect that the National Party might have to drastically increase funding for trade negotiations once it starts being less than 100 percent honest with our trading partners.

Regional New Zealand has suffered from three one-in-100-year national disasters in the last 18 months. Civil defence emergencies used to be a rarity but are now an annual occurrence. I welcome the extra $19 million in funding to help communities prepare for such events and thereby minimise their impact. I have no doubt that the National Party, which has shown no commitment to civil defence in its time, will scrap this money to fund tax cuts for its mates. The National Party has criticised the Government’s response to the recent floods in the Bay of Plenty. It has criticised the Government departments that are doing their best to ensure that evacuated families are looked after, and has sniffed at the $250,000 cash donation from the Government. National is a party that, when in Government, was asked to provide assistance to the people of Wairoa and Nuhaka in the mid-1990s after a series of weather-related natural disasters. In fact, the district had endured so much damage to its roading system and had so much work to do, that its roading subsidy that year, which was normally 60 percent, was at nearly 100 percent.

The National Government, under Prime Minister Bolger, offered 30 Task Force Green workers and $15,000. The money was not enough to cover the cost of the fence posts, so that the Task Force Green workers actually had something to do. The then National Minister of Transport also refused to extend the roading subsidy past 1 July, when it was due to drop back to 60 percent, so that repairs on the roads could receive the higher subsidy, in light of the huge amount of money that that small rural council had had to pay out over the year for roading repairs. Apparently it was tough luck that the national disaster happened to occur in the month of June, right before the cut-off date. And how many National Ministers and members of Parliament went to Wairoa and Nuhaka in the wake of the natural disaster? Not one, and when the issue was finally raised in the House they sent Katherine O’Regan—2 weeks after the event.

The National Government, with its “market will provide” blind ideology sucked the life out of regional New Zealand, and given half the chance it will do it again. The transformation of regional New Zealand under this Government has been staggering. A guest speaker at a Gisborne Chamber of Commerce event commented on this change, saying that during the 1990s a colleague of his had visited Gisborne and said that he felt physically unsafe. The guest speaker told us he had urged his friend to come back and be prepared to be amazed at the turn-round. Our unemployment rate in Gisborne is nearly at the national average, which it has never been before, the rate of Māori unemployment has plummeted, and tourism is booming. We do not want to go back to the failed policies of the 1990s, when it was the regions that paid the most harshly for the tax cuts for the rich mates of the National Party.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): Dr Cullen’s election-year Budget says little and cares less about the many children and adults in this country who are still living in poverty. All the talk in the world about future savings schemes and minor tax cuts makes no difference to all the people who are, right at this moment, struggling to survive from one end of the week to the other.

The pride of this year’s Budget appears to be the new KiwiSaver scheme. Although I do not want to knock that excellent initiative to try to open up the possibility of work-based superannuation savings for a whole lot of people, I must say at the same time that the KiwiSaver scheme does not address the real issues of wages and benefits that are not enough to live on, or deal with the fact that people on low incomes will not be able to put away 4 percent—much less 8 percent—of their wages anyway. As Auckland University economics professor Tim Hazledine said, in a speech the day after the Budget: “Low wages, not low savings, are New Zealand’s real economic problem.” The Green Party agrees absolutely with that analysis. As long as the minimum wage remains at the ridiculously low level of $9.50 an hour and benefits are often not enough to sustain people without their sinking even further into debt, we will continue to trap a large number of adults and children in a trans-generational mire of poverty, with all its attendant ill consequences.

I realise that Labour’s response to that will be to say that the Working for Families package is the answer. However, as a number of us have been pointing out ever since its introduction last year, Working for Families is, firstly, a massive taxpayer bail-out of employers, using Government funds to top up wages that remain consistently low, and, secondly, a conscious push by the Government to entrench the structural discrimination against beneficiaries that National started in the 1990s. That is not good enough. Professor Innes Asher, a well-respected Auckland paediatrician who supports the excellent work of the Child Poverty Action Group, spoke last week about a family in Porirua who had no furniture in the house and who recently had to spend $80 for an evening visit to a doctor, and for medication, after one of the children had an asthma attack. That $80 was the family’s entire food budget for the week—gone in one fell swoop. All the family had left to eat for the rest of the week was bread and butter. For families like that, the 2005 Budget offers no hope of an improved standard of living now or at any time in the near future. A family with at least one adult in paid employment will have benefited earlier this year from the Working for Families package, but, of course, no more is on offer from that quarter until next year. However, beneficiary families will not even have the in-work payment to help them, and this Budget will have given them not one crumb extra.

Poverty-related diseases continue to beset the children of the poor. In south Auckland meningococcal disease has struck 1 in 300 Pacific Island children under 1 year of age. Rheumatic fever, pneumonia, chronic lung infections, serious skin infections, and other conditions brought about by overcrowded and otherwise unhealthy living conditions are rife. More of our babies die than in many other comparable countries. Endless research has been done on the causes and effects of poverty on children, and there is no question that income is a critical determinant of health, of whether children are brought up in secure, warm housing, and of whether they succeed in the long term in education and employment. Without enough money to live on adults suffer, but the impacts on their children all too often last a lifetime, however long or short that life turns out to be.

This Budget does do some good things. For example, as the member who just resumed her seat has said, it extends paid parental leave—that is great—and it increases the funding for early childhood education, for out-of-school care, and for special education. Also, it increases the support for disability support and provides for increased uptake of the primary health care strategy. However, although all that is to the good, it is not enough. There are still nearly 12,000 households on the waiting lists for State houses. The Government is going to build more State houses—again, that is great—but the numbers they are talking about are a drop in the bucket, compared with the real need right now in Auckland and outside Auckland.

The KiwiSaver programme will not do anything for the families that are, right now, in overcrowded, substandard, or inappropriate accommodation, nor will it do anything for the next 5 to 7 years or more. Not only will it be almost impossible for many people on low incomes to join the scheme—because they need every dollar they earn just to survive—but there is also a risk that people will pay out the 4 percent at the same time that they continue to incur ever-rising debt, which in the long run will only make things harder for them. The KiwiSaver scheme can be used by people on low to middle incomes to put a deposit on a first home after at least 3 years of contributions. After 5 years, people will be able to access the maximum of $5,000. However, no one will be eligible for the full $5,000 until 2012. That means that families that are struggling today, and that will continue to struggle over the next 7 years, will not be helped until 2012 at the earliest. Others who will fall outside the 3,000 likely to qualify, even when the scheme becomes fully functional, will continue to miss out altogether. The Government is once again holding out a pocketful of hope that will become a reality for only a tiny fraction of the people who need hope—and help—the most.

On top of that, one of the most iniquitous aspects of the 2004 Budget unfortunately remains in force. I refer to the proposed abolition of the special benefit next year. The special benefit is a third-tier discretionary benefit that props up a lot of the gaps in the welfare system, left over from the days of the 1991 benefit cuts. It is often the only way that people can get enough money to survive. Its loss will save the Government many millions of dollars, at the expense of those who can least afford it: beneficiaries and their children. Labour can be as optimistic as it likes about getting beneficiaries into paid employment, but I have a strong suspicion that, despite the Government’s best efforts, we will not see a continuing decline in the unemployment rate. In fact, quite the opposite of that is beginning to happen, which will leave beneficiaries and their families more vulnerable than ever.

The Green Party believes that this Budget is simply not good enough. Too many people continue to be left out. We would have liked to see something quite different. For example, Working for Families should be extended so that all families are eligible for the same payments based on income and numbers of children, not on parental employment status. We would have liked to see the introduction of a universal child benefit, like the old family benefit, paid to the primary caregivers of all children, regardless of whether they are in paid work. We would have liked to see benefit levels that are enough to live on, and until they are, the special benefit must remain. More money should be invested in meeting people’s real housing needs now through the State sector, through local government, and through the community sector. Some of the huge cost of the accommodation supplement should be transferred sideways, out of the private rental market and into social housing. The minimum wage should be lifted to $12 an hour immediately. Nine dollars and fifty cents is transparently a totally inadequate living wage, and the taxpayer should not continue to prop up employers to the massive extent that currently occurs through Working for Families.

Finally, in regard to a separate but related issue, I take this opportunity to add my voice to those of trade unions, the elderly, and providers in the aged and disability care sector who are really distressed at the implications of the Budget for the work those providers do. Over the few months prior to the Budget, Government people kept holding out a shard of hope that the Budget would bring relief to a sector that reached almost total meltdown some time ago. In fact, what has been delivered is manifestly inadequate, even though it sounds good. In a radio interview last week, Minister Pete Hodgson confirmed fears that the $71 million theoretically allocated by the Budget may, in fact, be spent by district health boards on other services, with the Minister himself saying that there is no guarantee that that money will go on aged care at all. It was also made clear that over $34 million of the $71 million is back-pay to district health boards, which have been underfunded for some time in the past for residential care. Thus, the long-awaited increase in funding, desperately needed to boost workers’ wages and to allow providers to survive, may simply be a complete mirage. I cannot understand why the Government does not take the situation more seriously, when providers are closing down all the time and staff are leaving in droves for better-paid jobs here and overseas. Telling us that most people in need of full-time residential care are better off to stay in their homes is not the answer. Nor, as a country, can we fly in the face of the reality of an ageing population that will need more services, not fewer, in the years to come.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I am proud to stand today to speak in support of this Budget. It is about working for New Zealand: for families, for our older citizens, for young people, for business, for workers, and, in fact, for all New Zealanders. Unlike National’s view of the world, or its so-called strategy—if we ever see one—our Budget builds on the most exciting initiative that this Government has introduced since coming into office. It continues with whopping investments in business, job growth, health, education and support for families and superannuitants, training and apprenticeships, transport, police and justice, and savings. This Budget works for New Zealand. Under this Budget New Zealand families will be helped to get ahead, and it will provide extra security for the future. It builds on the progress we have made in rebuilding our public health system and our education. There is extra support for our businesses and for families with children.

One of the major programmes in this year’s Budget that I am particularly proud of is the Working for Families package. This package helps low and modest income families and families with children through increases in their family support, help with the cost of childcare, and increased assistance through the accommodation supplement. Already this year family support has increased by $25 for the first child and $15 a week for each additional child. In the coming year there are more increases in family support and childcare subsidies to help cover the costs of raising Kiwi families. By April 2007 our families on incomes between $25,000 and $45,000 per year will be an average of $95 to $100 better off a week. Compare that with the tax cuts that National is offering.

In education there will be more teachers and funding for schools than ever before. Since 1999 the Government has increased school funding by an average of $348 per child—almost 15 percent in real terms. We have also increased the number of teachers by 2,700 over and above the numbers required by school roll growth. From 2006 we expect to increase the number of teachers by a further 421 teachers.

Budget 2005 continues the huge investment that we have made to make sure that more children can access quality early childhood education. We are increasing funding to existing centres and will build up to an extra 65 more centres in areas in need of those centres. From July 2007 all 3 and 4-year-olds will be eligible for 20 hours’ free community-based education per week in early childhood centres. That is great for our kids’ future and it is great for their parents.

Whilst talking about education I have to mention that the investment of $60 million in information technology in schools is an increase of nearly 1,800 percent since 1988 to 1999, when only $3.2 million was spent during that time.

So it is all good news under this Budget, and I cannot go past the KiwiSaver scheme. To incentivise saving for our families and, in fact, for all our citizens, whether they are on benefits, self-employed, or working for wages, this Government will kick-start savings schemes, with $1,000 upfront to a scheme nominated by the employee—a portable scheme that will help people to save for their superannuation and the future. But what is just as important, if not more important, is that for first homebuyers those savings can be put towards the purchase of their first house. To incentivise and to help that along, this Government will give $1,000 per year of saving. For a young couple who has saved for 5 years that means this Government will give them $10,000 towards their homeownership. That is great for young people. People of my age, and older, can remember the start we had through the State Advances loan, and I think that this savings scheme will go a long way to make housing more affordable for our young people.

We cannot go past looking at our primary health strategy. Through our primary health organisations we are already subsidising under-18-year-olds, those aged 65-plus, and from July we will be increasing subsidies for all 18 to 24-year-olds. From there we will continue to roll out cheaper health-care to cover all New Zealanders by 2007.

I was at a family function in my electorate very recently, and I talked to a young couple with their first child. They were really pleased with this Government. They had paid parental leave, they were receiving $60 per week through Working for Families, and their child had been immunised. Can members imagine their delight when I told them what else is to come. Under the Working for Families package there will be more money over the next few years, cheaper health-care, 4 weeks’ leave, 20 hours’ free childcare per week, $1,000 towards saving, and up to $10,000 towards their new home. They were really chuffed about that.

This Budget also lifts funding for older people in residential care, by over $80 million this year, on top of the $60 million that was announced in December and the money that will cover the changes to the Holidays Act, which have added a small cost as we deliver more holidays for workers in this country. Also, for our older citizens, we are phasing out National’s asset testing, and from next year many superannuitants will get rate rebates.

Under a Labour-led Government we have seen a dramatic drop in unemployment. That means more jobs. There was 7.4 percent unemployment, and it is now 3.8 percent. This does not happen by chance. This happens by investing in skills, investing in training, and investing in people.

Lesley Soper: Good management.

LYNNE PILLAY: That is right. It is good management. Funding for industry training overall has gone up this year to $120.5 million. That is up over 100 percent from what was spent in 1999 by a National Government. Let us not go past the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. By December 2006, 9,000 young people will be in apprenticeships.

In Waitakere we celebrate job growth in boatbuilding, vineyards, film making, and our traditional industries. We celebrate our great skills. We celebrate early childhood education, our art, and our music. We celebrate our young people in training. We celebrate our new hospital. All of this has happened under a Labour-led Government.

Added to that is the huge investment in transport and infrastructure. There is more money for nurses, higher police numbers, and the lowest crime rate in 22 years. There is real support for business. There is cheaper and more affordable tertiary education for students. We are rebuilding our housing stock, which National flogged off. We know we can afford it, because we are doing it.

All of this would be up for grabs from National, with its mantra of tax cuts. Remember the 1990s? Who won then? National wants to give tax cuts and a few bucks extra—what will go? Will it make cuts to early childhood education, to schools, to tertiary education, to training, to apprenticeships, to superannuation, to health, and to police and, with that, will it have more borrowing from overseas? I can see, on the benches opposite, those members of the National Party bowing their heads in shame. This Budget takes us forward. National is trying to drag us backwards, and we will not let that happen.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty): I am very happy to stand in this debate and support the motion of Dr Don Brash. It is a motion that clearly shows that this is a failed Budget from Labour’s outgoing Minister of Finance. It is a failed Budget because it does not address the priorities of mainstream New Zealand. It is a Budget about the carping minorities that have captured Labour. The Government does not propose anything for ordinary, hard-working people, other than 67c in 3 years’ time. How do we say to a hard-working family on $40,000 a year, which is trying to get ahead, that this Government offers it 67c in 3 years’ time? It provides hardly any incentive to work hard or to get ahead.

This Government is presenting a Budget surplus of over $7 billion, and is trying to tell the country that ordinary working people should not be allowed a decent tax cut. With a surplus of $7 billion, of course this country can afford lower taxes to reward effort and create jobs. Of course, with a $7 billion surplus there is enough money to lower taxes, to reward effort, and to create jobs. Ordinary New Zealanders, mainstream families, want a tax system that rewards their work and effort, that gives them an incentive to get ahead. What does this Government offer? Well, it offers 67c in 3 years’ time. But what does it offer to families that are trying to get ahead? It offers the Working for Families package. What does that do? It says to two households in Papamoa that live next to each other—one with two kids and earning $40,000 a year, and one next door with two kids and earning $60,000—that the family that earns $20,000 more gets to take home $40 a week more than the family earning $40,000. Where is the incentive to make the effort required to get ahead? Let us lower taxes to reward effort and create jobs. Mainstream New Zealand wants a Government that recognises that the values of endeavour, self-reliance, and independence need to be rewarded.

This Government’s Budget, the final Budget of Michael Cullen, reveals that this Government’s priorities owe more to carping minorities than they do to ordinary New Zealand families. Where is the investment in dealing with crime? Where are the extra police to go on the streets of Rotorua?

Jill Pettis: 10,000 extra police.

Hon TONY RYALL: “10,000 extra police.”, says the outgoing member for Whanganui. The fact is there has been no increase in the number of police, based on population. I have these answers from the Government. What was the number of police per 100,000 New Zealanders at the end of April 2004? It was 211. What is the number of sworn police officers per 100,000 New Zealanders today? It is 211. There has been absolutely no change in the ratio of police to population under this Government. What about a commitment to dealing with those criminals in our community who keep reoffending—

Hon David Cunliffe: Lowest crime in 20 years.

Hon TONY RYALL: Mr Cunliffe says we have the lowest crime rate in 20 years. I think Linda Clark summed it up best on her programme when she said to the Commissioner of Police: “We can’t believe anything you say any more, because these numbers are so cooked.” We now know that 17,000 cases are shelved every year. We know that there are “ghost squads” responding to 111 calls. We know that this great record of the 111 centres responding to calls within 2 or 3 seconds is a joke, because that is only after Telecom has got them through. As Linda Clark said, we cannot believe one word of those crime statistics.

Where is the action on the economy? Where are the tax cuts to reward effort and create jobs? Where is the extra investment in trade training? There is plenty of investment in hip-hop tours, homeopathy for pets, and Twilight Golf—all things that Labour defends. There is no howling from the Government on that issue. But there is no money for trade training. Why are apprentices being put off? They have to wait for next year’s Budget. What about supporting businesses? Where are the lower accident compensation premiums through competition?

Lindsay Tisch: Not there.

Hon TONY RYALL: They are not there. Where are the fewer compliance costs, through a better Health and Safety in Employment Act? Where is the opportunity to create new jobs through National’s 90-day grievance-free period?

Where is the vision in education? This Government offers no vision in education. Its education portfolio is led by a thug, and that is no way to provide vision for New Zealand people. This National Party says that it wants no child left behind, and that there will be a focus on literacy and numeracy in our schools. Where was talk in the Budget of national standards for literacy and numeracy? There was no mention at all. Where was there a mention in the Budget about cutting bureaucracy and paying good teachers more? There was none at all. Where was the work in the Budget to address the concerns of the Secondary Principals Association, which said that bureaucracy is stifling innovation in our schools? There was nothing on that. Where was the Government’s plan to deal with the disaster of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)? Where was the plan to deal with NCEA?

This Government tries to hide failure. New Zealanders want an education system that does away with the “no marks, no failure” culture that this Government has brought into the education system. From a Government dominated by schoolteachers, I would have expected more. So there was no new education vision in this Budget. There was nothing that matches National’s vision of “no child left behind”—national standards in literacy and numeracy. This Labour Government has brought a “no marks, no failure” culture into the education system. Everybody passes; nobody fails. Everybody feels good. Pupils can go to school and sing “Kumbaya” and get a pass in NCEA. That is what this Government proposes.

Here is another failure of this Government: where were the leadership and new ideas in welfare? We know that the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit has simply rocketed under the Labour Government. In the Bay of Plenty the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit has increased by hundreds of percentage points.

Where was the plan to deal with one law for all in this country? Where was the plan to deal with ending treaty separatism? This Budget contained no idea whatsoever on that.

Where was this Budget’s vision for getting more investment in roading? It was nowhere whatsoever, and still more of our road taxes will be siphoned off by this Government to pay for every noisy minority group that puts its hand up.

Any noisy minority will be looked after by Labour, but those who are part of mainstream New Zealand will get absolutely nothing, because this Budget has no vision for ordinary people and no vision for this country. There is no hope here for the families in the middle who are trying to get ahead. Those are the families who lose out on all the family support payments, on the student allowances, and on every little thing this Government offers to minority groups. But those people are the backbone of this country. Mainstream families battling to bring up their kids to be self-reliant, independent, and proud are the people we in the National Party stand with. I can tell the people of New Zealand that when this country has a new Government—in a matter of weeks—people will see that the mainstream has taken back control of this House. The noisy minorities who fill the Labour Party’s electorate committees, the noisy minorities whom this Government showers with money, will be on the out, because mainstream families will be back in control of this country.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa): What a dour and depressing contribution that was from the member who just resumed his seat! His depression can well be understood, given the pressure that that member and his party are under to come up with even one policy that outlines their vision, in their attempt—bold as it may be—to lead this country. I do not think that will happen.

Mr Ryall could refer only to tax cuts, and what we ought to be talking about is what those cuts would actually mean for New Zealanders if they were to occur. They would mean that the 2,700 extra teachers we have employed would quite possibly no longer be there. I will come back to the list of shame—frankly, that is what it is—should the National Party find itself in the unlikely position of sitting on the Treasury benches after the next election. We would also like to remind ourselves that the dour 1990s matched the member’s dour, dour speech.

The 2005 Budget from Dr Michael Cullen is, once again, prudent and responsible. It maintains a strong and credible fiscal stance. It is fair and most certainly inclusive. It is helping Kiwis to build a stake in their country, and that is building the conditions for growth. That leads to prosperity, and that leads to jobs. We are experiencing that situation now, with more jobs than one can shake a stick at, at the moment.

We can compare it to how it was not very long ago, in the 1990s, when through various methods the mean-spirited Government of the day, the previous National Government, did not assist people, certainly not in provincial New Zealand. That has been talked about this afternoon by members on this side of the House—a great reminder. Moana Mackey’s speech summed it up quite perfectly. She gave some examples of the struggle, the strain, and the stress suffered by people who could have been regarded as being quite hard-core supporters of the Opposition, once upon a time.

Now, the Opposition is going through some kind of charade for the upcoming election; it is throwing tax cuts around but neglecting to say what those cuts would actually mean for New Zealanders all over the country—including, importantly, rural New Zealand. Tax cuts would threaten the 3,300 extra nurses we have employed, not to mention the hospitals we have built since hopes were dashed in the 1990s under the previous National Government. It would just be despicable, frankly, to consider that situation at any time in the near future.

New Zealanders do have a choice; it is the right choice. Under tax cuts from National we could possibly see the 950 extra medical staff we have employed disappear, but Labour is trying to build capacity. Our 2005 Budget builds upon the very prudent and careful management that has cleaned up after the tattered 1990s. This Government has had to grapple with some of the grave errors of judgment made during the terrible 1990s under the previous National Government.

This Government has taken hold of the situation and has brought the country through to the point of this present Budget, with great stability and prudent fiscal responsibility. That is what New Zealanders want to see maintained. They want to see initiatives like Working for Families get to work fully, because they can see that those initiatives will be of great benefit to them.

Under the tax cuts promised by the National Party, we could possibly see the 1,250 extra non-clinical support staff go. I do not think anyone would want to consider that. We could even see the 398 extra social workers at Child, Youth and Family Services go.

Most certainly, New Zealanders welcome the rebuilding of the capacity that was gutted during the 1990s. I can testify to that. As a mayor during the 1990s, I saw unexpected conditions arise as a result of the absolute viciousness of the Budget of 1991. It stripped many people of dignity. It certainly did not enhance employment. It certainly did not address things like apprenticeships.

I remind everybody in this House that this Government restored value to workers in trades in this country by restoring value to apprenticeships—unlike the National Party, which saw fit to dismiss apprenticeships out of hand. Well, New Zealand has responded since this Government brought that initiative back to the fore. It is obvious that apprenticeships are something we are most committed to, and we are committed not just to that sphere but to all spheres of training.

Under a National-led Government, and under National’s tax cut proposals, the 138 extra probation officers could go. We heard Mr Ryall whingeing on before about crime and such things—but here we are again, a Labour-led Government, restoring capacity where it was once ripped away by a National Government.

No, this country does not want to see a return to those dark days. They were dour—as dour as Mr Ryall’s speech was. He is no longer sitting there with any kind of smile of happiness on his face from his speech. He is hearing what I say—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): When it comes to tertiary education, this Budget is an old dog. It is not a vicious killer dog—a pit bull or an angry Rottie. It is more like an old Labrador—the kind of scabby dog that is friendly enough but that slobbers on people’s trousers when they are seated at the table. It is the kind of dog that means people have to wash their hands after they pat it, to get rid of the odour and the fur. Unlike last year’s Budget, this year’s Budget did not bite tertiary students. Last year the Government scrapped the independent circumstances allowance and savaged the financial position of students who had planned their study programme around access to that allowance. Last year’s Budget was a vicious guard dog protecting the Government’s surplus. It is now well known that, despite the promises of the Government that 36,000 more students would benefit from the changes to the allowance system, in fact, fewer students receive a student allowance this year than last year. No, this Budget is not like that. It does not bite students—it does not even bark at them. It comes in for a pat, but leaves a pungent odour on the hand of the unwary. Then it waddles away to fall asleep by the fireplace, dreaming of its past doggy glories when it still had enough puff left to give some chase.

This Budget does contain a few good initiatives, but they are totally marginal. What it provides for tertiary students would be excellent additions to a core package that did something serious about student debt. But there is no core package. There is only garnish; there is no meal here. Like the poor and like the environmentalists, students have a right to feel cheated. The Budget offers them froth. Members should not get me wrong—at least the Budget gives students that. A National-led Government would have offered a much more bitter pill—a more measly allowance scheme with even more restricted eligibility and harsher implementation. National would have screwed down spending on tertiary education for our young people—for our future—in order to fund tax cuts for its campaign contributors. As Moana Mackey said, tax cuts for National members and their rich friends are at the heart of National’s economic policy. That is why the Greens could not support a Government with the kind of short-sighted, exclusive, and self-serving approach taken by the current National Party. That is why the Greens have said that we will support Labour to be the Government after the election, if we can negotiate an agreeable policy agreement.

Student support and graduate debt are clearly areas that we take a great deal of interest in. The issue of student debt is enormously important for our country. It is not just an issue for students; it affects many people who have been through the tertiary education system in the last 15 years. In June 2004 the total number of borrowers was 418,000—13.2 percent of the population aged 15 years and over. That is a staggering statistic. Further to that, student debt affects our whole society. Evidence is growing about the impact of student debt on fertility rates, migration rates, homeownership, the urban concentration of professionals, career choice, and study choice.

Student debt is a time bomb for our country. According to a 2004 report from the Ministry of Education, the Inland Revenue Department, and the Ministry of Social Development, forecast gross debt levels will rise from over $7 billion today to $10.5 billion by 2010, $13 billion by 2015, and $15 billion by 2020. The Greens believe that, far from being 20/20, it is myopic in the extreme to allow that to continue. That is why the Green Party is advocating a debt write-off scheme for student debt. We say that for every year a person stays in the country and works the equivalent of full time, whether in paid work or unpaid work, we should wipe the debt accumulated in 1 year of study.

The most debilitating thing about student debt is that for some people, it never ends. Again, according to the report I referred to before, of those who last borrowed in 1997, only 18 percent had repaid their debt in 2000, and nearly half had a debt that was no smaller in 2000 than it was in 1997. The Government’s focus on average repayment times does not tell the real story for real students. A significant number of people on low incomes will never see an end to their debt under current policies. We believe that there should be an end to debt if people stay in the country and contribute to New Zealand society. Why do we expect people to become social workers, nurses, or workers in any of the myriad of professions that require tertiary education but that do not recognise that in the pay scales of their practitioners? It amazes me that anyone goes into those fields of work, at all. I commend the New Zealanders who continue to study for those professions, regardless of the many disincentives, because they have a vocation and a real desire to help others.

A TNS survey conducted for the New Zealand University Students Association found that the greatest impact of debt, according to students, was on their ability to save for the future, buy a house, and choose when to go overseas. Around half of those surveyed said that having a loan would affect their relationship with their partner, and 28 percent said that it would have an impact on when and whether they had children. Among recent teaching graduates, 41 percent considered leaving New Zealand because of debt, 60 percent said that their student loan impacted on their study, and 30 percent said that having a student loan would influence their decision to have children. Around half the debt was incurred to pay for living costs, because of inadequate access to student allowances. Only one-third of full-time students are eligible for an allowance, according to the New Zealand University Students Association report of 2004.

The Greens recognise that the Government has made some small improvements in terms of access to allowances. We have seen adjustments to the parental income threshold, and greater recognition in this Budget of the challenges when parents are separated. But we reiterate that the changes do not go anywhere near far enough. We also recognise and acknowledge the moves around the maximum allowable income. We have raised with the Government in this House the issue of how the rules around maximum allowable income are interpreted. We recognise that the threshold has been raised to $180 per week, and we welcome that. We would also like a commitment from the Government that the implementation of the regulations will be in line with the Student Allowance Appeal Authority’s repeated decisions, which the Ministry of Social Development continues to ignore. As I said, the changes do not go far enough. The Greens will continue to call for a universal student allowance for all full-time students, a cap on and a reduction in tertiary student fees, and a debt write-off scheme year for year.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this debate be now adjourned.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. The motion is moved in order that the bill can be passed in time for its consequences to be considered, in relation to a number of cases at present in front of the courts.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill that it take the bill part by part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Part 1 General provisions

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty): I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, would be so generous as to take a call to explain exactly what is going on with this bill. What exactly is the deal that has been done on it, in order to give to the Government the numbers to pass this piece of window dressing only a few weeks before the country goes to the polls? We know from this bill that prisoners will get to keep some, if not all, of the payouts they can claim under this Government’s liberal justice system, because the bill allows for some of the worst inmates in this country to keep any such prisoner payout. Even though the Government may have moved to put in some sort of sunset clause to attract the support of the Green Party, it cannot be denied that criminals will still get to keep some, if not all, of the cash.

Let me explain why. If an inmate, such as a drug dealer, does not have readily identifiable victims, there is nobody to make a claim. If victims choose not to make a claim or do not come forward, then there is nobody to receive the money. Thirdly, if the commission involved does not think the suffering is sufficient for a victim or victims to take the full booty of cash, then some of that cash can remain with the inmate.

This bill is dangerously flawed and seriously misleading. The House is being made a party to a public relations exercise by the outgoing Government in the weeks before the next general election. Through the rest of the evening numerous members from Opposition parties will seek to take a call, to explain to the people of this country that this bill should not proceed. The National Party, and most of the Opposition parties in this House, are agreed on one thing: prisoner payouts should be blocked, stopped, and wiped.

There is no justification for prisoners to receive cash from the Government because of imagined wrongs or hurt feelings. In one situation, a man who killed a young woman—he also raped her and stuffed pebbles down her throat—received a $1,200 compensation cheque from this Government, because of hurt feelings. That is an outrage! The only reason the payout is being appealed is that pressure from Opposition parties has forced the Government to act. In another place, a payout to four criminals is being contested. Those people will each receive a substantial amount of money, but they simply do not deserve or need it, and they should not be given it.

If prison officers have committed offences, they should be held personally accountable; there is no reason why public moneys should be paid to some of the worst criminals in this country. We want the Minister to take a call to explain why he justifies those payouts, and also to explain to the nation what the deal is that is being done to keep this public relations exercise alive.

If the Government has the courage of its convictions and says this is a good bill, why are some of its provisions due to expire in 2 years’ time because of the amendments made in the name of Mr Goff, the Minister of Justice? I bet he will not participate in this debate, so I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call and explain exactly what is going on here, what the nature of the deal is, what the impact of the amendments on the bill will be, and why the Government would agree to a 2-year sunset clause.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): Tonight we are seeing an alliance between Labour and the Greens. The country is being exposed to the type of Government we would have if Labour and the Greens were in office. We are seeing legislation that is soft on law and order. We are seeing legislation that is being passed under urgency, so that Labour and the Greens can urgently pay out to the most vicious criminals in society their ill-gotten gains while they have been in prison. Labour and the Greens urgently want to give them some money. What a deplorable situation! But that is what we could expect to see in a Labour and Green Government.

Mr Ryall asked what the deal is between Labour and the Greens. Is it not significant that the deal has been struck with Nandor Tanczos? Even the Greens have demoted him. What would Mr Tanczos want in return for giving his support to the Government? [Interruption] That is right, I say to Mr Samuels—“put it in your pipe and smoke it.”

It is a deal whereby marijuana would be made legal if, sometime, Labour and the Greens ever got into Government together. It is so obvious. I know that Mr Ryall asked a rhetorical question of the Minister, because the answer is just so obvious. We can see that a deal has been struck by Labour and the Greens whereby marijuana will be made legal, and if it has not been made legal by 2007—which is why 2007 is the date in the bill—all bets will be off. That is the way in which the Greens want to do business, of course. Either the business is done by a certain date or they will pull out their support. That is the way a Labour and Green Government would work, and it is obvious that that is what Labour recognises and expects. That is how Labour intends to operate in a coalition-type system.

The Greens are willing to operate on that basis because it is the only way. Labour is the only party in Parliament that the Greens can see would concede to their requirement to legalise marijuana—despite all the difficulties and health problems down the track that that would cause. So that is clearly why we are here tonight, in urgency. United Future was tentatively looking in that direction but tossed Labour aside, so Labour is prepared to pick up the Greens to do a deal with them on this issue, under urgency.

It is an eleventh hour measure; it is a desperate measure by this Labour Government. One really cannot understand why any Government would want to hand money over to the most hardened criminals in our society, but that is what this bill does. It encourages criminals, when they go to jail, to misbehave, because if they misbehave they have a chance of getting some money. That is what this bill is about. If a criminal misbehaves, that criminal will get some money. That is what this bill says. Those people, naturally, will misbehave, but now they will make the life of prison guards even harder—harder than ever before.

New Zealand First has a number of amendments to this legislation, and we want to make sure that any money lawfully obtained by prisoners, who are entitled to exercise their claims in court, is kept in the victims’ claims trust account, and it is there for the benefit only of the victims of crimes in New Zealand. We were told in the select committee that about $51 million worth of reparation is due to victims. Anything that can be obtained under this bill would be worthwhile for those victims, but the amount would never reach $51 million. We want to see that the balance of any money that comes through out of this legislation after the immediate victims have been compensated, the legal aid funds have been compensated, and suchlike, goes only to a victims’ claims account, that only victims of various crimes can possibly make claims on that money, and that at no stage can those hardened criminals be encouraged to make the life of prison officers hell. That is what this bill will do. Those criminals will taunt, tease, and make life absolutely impossible for prison officers, because we know, human nature being what it is, that the prison officers will break. They will just not be able to help it. They have to be tough to be in prison, so their immediate response will be to respond to that disgraceful behaviour—the behaviour that Labour and the Green Party are supporting by way of the culture that will now develop in our prisons.

It is so obvious. It is hard to believe that any party in Government could responsibly support this legislation, and could even promote this legislation, but that is what Labour and the Greens are doing. I can believe that the Greens are doing it; they will do just about anything in their hope to have marijuana made legal.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to debate this important bill, which has been hastily put before Parliament and hastily put before the people of New Zealand as an affront to all victims, up and down the country. This bill started out with a reasoned proposition, which was: how do we stop, prevent, or circumvent the very real possibility that inmates can have any access to any compensation, at all? Everybody who took part in the select committee process wanted to see a way around that. We heard time and time again from victims who made the effort to come to the Justice and Electoral Committee. By coming to the committee they had to relive their own victimhood, sometimes with broken stories about their lives, at the other end of very serious offending. They told us they want no part of an ongoing relationship, financial or otherwise, with inmates. Yet this bill forces them to do just that.

Victims do not want to see the perpetrators of violent crimes against them profit from going to prison as a result those crimes. That is clear for all to see. I noticed in the New Zealand Herald newspaper today a headline that states: “Appeal Court warns that prisoner compo being ‘embarrassing’ is no reason to reject it”. That is actually not true. The fact that it is embarrassing is every reason to reject it. It is embarrassing on behalf of victims, it is embarrassing on behalf of anybody who pretends to feel for justice in this country, and it is embarrassing that a person can profit from committing violence against another person. Nobody, including the victims, wants to have barbarity in prisons, but there is a helluva difference between recognising those who perpetrate a barbarity in prison—the prison guards—and holding them to account for what they have done, and allowing the inmates to profit as a result of crime, which is what landed them in prison in the first place. It is an affront to victims in this country.

We thought that everybody had an open mind as to how to deal with this issue, and I understand the problems the Government had. The Minister of Justice also has the problem of being the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He thinks he has to uphold international accords that contradict the imperatives of our own sense of justice in our own country. So I understand the predicament the Government is in, even though I disagree with it—and there will be more on that later on as the debate progresses—but it is utterly scurrilous to have the Greens, tails between their legs, scurrying along to try to find national relevance because they are irrelevant. They always have been irrelevant, especially over the last 3 years, and they are irrelevant now. They are not fighting on behalf of victims in this country; they have turned their backs on those victims. They are in favour of the offenders, and the support they now show for this bill clearly shows that. They are in favour of offenders over the interests of victims. Their true colours are there for everyone to see.

Mr Tanczos can sit there and grin or laugh at the plight of victims up and down this country, but he fails to understand the fact that, through this bill, inmates will still be able to collect some money, and that is actually against the human rights of the victims. It hurts victims, and it puts them in a more invidious position. If victims want to take money off those offenders, they now have to enter into an economic and legal relationship to try to do that. What sense of justice is there for them? Why is it that the offenders against those victims can have recompense in money, financial gain, whereas the victims they offend against can have none? Accident compensation barely covers the costs of their wounds, but there is nothing for the wounds that will go on for the rest of their lives and hurt their families and themselves. This bill is a travesty, and the Greens are scurrilous dogs for supporting it. They are utterly irrelevant to justice.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sure it must be out of order to call the Greens “scurrilous dogs”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is out of order. Parties should be treated the same as members. The member will please withdraw and apologise.

MARC ALEXANDER: I withdraw and apologise. In order for the big cheese of Labour to be able to put this bill, this issue, to rest, Labour has the Greens scurrying along like mice to try to put the bill to bed. They will not; we will not let them.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): It was most interesting to hear Mr Jones make his speech. That member must have been asleep for the past few years if he thinks that this bill is being passed by Parliament in order to allow prisoners to claim compensation against the Department of Corrections. Perhaps the member did not realise that there is a case in the Court of Appeal this week about that. The case has already been through the High Court, but maybe the member did not realise that that was already happening. This bill is actually about freezing any compensation granted to inmates and making it available to their victims. Then, proving that he has totally lost his grip on reality, Dail Jones suggested that the matter has something to do with cannabis. The member sees cannabis everywhere, even in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. I think that it really is time the member retired. He had gone, he has been resurrected, and it is time for him to go again.

Then Marc Alexander stood up and threw a tizzy because he had tried to throw his weight around and it had not worked. He is most upset. That is the real answer to Mr Ryall’s question. I will tell the Committee how this situation came about. United Future members had been supporting this bill until recently, but they decided to withdraw support and throw their weight around. Their demands became more and more extreme. They started to make increasingly bizarre threats to the Government during the bill’s second reading. I do not know whether other members here remember that, but none of us could quite figure out what those United Future members were on about.

So, in desperation, the Government has turned to the Greens. Our opposition to this bill is on record. We have said that it may breach international conventions. Unlike some parties, we do believe that New Zealand should honour its international agreements. We do believe that we, as a country, should keep our word. We do believe that international conventions are important and that the standing of New Zealand in the eyes of the international community is important, and we do not agree that international conventions should not apply to us. That road leads to Guantanamo Bay; it is the view of the Bush administration on international conventions. The Green Party does not hold that view, although United Future, New Zealand First, and the National Party may.

We have agreed to support this bill, for four very good reasons. The first is that the bill would have been made considerably worse if the Government had had to rely on accepting United Future amendments in order to pass it, because United Future members have consistently demonstrated that they have very little ability to make rational amendments. Their position on this bill, particularly, is quite outside the bounds of what is acceptable in a country that gives any consideration to the rule of law.

The second reason is that, in return for Green support, the Government has agreed to an independent prison inspectorate. The Justice and Electoral Committee supported that idea, and members of this Parliament have supported it. It is something that the Greens have been consistent in campaigning for and, finally, we now have it locked down. This country will have an independent prison inspectorate as a result of the Green Party’s actions. The third reason is that there is a sunset clause on all measures in the bill except those concerning the suspension of limitations—because we do not believe that this bill is the best means of addressing that situation. We believe that it is right that the legislation should come to an end after a period of time—that is, in 2007, as Supplementary Order Paper 374 states.

The last reason is that the Government has agreed also to an inquiry into victims’ rights, victims’ compensation, and the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The Justice and Electoral Committee said that we should have such an inquiry, but the committee is unable to make binding promises for the next term of Parliament. After the election any promises made by the select committee about an inquiry will disappear. The Greens have locked down a cast-iron guarantee that there will be an inquiry into victims’ rights, victims’ compensation, and the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The Green Party is very proud of that. We have done something about victims’ rights that United Future has not been able to do. For all their grand words, posturing, and claims to be standing up for victims’ rights, those members have actually done nothing for victims’ rights. The only thing that they claim to have achieved for victims’ rights is the Victims’ Rights Act, which was already due to come before this Parliament before Marc Alexander was even a member. So his impact has been irrelevant in that regard. The Greens are proud that we are to have an inquiry into the rights of victims, and we are proud of the achievements we have managed to negotiate through our support for this bill.

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): I want to take a few moments to talk to the Committee about the changes the Government has brought to this bill, and the circumstances surrounding those changes. The Government is moving to pass the remaining stages of this bill under urgency, to deal effectively with the significant concerns the public have about prisoners receiving compensation payments for the wrongs afflicted on them in prison. The Government is concerned to ensure that this bill is passed, and it thanks the Green Party for its support and cooperation in helping with that.

The passage of this bill will mean that existing cases before the court and foreshadowed will be captured by this legislation. The payments awarded to Christopher Taunoa and others, which sparked the public concern last year, are currently under appeal. But if those payments are upheld by the court, this bill will ensure that that money will be held in trust rather than handed over.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but perhaps the microphone is not up loud enough. We are having difficulty hearing him. My apologies for the interruption of the debate, but we cannot hear from back here.

Hon RICK BARKER: As I can hear my voice echoing off the Chamber walls, I suggest that the members of the National Party to my left stop chattering and listen, and then they would hear.

Stephen Franks: Although I am well away from there, I was also having trouble hearing. It sounded like distortion, and it was very hard to understand what the Minister was saying.

Hon RICK BARKER: Can we all hear now? OK. The point I was making before the interruption was that a number of payments are under consideration at the moment. Quite contrary to the point made by Mr Jones, this legislation, if passed, will ensure that those payments that have currently been awarded by the court will be captured by this legislation. That point is quite contrary to Mr Jones’ assertion, and I want to make sure that that point is clear.

This bill establishes a special procedures claim that will assist victims of offenders to exercise their rights in making a civil claim because, as Mr Jones and others well know, people can currently make civil claims for damages against those who have committed crimes against them. This bill will ensure that where payments are made in those cases, they will go towards paying offenders’ fines and reparation payments, where those are outstanding. But this bill will also ensure that the statute of limitations currently in place will be extended, so that where the limit for hearings is normally 6 years, victims’ claims can be heard well past that time.

The bill will ensure that the process is simplified, that it is legally aided, and that those people who do not want to confront the offender again will not be required to do so, which picks up the concern that Mr Alexander and others have expressed. However, if victims do wish to participate personally in the process, another organisation or person can help them file a claim, etc. So this bill is making the system as friendly as possible.

The lawyer in the Taunoa case, Tony Ellis, has been reported as saying that he intends to file another 200 cases, and that about 40 of those have already been filed. So there is some sense of urgency to do something about this matter. Those cases and any future cases will be subject to guidelines that will greatly restrict the circumstances in which monetary compensation can be paid.

In future, prisoners will have to demonstrate that they have tried to use the prison complaints system to try to resolve their grievances at the earliest opportunity, before the matter escalates to the use of the court system. They will also have to satisfy the requirement that the non-monetary remedy would be insufficient to address their concerns. Despite those restrictions, any future payments ordered will be subject to the new trust and to the victims’ special claims procedure.

The Government has agreed to the suggestion of the Greens that the passage of this bill be followed by legislation to establish a new independent police complaints authority. That was suggested by the Justice and Electoral Committee, and it was a very good suggestion. [Interruption] It is very difficult—there were complaints from members about not being able to hear, but I cannot even hear myself.

Preventing the grounds for compensation is, in fact, the best way to avoid having to make compensation payments in the future. While the new Corrections Act and associated regulations have to a degree significantly improved the situation, the establishment of the new independent prison complaints authority will be a very good step, and an additional assurance that I am sure all would agree with. Legislation establishing that new body will be passed by 2006.

The bill deals effectively with the currently expected claims that have caused public concern. The number of any new complaints or likely future payouts will, in our view, be likely to fall dramatically. For that reason, the sunset clause, inserted by the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 374 into the bill, will effectively wind down the special claims procedure in the new period after the new body has been established. The procedure will, therefore, apply only to those claims lodged by prisoners prior to 1 July 2007.

The sunset clause will ensure that guidelines restricting the circumstances under which compensation payments are made will be reviewed and be made permanent. The Greens have raised questions with us about the practical application of some aspects of those guidelines. The Government expects that the guidelines will benefit from future review in the light of experience, to the point that they might be amended or renewed. For example, the legislation will establish the new independent prison complaints body, and the sunset clause ensures that the review will take place at the same time, in a broad framework.

Most New Zealanders find it abhorrent when prisoners are awarded compensation payments for wrongs they have suffered in prison, when those prisoners frequently never pay any compensation to their victims for the harm they have inflicted. The Government remains firmly of the view that the measures in this bill are the best way to deal with cases where prisoners may be awarded compensation by the courts. The Justice and Electoral Committee, having considered the issue in detail, also came to the same essential conclusion.

The select committee has recommended that there be an inquiry into the support available for victims of serious crime and the place of victims in the justice system. The Greens have expressed their strong desire for such an inquiry, and the Government has agreed that the inquiry will take place. That again, I am sure the Committee will all agree, is a very good step forward.

Of course, there is the usual simplistic chorus from the Opposition that payments should be reversed, wiped, blocked, or never made, regardless of the circumstances that might have given rise to the claims. The Government’s legal advice confirms that ruling out any possibility of monetary compensation would clearly put us in breach of international law. None of the countries that we compare ourselves with, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, the United States, and the European Union countries, rule out monetary compensation for prisoners if the circumstances demand it. I just restate for members that the legal advice, and the advice from all other people—despite the chorus from the Opposition—is that no other country with which we compare ourselves rules out the possibility of compensation if the circumstances demand it. While parties such as the National Party make strident statements in the luxury of knowing they will never have to deliver, we consider that no responsible Government would deliberately legislate to put ourselves in breach of international law. To do so would seriously undermine our international credibility.

National’s record in Government, after all, stands in stark contrast to its current statements. The case known as the Baigent case in 1994 established in New Zealand law the provision that compensation could be paid for breaches of human rights. The National Government explicitly declined to legislate in order to overturn that precedent. That is in stark contrast to the utterings of the National Party now in Opposition. [Interruption] That was, of course, the National Government in which Tony Ryall was a Minister, and it is a bit rich for the former Minister, the Hon Tony Ryall, to now come with his National Party colleagues and express outrage at what the courts did.

Darren Hughes: Crocodile tears!

Hon RICK BARKER: My colleague over here says they are “crocodile tears”. Tony Ryall had the chance when the issue was raised, but did nothing about it. National went to the Law Commission and asked the commission for its advice, and the—

Hon Tony Ryall: Your nose is growing!

Hon RICK BARKER: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take exception to the comment made by Mr Ryall. I insist that he withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Tony Ryall: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just remind members that interjections are obviously OK, but the barraging is not.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We fully accept that interjections should be rare and reasonable and, as Mr Braybrooke used to say, if possible, witty. However, when a Minister takes up the Committee’s time—and we know that the Government has some cooked-up deal about how long it will be before various members on its benches will leap to their feet to take closure motions—with straight-out political attacks, of course you will then get the sort of response that was just forthcoming from this side. It was not excessive, given the extreme nature of the allegations the Minister was attempting to put across.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That was not a point of order. The point is that since the debate began there has been considerable politicking from both sides, but I most certainly remind members again that the barraging is not acceptable.

Hon RICK BARKER: As I was saying before, it is absolutely a matter of record that a court awarded compensation in a case commonly known as the Baigent case—compensation for ill-treatment in prison—and the National Party did nothing. It went to the Law Commission for advice, and it chose to accept that. That party did nothing. Now we have a similar situation and the National Party is expressing outrage, so I want to make it absolutely clear that the National Party from 1994 to 1999 had 5 years to pass legislation—and it did nothing.

Marc Alexander: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am having a bit of difficulty following why it is that we are being given smoke and mirrors about something that might have happened sometime in the past and is not at all relevant to what is before us now. One cannot defend the bill by going after somebody else.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows very well that that is not a point of order; it is a debatable point.

Hon RICK BARKER: The point about this bill is, firstly, that the issue of public concern has been raised, and this Government has acted. It has a bill that will go through the House and deal with the compensation payments in a way that will not take away from those people their human rights to be able to lodge a claim before the court. The bill will set out the hierarchy of the issues that are to be taken into account, and everybody agrees with the victims of crime that if there is to be compensation then the victims should get it first. I am sure everybody in the Committee would agree with that.

Secondly, as a result of this legislation, we are going to establish an independent prisons authority to check on our prisons. Thirdly, we are going to establish an inquiry about the rights of victims and the place for victims in the justice system. Those are three very good initiatives; I am surprised that anybody in this Committee would object to them. This legislation is good stuff.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I thought, in fact, it was relevant that the Associate Minister of Justice was arguing that time was significant in what had and had not been done 5 or 10 years, or whatever, in the past. But time is significant. The main reason for the heat around this first part of the Committee stage on this bill is not about the utterly mild, anodyne, or unexceptionable provisions of this bill—it is that the bill does not even start to achieve what the Associate Minister said it would achieve. The bill does not even start to achieve what people were demanding all through September and October last year.

When we think about the time involved I just want to remind the Associate Minister, now that we are in urgency tonight, that the hearings on this case were in October and November of 2003, and February and March of 2004. That is when the Government became fully aware of the arguments of Mr Ellis and others on behalf of those prisoners. The judgment of Justice Young was given on 7 April 2004. He set out his reasoning in full. It is true that at that stage he had not calculated damages. Apparently, the Government then did nothing until much later in the year when the damages award was given. And still it did nothing.

By September, when Mr Ellis was mentioning the hundreds of future cases to come, I produced a bill that would attempt to do what the Associate Minister claims this one is doing—that is, to stop the outrage of the grave offence to the victims of those criminals. The victims cannot claim compensation for the injury done to them because of the accident compensation scheme, while their attackers—the people who had injured them—are claiming amounts that the victims would not even dream they would get. We produced that bill in September, and still the Minister of Justice dithered. There was still obfuscation in Parliament about what the Minister would do, and when he would do it.

Finally, there was a statement about what the Minister would do when he did introduce the bill—in late October, as I recall. Then there was another delay.

Quite frankly, when the bill was finally introduced and people had a chance to look at it, I think the media had got bored of it. I think that was the calculation of the Minister, because he knew that he was not going to deliver what the people of New Zealand wanted or what the victims wanted. Throughout that time, and throughout the time since when the select committee was looking at this bill, this calculating Government was relying on the fact that the media had lost interest in the underlying issue.

Well, it is a shame that the bill has come back and has to be dealt with now, right when the case is before the Court of Appeal. Because I think the Government will not get away with this. It might be rescued by the Court of Appeal, but Tony Ellis is a very diligent lawyer for his clients. He believes in what he is doing. I honour him for what he puts into the cases. I disagree with the outcomes and I disagree with his convictions, but he is doing his job properly—unlike this Government.

This Government did not even represent the people of New Zealand properly before Justice Young. Nowhere in Justice Young’s judgment did I see that anyone made a proper defence of the behaviour management regime. We had to wait until we were in the select committee to get some timorous, but quite unmistakable, defence by the Department of Corrections of what had been done, and an admission that as the department had been forced to “give up” on that regime, it had nothing to replace it for the worst offenders.

We have had a complete abdication of responsibility by the Government. Now it has gone to the Greens and is bringing in its “cure” for the intense outrage—and it expires in 2 years’ time. Why does it expire? I have not heard anything from the Associate Minister on why it expires. What is so horrific about it? When I read the bill there is nothing actually very wrong with it, except that it purports to be something that it is not. But what it is, is very mild.

I see that half a million dollars is set aside in the Budget to run this tribunal. I would think that most of that will be used up in writing letters to people telling them why what they thought was going to be a compensation regime, does not work. But there is nothing really odious about what is being done. The bill is telling prisoners they must go through the official channels first. They have to exhaust all their remedies within the prison disciplinary system, before they can go to the courts and apply for human rights breaches. Then it says that if they do get something it has to be held to see whether there is a victim’s claim. The odious part of it is that after all this time it is pretending to be something it is not.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): If ever a bill before the House showed just how out of touch the Labour Party is with ordinary New Zealanders, this would be it. Ordinary New Zealanders have expressed outrage at the idea that someone in a prison, who gets in a tangle with the authorities responsible for his or her incarceration, should somehow be able to go to a court and get a monetary payment for hurt feelings or for other damage. It is just abhorrent. I point out to the Minister that we live in a country where, sadly, a violent crime is committed every 9 minutes. So why are we taking the time of the Parliament to look after the interests of prisoners who might get on the wrong side of their keepers, when we are doing nothing for the victims of crime? That is the outrage that New Zealanders will be expressing when they hear what this bill is about. It does not surprise me that the Greens are supporting the bill. The Greens, of course, are a very confused group of people, as evidenced by the performance of their leader earlier this week, and the claim today that they are campaigning to get the votes of prisoners—who, of course, cannot cast a vote!

I want to read out something from the commentary on the bill, because it is worth listening to, under the heading: “The place of victims in the criminal justice system—the need for further inquiry”. It states: “Many of the submissions”—to the select committee—“focused on the effect on victims and their families of very serious violent crime. The focus of victims who submitted on this bill was largely on ensuring the outcome reflected the hurt done to them, which they argued was not necessarily achieved by monetary compensation. At the same time a number of submitters referred to overseas models of government-funded compensation that did not require the victims to take any direct action against the offender.” So having heard all of this from victims, the select committee went on to state: “We have concluded that further work needs to be done, and we consider it is appropriate to think about the next stage in the agenda that included the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.”—at some future time. So here is a bill to sort out the rights of criminals! If ever there was an example of getting the boot on the wrong foot, this bill is it.

I challenge the Minister about the outrageous statement he made earlier about New Zealand having to comply with international conventions. It is a load of rubbish. There are international conventions all over the place that this country does not comply with. So why on earth do we have to comply in this case? Why do we have to say that our system has to line up against many countries that we would not want to compare ourselves with?

Hon Rick Barker: Oh, Australia?

GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister says: “Oh, Australia?”.

Hon Rick Barker: Canada?

GERRY BROWNLEE: He can name all these countries but there will be dozens in that list that are absolute shockers. We have seen plenty of pictures of conditions in Bali jails, on our television screens in recent days.

I want him to tell us exactly what the legal advice was, because the committee report does not talk about it in a specific way. It simply states that it would “likely be inconsistent”; it “could be inconsistent”; it “might be inconsistent”. Well, where is this compelling legal advice that is making the Government act on behalf of criminals before victims? I remind the Minister that from time to time courts get things wrong, courts make mistakes. It is the job of Parliament to fix those mistakes, to correct the court’s view of things, according to the way the citizens of this country see it. This bill does not do that. This bill is upholding the decision made by a judge, and is then simply setting a few little things around the edges of it that determine how the judge’s decision is to be implemented. It completely denies the fact that the victims of violent crime carry the scars of those attacks, those violations, and those other wrongdoings for the rest of their lives. We have time taken up tonight, urgency taken in Parliament, to make sure that some prisoner who has hurt feelings gets his dollars.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First): New Zealand First will be opposing the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. We want to rename this bill the “Screw the Screws Bill”, and I am sure that most Kiwis throughout New Zealand would relate to that new title. It is what the bill is all about. It is about ways in which a prisoner can make a claim against a prison officer or the Department of Corrections and get compensation.

This bill rings a bell; it sounds like those bills that have to have “regard for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. This is just another gravy train for politically correct lawyers. I can see that sort of thing happening right down the line with this bill. No funds should be made available to criminals. They do the crime, and they do the time. Most New Zealanders will relate to that principle very, very easily. If one listened to Radio Pacific and the talkback shows when this compensation was mooted and out in the media, one would know that the people of New Zealand went absolutely mad. Why should this Government be settling on this bill?

This does not mean that prisoners should be ill-treated while in prison, but neither does it mean that their human rights should suddenly become much more significant than the rights of victims, who in most cases were murdered. I am really surprised at the Greens’ attitude towards this bill. Quite frankly, this is the dead-end for the Greens, because they are supporting this bill on the basis of human rights. But human rights were taken away from the victims. Prisoners are trying to get compensation, and the Greens are supporting this bill from the aspect of prisoners’ human rights. Quite frankly, I am disgusted that the Greens are now the doormats for Labour to get this bill through.

Those rights are set out in the international United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But what about the victims of those criminal, heinous crimes? Several Mangaroa prisoners some years ago were paid compensation on the grounds that they were ill treated. But the interesting part about that whole claim was that there was no mention of Mr Hati Kaiwai, the prison officer who was so badly beaten that his assailants stacked mattresses on top of him and left him for dead. What did he get? As a colleague from National has said, he got nothing. That is what he got—zero, for the beating and the scars he will bear for the rest of his life.

There is also the case of Mr William Bell—and I am sorry to call him “Mr”; he is a scumbag—who was involved in the brutal murders at the Mount Wellington - Panmure RSA. He murdered one of the RSA members—someone who had fought for Bell’s right to live in this country, and for the rights of all New Zealanders to be part of this community. Who met his end at the hands of a criminal on parole? Again, in the paper recently we read that Mrs Couch is suffering the effects of being brutally beaten and shotgun whipped by that scumbag. She is having problems in trying to get help from the Accident Compensation Corporation. As Mr Brownlee said, where is the help for the victim? Zero—again.

I am sure that all New Zealanders listening to this debate tonight will be thinking: “What a lot of drivel from the Greens, and what a disgusting bill from Labour.” I advise that Sam Te Hei, who cold-bloodedly murdered Colleen Burrows in 1987, is now seeking compensation for a breach of human rights—an act that the Greens are supporting—and would get to keep the money. As we have heard tonight, the money should not be paid out to the criminals but put into a fund, and at the end of the day the victims should receive it, not the criminals. Mrs Ida Hawkins, mother of Colleen Burrows, has said that Te Hei now wants human rights. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, his rights were extinguished when he went to prison. Mrs Hawkins said that human rights are for human beings. Te Hei is a disgrace to Māoridom. He is not a human being.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): The Labour Government might think that dealing with this bill in this particular way, under urgency, puts it to bed and takes it away from being an election year issue. It will not, because there are a number of parties here that will keep this issue alive. Not only will a number of parties here keep it in the public domain, but the victims will also keep it alive. The Sensible Sentencing Trust and Victim Support will keep it alive—and there is a reason why. This bill is a huge injustice. It is a slap in the face for all victims in this country.

The one inescapable fact is that the very act of an inmate being able to secure a financial windfall, supposedly to support his or her human rights, is at once a human rights violation against the victim. There is no escaping that—the point being that when we are balancing the human rights of both offender and victim, they are in an inescapable relationship with each other for life from the very moment the offence took place. Anything that benefits the inmate, by necessity, will be a deficit to the victim. There is no getting around that. The problem this Government faces is that it is passing a bill, with the Greens’ help, that is championing the human rights of the offender against the human rights of the victim.

The public will not be fooled; the Sensible Sentencing Trust will not be fooled; Victim Support will not be fooled; National will not be fooled; New Zealand First will not be fooled; ACT will not be fooled; and neither will we. The only people who seem to be fooled are the Greens. Well, the Greens’ actions we can explain away. They probably thought they could get the votes of those people in the prisons.

Gerry Brownlee: Yeah!

MARC ALEXANDER: Well, they will not. The other point that needs to be looked at—and it is something that the Hon Rick Barker talked about at some length—is the potential violation of international law. That is an absolute nonsense. As Gerry Brownlee pointed out, it is only a “might be”; it is only a “maybe”. But even more important than that is this crucial question: is Parliament sovereign, or not? The laws of this country must come from this Parliament, nowhere else. Some pillock can go off and sign whatever international accord he wants, but unless it is ratified by this Parliament, it should not be a law of the land. Justice for our own people, justice for the victims of this country, must supersede the interests of the arrogance of some foreign affairs Minister darting about the world, signing this or that accord.

There is no reason to assume that an international accord should have precedence over New Zealand justice. In the end, that is what this is really about. I think that what is forgotten here is that this Government is not the boss. This Government is not at the top of the heap. This Government, like all of us, is an employee of the people of New Zealand. We are employees of the very victims we are supposed to be caring about, yet this Government arrogantly puts the interests of the offender first—ahead of the interests of all people who love justice in this country, and ahead of all those people who are supposed to be doing something about the victims of this country.

People will not be fooled by this. It is a subterfuge. It is a sly attempt to get this issue out of the way before the election proper starts. This Government knows that it will be tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion, for this bill. Nobody will be fooled or duped by it. This is a cynical bill that attempts to put the interests of the Government’s re-election process ahead of anybody else’s interests. It is one of the reasons why nobody in this Parliament wants to support it, and I daresay that many Labour members themselves probably want to walk away from it. It is beyond me that the Greens, in order to get a headline and gain any kind of relevance whatsoever, have run along like little cocker spaniels to support their hopeful future masters, and support this bill.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I shall turn to a couple of points raised by the Minister in his speech. He compared us with Australia. Well, let me tell the Minister that in Australia victims get decent compensation. I know that for a fact. My sister suffered an assault in New South Wales—quite a serious assault—and she got worthwhile compensation from the state of New South Wales, which, I might add, has lower taxes than New Zealand. So it is an issue of choice, is it not? This Government would sooner spend $250 million on wānanga and hip-hop tours and the like, and it ignores the rights of victims. What is the Government’s promise? It has made some sort of deal with the Green Party, which I could impolitely call the “Dope Dealers Party”, and—

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is outrageous. I request that the member withdraw that comment and apologise. It is totally outrageous.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member has taken offence.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I just referred to a party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, no.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I withdraw and apologise. It is on record, of course, that certain members of the Green Party advocate the legalisation of marijuana. Furthermore, some of them have admitted using marijuana. That is the reality, and no one in that party can deny that fact.

I return to the issue of Australia. That is a clear choice. What is the deal it has done with the party that advocates the legalisation of marijuana? Has there been some kind of study into the rights of victims? In the meantime we have the wānanga, which has lost millions of dollars.

The second point he raised was international law. I heard a discussion today on this issue, and for some reason the Government thinks that it can comply with conventions, only provided there is a monetary compensation regime. That is false. I am one of those people who believe very strongly in the adherence to international law. I believe in the various covenants and conventions that the Government has entered into.

They do not require monetary compensation. Certainly, they require remedies. In fact, National has proposed precisely that in its minority report, and that is an inspectorate of prisons where proper complaints can be made in cases of abuse. It is in our minority report, if only the person would actually note that. So it is a question of providing a remedy.

There is no case for monetary compensation, because the distorted approach the Government and the Greens have—and it was rather well put by Marc Alexander—is to, in an absurd and unreasonable way, tie the victim to the capriciousness of the offender suing. Who is the type of offender who is actually likely to sue? We have the case of one of the worst murderers in New Zealand, Christopher Taunoa. He is a brutal man, subject to the behaviour management regime. He is the sort of person who gets disciplined within prisons. That is what initiated the claim. The Government put up some wimpy, half-hearted defence in the courts, and indeed, I understand, in the select committee, to defend that regime. If it had done it properly he would not have got any compensation. Frankly, a man like that, with all the problems he had, and caused in jail—he is one of the most difficult prisoners in New Zealand—would not have succeeded in his claim. It was a failing in the Crown case in the courts.

National is outraged, on behalf of victims, at this, frankly pathetic, bill. It is pathetic, because it does not do what it should do. It should ban monetary compensation to criminals. The Government has failed to do what it should do, which is to provide a decent compensation regime for victims. There are real choices when one is sorting out priorities for Government expenditure. Surely, innocent victims who suffer lifelong injuries should receive proper compensation for the hurt and injury. The accident compensation regime is in many cases simply not adequate or appropriate. In many cases it depends on having earnings. So the accident compensation regime is insufficient. There needs to be a special regime for victims.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): I would like to pose a question to the Minister in the hope that he may answer it. About 150 metres away from here is the Court of Appeal, in Molesworth Street. Effectively, it is our final appellate court, because the Supreme Court is accessible only by leave. In the last 2 days the Court of Appeal has been hearing the case that has established the so-called mischief that this Government seeks to deal with in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. It is bad practice and bad policy for the Government to seek to pre-empt whatever decision the Court of Appeal may make.

Let me put this proposition to the Minister. One of the fundamental issues in the Court of Appeal case is whether the High Court was right in allowing the damages awards to be made. What will happen if, in the next few days, the Court of Appeal states that the High Court was wrong and that those damages awards should not have been made at all? This legislation will then have achieved no purpose, because there will be no mischief at all to deal with. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that that will happen. This Government—in my view, incredibly unwisely—has tried to head off and pre-empt the decision of the Court of Appeal by putting Parliament into urgency.

The doctrine of the separation of powers, based on what Montesquieu said—which the Minister may well be familiar with—states that government has three elements: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This Government has plunged Parliament into urgency in order to cross a very clear constitutional threshold that it should never cross. It is quite acceptable for Parliament in the exercise of its sovereign powers to reverse decisions of the courts. That has been done on a number of occasions. But we are not talking about that in this case. We are talking about this Government pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make an effective decision in respect of the issues that are before it. That is constitutionally reprehensible.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that what is going on in the Court of Appeal with regard to the decision currently under appeal would be “captured by the legislation”. He has not exactly spelt out what he means by “captured by the legislation”, but one assumes that he is talking about the very issue about which I have underscored a concern: that Parliament in this instance is trespassing on judicial process. So the Minister should tread very carefully as he advances this bill.

A number of members have spoken about issues relating to international treaties. Here, again, the Minister has been misled by his advisers. I would like to talk about the issue of international obligations for a moment. In National’s minority report on this bill we touch on that issue very directly. I believe that the officials who have advised the Minister have given him wrong advice—advice that he may come to rue. New Zealand is, of course, a party to a number of international human rights treaties that have been considered in the process of developing the bill. These treaties embody commitments that are binding at international law. The executive has the power and the authority to undertake foreign relations and, as part of this, to negotiate and enter into treaties. Where legislative action is required to give effect to obligations assumed under a treaty, that legislation has to be passed by Parliament before New Zealand becomes a party to the treaty. So it is that we signed the international Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We did that on 14 January 1986, and, in accordance with our treaty obligations, we ratified it on 10 December 1989.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to explain why we will be voting for this bill. I think at the heart of it is that we support human rights. That seems to be a concern to some of the other members here, but we support everyone’s human rights. We support the human rights of members of Parliament, prisoners’ human rights, and victims’ human rights. We are obliged to do that, as the last speaker has indicated, by international conventions such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which he has just mentioned, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Edwin Perry mentioned, and the other conventions that require us to give redress for harm done by the State to any citizen, including people in prisons. This redress does not have an exclusion. There is nothing in these international conventions that states: “and not financial redress”. That is part of it.

One of the things about a person in prison is that the forms of redress are somewhat limited, by virtue of the fact that the person is in prison. We could let them out.

Marc Alexander: They are supposed to be there.

KEITH LOCKE: I think Mr Alexander, who has interjected, might be a bit upset if that were a form of redress. One of the other ways is to give them financial redress, which is not actually a lot of use to a person in jail but it does go some way to accommodating the mistreatment. We do see problems in this bill in that under the provisions, in some cases, the whole of the compensation could disappear as a result of a claim, and that could be a disincentive for prisoners taking claims for mistreatment. It is not just a problem for the prisoner, whose human rights we should identify with. If we want to have a disincentive for the State persecuting any citizen, including those in prisons, we have to have a penalty on the State. That is part of the justice system in New Zealand and internationally.

I object to the idea, expressed, I think, by Edwin Perry, that when people go to jail they lose all their human rights. He quoted a friend of his who said that. To not identify with a human being when he or she is being mistreated, to treat that person as some sort of beyond-the-pale person we cannot identify with in any way, is exactly the psychology of the offender. The people who brutally killed those two old people the other day presumably were thinking that way—“We don’t identify with that old man and woman. They are not human beings. We can kill them.” That is the psychology of the offender, and unfortunately that is the psychology I hear around me in this Chamber tonight from the people who are interjecting. They are being as bad, in some ways, as those violent criminals.

The other concept of justice that the Greens promote—restorative justice—is the opposite. It sees both the offender and the victim as human beings and tries to get them to see each other as human beings. It also tries to get the prisoner to show genuine remorse, and thereby rehabilitate himself or herself and be less likely to commit more crimes. If we are really concerned with victims, we have to stop the rates of reoffending—stop people committing more crimes. We are supporting this bill not because it is a good bill; we think it is a bad bill. But if United Future had had its way it would be a terrible bill. It would not have had a sunset clause. When I say it is a bad bill, I say, though, that it does have some good features that Nandor Tanczos will be talking about later, in terms of some benefits for victims. People are saying that Victim Support is against this bill. I was on the select committee when Victim Support came and said that it was totally against this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I will take a United Future speaker, because United Future has over 30 amendments and I think we should hear from the United Future members.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. By my reckoning, this will be the third speech from a United Future member.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): You are exactly right.

Peter Brown: There have been three New Zealand First speakers, and we are a much bigger party than United Future. Come the next election, we are going to be even bigger.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): New Zealand First is indeed a bigger party. I am conscious of that, but I call Mr Adams.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): New Zealand First may be a bigger party than United Future at present, but that will shortly change. I rise on behalf of United Future, which is not supporting this bill. It was very interesting to hear Keith Locke. I think that, as close as this is to an election, both the Labour Party and the Green Party have seriously misread public opinion, not only on this bill but on a number of issues. I think the members of those parties should be very, very concerned. Keith Locke has said that we have to consider human rights. I do not think anybody would disagree with that statement, but let us get real about what we are dealing with. We are dealing with prisoners—people who have been put away for committing some horrendous crimes, as we have already heard tonight. Then, all of a sudden, prisoners have been mistreated, and they are seeking compensation. Their victims will have to go through all the drama, and all the emotions, of confronting those people again if they are to try to get any claim on the monies that are being paid to prisoners.

But let us take this issue one step further. If prisoners whom the State is responsible for looking after have their human rights violated, what is to stop two prisoners, both in prison, from all of a sudden staging a set-up, whereby one prisoner would fight another prisoner and then say his or her human rights had been violated? Those prisoners would go through a court case, be paid out a large amount of compensation, and then share the takings between themselves. That happens once we set a precedent for something. Nobody whom I know of would argue that prisoners should not be looked after correctly in prison; all those things we would agree with. But once we start to bring financial payments into any type of situation, unfortunately because of human nature we go across a different line.

I think Marc Alexander has done a tremendous job in this term of Parliament. He has brought victims’ rights before people. Everybody is now beginning to appreciate those rights, and to gain a little understanding of what those poor people have had to put up with and to go through. People can see the effect that victims’ experiences have had on themselves, their families, and their friends, and can see what victims have had to go through in court cases and many other things. Now, all of a sudden, we are bringing in legislation that states that if victims want to have any part of a financial payment to a prisoner, they have to go through a legal process again. They will have to go through all the drama, and have to face the offender.

If we are talking about human rights, we are talking about two lots of people. There is a prisoner who has been locked away because he or she has failed to follow the rules of society. But, on the other side of the equation, in many cases there is a totally innocent human being. All of a sudden, as that person was going through a normal part of his or her life, somebody invaded his or her home, invaded his or her privacy, or destroyed one of his or her family. Yes, the offender and the victim are both humans, but I cannot be convinced that they can both be treated equally in terms of human rights. If we have to weigh up whether one person is likely to suffer more than the other if we proceed with this legislation, I believe that the public of New Zealand would say that there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that the prisoner is the one who should have to suffer more than the victim.

I believe that as we go through this legislation, the public will begin to get stirred up again about this issue. I can guarantee they will get stirred up; they have already been stirred up about this issue. New Zealanders are a people who understand fair play, but they have said very clearly that paying this type of compensation to people who have been put away for committing crime is not in the fair-play basket. The United Nations may have said that we must be aware of prisoners’ rights and human rights—we understand that. But I think we have gone much further than that. Now, in New Zealand, we are beginning to say that we can pay financial compensation for those types of things.

LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Part 1 is on general provisions, and I get the feeling that members would like to get on to the nitty-gritty of the bill in part 2. I will call one member who wants a call and has not had one yet.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I want to comment on the United Future members’ speeches—particularly Marc Alexander’s speech, but even his colleague Paul Adams made a very sensible speech. I know that Marc Alexander has been pushing this issue behind the scenes. I know his frustration and, probably, his anger, but I have to say that if United Future had taken a more forthright position some weeks ago when this bill first emerged, we might well have got the Opposition parties a bit more united and we might have been able to overturn it. We might not have been dependent on the silly Greens. Some good points have been made. Unfortunately, I think United Future should have backed Marc Alexander a week or so ago.

In this debate there seem to be some conflicting opinions around the Committee about whether we should be subject to international law. My understanding is that we are not committed to international law. Despite what the Minister said, we are the master of our own destiny. As one unknown New Zealander said only a few days ago, with regard to our commitment to international law: “Baloney!”.

My second point concerns what the Minister said. This Government is well known for being soft on criminals, particularly on those who have affected victims. The Minister sits there with a look of horror on his face, but I want to show him a headline in the Dominion Post of only a few days ago: “Mob man guilty of attack on police”. The article is about a guy named Gillies who has now attacked another two policemen. Some time ago Gillies attacked a policeman—a sergeant, I think—called Hendrikse and virtually paralysed him with a screwdriver. The policeman has never recovered. Gillies was put in prison. The Government, of its own accord—with no judicial review, no judicial hearing, and no hearing whatsoever—awarded five criminals $325,000. That was in the Government’s last term. In this term it wants to legalise that. In the Government’s last term it did that, and in this term it wants to legalise its action. The Government gave that guy Gillies $40,000, and he is now back in prison after attacking policemen in a vicious manner. That is the sort of person to whom this bill gives compensation.

Many people have spoken about whether prisoners have rights. Of course they have rights—minimum rights, like the right to food. No one is trying to take that from them, are they? Nobody is taking away prisoners’ right to shelter—to accommodation. We have already removed, through legislation, their right to receive accident compensation payments once they are in prison. We have already removed prisoners’ right to vote. What we are talking about, with regard to this bill, is whether prisoners should have the right to sue and whether, if they take an action and win, they should be entitled to compensation. New Zealand First has taken a compromise position, a midway position. We understand that prisoners could have the right to sue if the Department of Corrections mucks them around. But we will not agree to their getting a cent of that money—not a single cent. As this bill is drafted—and the Greens will support this—prisoners will get some of the money, and perhaps a large measure of it. They will not get all of it, but they will get a significant amount in certain circumstances. Tony Ryall intimated the circumstances in which prisoners could get a considerable amount. Where there is no victim to pay out—the offender may have shot and killed the victim—the prisoner could get a residue. Where the crime has no obvious victim—I am trying to think of an example; I did have one in mind before—the prisoner can get a payout. New Zealand First objects strongly to that.

Many law-abiding New Zealanders have spoken to me. I am surprised that those people do not talk to the Labour Party, because many of them have said to me: “Peter, for God’s sake, stop this bill. We don’t want prisoners getting compensation.” Those prisoners are the scumbags of this country. They do evil deeds—my colleague Edwin Perry illustrated quite clearly what some of them have been up to—and they are now being given the chance to get legal aid to sue the Department of Corrections for compensation. We mollycoddle prisoners in this country, to some degree. This very day I have seen a protocol signed between the Department of Corrections and the Office of the Ombudsmen, yet the Greens are saying that that is not enough. That protocol almost gives prisoners two lumps of sugar in every cup of tea they want. That is not enough for the Greens; they want to have an independent prisons inspectorate.

There should be no way at all for someone who commits a crime and who is sent to prison for it to come out wealthy. That could well happen here. Under this bill it could happen, if someone who has been sent to prison for a horrendous crime gets in some sort of fracas, as Paul Adams illustrated a little while ago—and there are easier ways than by fighting with another prisoner; all one has to do is antagonise a prison guard, get him or her to retaliate, and the prisoner will come out wealthy. That is not on.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the question be now put.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise the fact that I have been requesting a call for some time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member will leave it to the Chairperson.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): Mr Chairperson, I appreciate that you had intended to close the debate on this part, but the Minister might wish to consider an amendment—a technical improvement—to clause 9. Indeed, I am concerned that without such a change the whole bill looks more cynical and calculating than the Minister probably intends.

In the last line of clause 9 the term “victim’s claim” is defined by reference to “the offence”, but it does not say which offence is meant. The offence that a victim of a crime is complaining about may be an offence that never resulted in a conviction. For example, many burglars admit to a whole string of burglaries but may be charged with, and convicted for, only a representative group—three or four of them. The police can then record the rest of the offences as cleared, advise the victims that they have been cleared, and tell them who the offender is. But in this situation, as I read this clause, none of those extra victims would be entitled to claim compensation. I think the phrase “the offence” in clause 9 must refer to the offence for which the offender was convicted. It is defined as the offence for which the offender was convicted. From the definition in clause 4, it seems that “offence” is general. But I believe that when we use the phrase “the offence” it relates to the offence of the offender.

Hon Rick Barker: Offence as defined in the bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Yes, but the offence as defined in the bill would have to be one that was established. The Minister may be right, but I am not sure how the court would know which offence is referred to when the term in this clause is specific. If it said “an offence” then the Minister’s contention would be beyond all doubt. Certainly the claimant would still have to establish that an offence had been committed.

Hon Rick Barker: The offence convicted on.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Well, if it is the offence convicted on, then all those other complainants are victims of that offender, but not for the offence that finally sent him or her to prison. There will be many circumstances where offenders may have confessed—certainly, on a civil standard, it could be established that they had committed offences—but those offences have never been the ones that resulted in the prisoner being imprisoned. I think that the word “the” is unnecessarily specific. It should not cause any trouble to the scheme of this legislation if “an” offence is used. It expands it to avoid doubt. Certainly, if Tony Ellis were acting for a prisoner who was trying to hang on to his or her windfall gains, he would try to require that the only claims that could be established were those that related to the offence that put the offender in prison.

For example, if a claim was made right at the end of a prison term by someone who had committed multiple offences, the claim would probably relate only to the offence that had put the prisoner in prison for the longest time, because his or her earlier imprisonment periods would have expired. If the word “the” is changed and accepted, I do not think there will be any risk to the Crown, and I do not think there will be any risk to the legitimate rights of the offender. It still has to be proved that there has been an offence, but we will not get the possibility of this technical restriction that I am sure the drafter never intended. I believe that, at least, the drafter probably wanted victims’ claims to extend to any claim that related to an offence committed by one of those lucky offenders who managed to claim under the Human Rights Act, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or any of those other judge-invented grounds of claim.

I suggest to the Minister, Rick Barker, that the officials on hand—and he has a whole bench of them—should be able to confirm to him that there is nothing malign in changing the word “the” to “an”. It is obvious that the Minister wants to kick for touch, although the Government has had years to think about these issues. In this case it is very late. When I was trying to consider what the Minister said by way of explanation in envisaging the sorts of claims we would get, I thought that the only way a prisoner would be deprived of one of those substantial claims would be if a whole lot of his or her victims fronted up. Very few of the victims would be likely to be able to show that they were entitled to exemplary damages. Those who could establish exemplary damages might establish them only for an offence for which the offender is no longer in prison.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): Recent contributions to the debate show the importance of allowing it to proceed without being closed down by premature closure motions. I refer in particular to my learned colleague Richard Worth’s contribution to broadening our understanding of international treaty obligations and what they mean in terms of human rights. My learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp also expanded on those international obligations. Those contributions were important, and relevant to broadening the understanding of the Parliament. I, like one or two others, wonder how far we need to go to meet those obligations, when I believe that criminals, in committing offences, abdicate their right to other than basic human rights—which are food, shelter, and reasonable treatment. It is time we became tough on crime, instead of soft on crime. This bill is soft on crime. We should not allow any form of compensation, and I am delighted that National opposes this bill.

Tony Ryall has made a very sensible recommendation that we should have an inspectorate of our prisons, rather than go to the extent of this bill. After all, if criminals are allowed to sue for compensation, then they are entitled to legal aid. A whole tribunal structure has been created to assist that process. Let us think of the costs of that. The hard-working, earning Kiwis of New Zealand, are paying that cost. Is there any constraint on the amount of legal aid that is allowed to be accessed? Is there a cap or any sort of limit on legal aid? I have not seen that in this bill. What would be reasonable access to any form of legal aid? Again, I say I am glad National does not support what would be a considerable waste of taxpayers’ money in allowing criminals to sue and to swallow up more of those hard-working taxpayers’ dollars.

The bill also encourages rorts on the system, as has been enunciated tonight—for instance, by setting up fights between prisoners, whereby one would be the offender and the other the victim. There would be a very real likelihood of that, because those people are criminals—they have a criminal intent. If they cannot rort the system out in the public arena, they will do it in the confines of their prison in any way, shape, or form they can use. They have abdicated their right to expect anything other than basic rights. They will make prison a hell for prison officers and, I suggest, for other prisoners. They are an affront to all victims.

There was a clamour, right throughout New Zealand, that prisoners should not get access to compensation—and what have we done? We have given them access to compensation. Earlier my learned colleague Richard Worth raised that amazing point about the Court of Appeal decision and about this Government pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make a decision. I find it extraordinary that by putting this bill through in urgency tonight, we are putting ourselves in the position of doing that. This Government has put us in the position of pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make a decision.

My learned colleague Richard Worth said that that is constitutionally reprehensible, and I completely agree. I find it an extraordinary move by this Government. However, one could almost expect that type of incompetence under this current Government. Perhaps the Minister, Rick Barker, would take a call to explain his comment about his expecting the Court of Appeal to “be captured by the legislation”. Perhaps he might like to take a call to explain to us exactly what he meant by that. Was it the intention of this Government to make some sort of constitutionally reprehensible move in terms of the Court of Appeal being able to make a decision? Perhaps the Minister would take a call to explain that to us. Then we heard the bizarre statements made by Green members that this is bad law but that they will support it. Doh! How sensible is that?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I try to be very fair. This part is on general provisions, and it is my view that we have covered it quite substantially.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 3 and substitute new clause 3 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) all the words after the words “is to”, and substitute the words “block, stop and wipe compensation payouts to prisoners”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) the words “restrict and guide”, and substitute the words “prevent and prohibit”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) the words “in order to help ensure that the remedy of compensation is reserved for exceptional cases and used only if, and only to the extent that, it is necessary to provide effective redress”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to:

to insert the following new subclause:

(1A) The purpose of this bill is to provide a temporary partial restriction on compensation to some prisoners, while recognising that some prisoners will keep some, if not all, of any compensation payout.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (2).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit this clause, and substitute the following clause:

3 Purpose of this Act

The purpose of this Act is—

(a) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2007 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and

(b) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2007 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced, and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal, before the commencement of this Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit this clause, and substitute the following clause:

3 Purpose of this Act

The purpose of this Act is—

(a) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2008 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and

(b) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2008 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced, and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal, before the commencement of this Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit this clause, and substitute the following clause:

3 Purpose of this Act

The purpose of this Act is—

(a) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and

(b) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced, and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal, before the commencement of this Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit this clause, and substitute the following clause:

3 Purpose of this Act

The purpose of this Act is—

(a) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and

(b) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced, and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal, before the commencement of this Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit this clause, and substitute the following clause:

3 Purpose of this Act

The purpose of this Act is—

(a) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2011 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and

(b) to impose a restriction, from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2011 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first, on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced, and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal, before the commencement of this Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit the following definitions: action, child, civil custody, community-based sentence, detention quarter, home detention, Judge Advocate General, penal institution, specified internal and external complaints mechanisms, and young person.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Other typescript amendments in the name of Marc Alexander to omit definitions of “account”, “immediate family”, “incapable”, “judgment”, “parent”, “Secretary”, “Secretary of the Tribunal”, “Tribunal”, “victim”, and “victim’s claim” are out of order because the question has already been decided.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit the definition of compensation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to:

to insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order, the following definition:

restricted period means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2007 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to:

to insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order, the following definition:

restricted period means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2008 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to:

to insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order, the following definition:

restricted period means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to:

to insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order, the following definition:

restricted period means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to:

to insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order, the following definition:

restricted period means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2011 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives, whichever occurs first.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): An amendment to clause 4 in the name of Marc Alexander, which is the first typescript amendment to omit and insert words in subclause (1), is out of order. It is not in the proper form. There is no subclause (1) in clause 4.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 6 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 6 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) the words “or on behalf of”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 6 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (c) from the definition of a breach of, or interference with, a specified right in subclause (2).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 6 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) the definition of Crown.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

6A

(1) No payment may be made to any prisoner for any breach or omission made by or on behalf of the Crown.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 7 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 8 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 9 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (c), after the word “committing”, the word “the”, and substituting the word “an”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following new paragraph:

(d) made by Victim Support wherein the identified victim either has not or cannot lodge a claim or transfer authority over a claim, within a specified period of one month after an award of compensation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Amendments agreed to.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification, because the member Matt Robson was not in his own seat when he cast the vote. I wonder whether it is in order for him to cast the vote from anywhere in the Chamber other than from his seat. [Interruption] My point of order is that the member cast a vote while standing but not from his own seat, and there was also some doubt as to whether he was casting the vote for or against. I seek some clarification.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I remind members that there will be silence while a point of order is being raised. I thank the member for raising the point. I accepted the vote from Matt Robson. He did change it, but I was certain as to what he wanted, although I should have said, before that, that there is to be no talking during a vote, and certainly no exclamation or assistance given to the voter. I just make that point clear.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I raise a further point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that the member needs to be seated, rather than standing in the aisle, which is where the member was when he was confused about which way he was actually casting the vote. I would like a ruling on where he should have been positioned when he cast his vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is sufficient for tonight. I thank Mr Tisch for again enlarging on that matter, but I accepted the member’s vote. Members should be seated. That is the requirement, but it is entirely up to the Chair. I did accept his vote. I knew where it came from, I knew what he intended, and I will let the matter rest there. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance. Parliament is currently in urgency to consider urgent matters. I would like to know what the procedure is for the rather unusual step of the Opposition wanting to add something to the urgency motion. Can we do that by leave during the Committee stage, or would we need to call the Speaker back?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If the Opposition wished to pursue that, the Speaker would, of course, need to be recalled, because that is a matter to be dealt with by the House. The urgency motion has been passed and dealt with for the purposes of this Committee.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek further advice. I notice that there is an urgent matter on the Order Paper that is likely to fall off in the very near future. It is a notice of motion that was lodged on 7 December 2004, and I think that notices of motion stay on the Order Paper for only a limited number of days—something like 42 days. We must be coming rapidly to a point when this particular notice of motion will fall off the Order Paper. I seek your guidance as to whether there could be a discussion with the Speaker—perhaps tomorrow morning, or at some other convenient time—as to whether it would be possible to have something like this important notice of motion added to the urgency motion. Effectively, a Cabinet Minister has been referred to as a traitor, and the House most certainly should have something to say about that, particularly since that particular Cabinet Minister was only too quick to use the word “traitor” himself about an official in his own department who has taken an important step in recent days for the public good of New Zealand.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member has sufficiently described the motion. I thank him for raising that issue. I have no doubt that the Speaker will be prepared to listen to the member in the morning, as suggested. Members’ notices of motion fall off the Order Paper, but Ministers’ notices of motion stay on it. That is perhaps the reason why that one remains on the Order Paper. The Speaker will, I am sure, be only too happy to discuss the matter in the morning.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No. I have dealt with it.

STEPHEN FRANKS: I am seeking guidance on the matter, as it involves a member of my party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am always happy to guide the member.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mr Chairperson, I am not sure whether you will mention this to prepare the Speaker for a possible application for a ruling or guidance on this issue. If you do, would you mind alerting the Speaker to the fact that ACT will probably be interested in whether there is some means, like a leave process, by which the member who is the subject of this motion could bring it up so that it is debated, given the circumstances.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is almost in line with what I ruled; it is a matter for the morning. I thank the member for raising it.

Part 2 Prisoners’ and victims’ claims

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Before I get into any of the detail of Part 2, I want to make some general comments. This bill is an affront to New Zealanders. The Labour minority Government has brought it in under urgency—with the help of the Greens, who are struggling to find some relevance, because they have been totally irrelevant in the last few years. An election is nigh, and the Greens are struggling to find relevance by supporting this bill.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10.00 p.m to 9.00 a.m. (Thursday)

Wednesday, 1 June 2005

(continued on Thursday, 2 June 2005)

Bills

Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Prisoners’ and victims’ claims (continued)

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): We are debating Part 2, which deals with the provisions for prisoners’ and victims’ claims. It is interesting that there are more provisions for—and, I would say, barriers to—victims getting hold of any compensation than there are for the crims. I want to repeat my comments from last night that this bill is a huge fraud that the Government is perpetrating on decent New Zealanders.

Members will recall that this legislation came about because of some huge payouts made to some of our worst criminals. The public rightly got up in arms and said: “What about the victims?”, and now we have a bill before us that deals with compensation paid to some of our worst criminals for supposed hurts they suffered while they were under the care of the Department of Corrections. It also contains provisions that allow victims, if they are known or can be identified, to claim some of that compensation before the money finally gets into the criminals’ hands.

What is annoying is that this is typical, liberal, namby-pamby, Labour-type legislation. This bill is an absolute affront to decent New Zealanders. In urgency, we are making sure that criminals who are awarded compensation get the money they have been awarded. The Government has put some provisions in the bill supposedly for the victims, which I will come to in a minute. Ordinary, middle New Zealanders—the people who could have expected something from the Budget that we had just the week before last—now have to be a witness to legislation that will allow some of our worst criminals to partake of compensation paid to them for who knows what. The criminals go into the prison behaviour management regime. They can allege that they have been treated wrongly, or that they have suffered some kind of mishap or stress, and get awarded some compensation. The Government is obviously soft on law and order. We have known that for the last 6 years. It is absolutely soft. To top it all, before the election it will make sure that criminals can keep their ill-gotten gains for whatever hurt they say they suffered while in the care of the Department of Corrections.

As I said, Part 2 sets out the provisions for the award of payments to prisoners. That money is to go in trust to be kept until victims come forward with their claim. But why would anyone do that? Why would a woman who had been raped by one of those vicious criminals, given the provisions in this legislation, put herself through the trauma of trying to claim some of the money that had been awarded to the offender? The provisions in Part 2 consist of barrier after barrier. It is a whole re-traumatisation for victims. Why would a woman who had been raped or seriously harmed by one of those vicious criminals put herself through that trauma? There is no guarantee that victims will get the compensation. They still have to show good reason why they ought to get some of it. It is absolutely outrageous.

That is what this Government thinks of victims. It absolutely does not care about victims. Shame on it! If the women in the Labour caucus are sitting there thinking that they are doing victims a favour, I say to them that many of the victims are female. They are subject to rape and all sorts of horrible, heinous crimes. The women in the Labour caucus are sitting there and letting this bill go through.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First): In speaking in this debate on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill, I put on record the fact that New Zealand First believes that this is a sad day for New Zealand. It is a sad day not only for New Zealand but for the victims of crime. It is a sad day for the families of victims, and it is also a sad day for prison officers up and down this country, for reasons I will highlight in just a couple of minutes. As I said, it is a tragedy for this country when we see a bill like this being passed through Parliament.

One would think that when the Government was constructing a bill such as this one, on issues concerning the claims of prisoners, the very centre or core focus of the bill would be designed to look after the needs and emotional well-being of victims. But when we look at the clauses in Part 2—clause 16; clause 18, subclauses (2), (3), (4), and (5); and clause 48—we start to realise very quickly that victims are not at the heart of this bill, and that this bill is soft on crime. The bill should not be called the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. It should be called the “Soft on Crime, Leftie, Liberal, Labour-backed-up-by-the-Greens Bill”. That is what the title should be. It is probably a long title and would not work in that respect, but that is exactly the meaning of this bill.

This bill will continue to allow payouts to the most vile and vicious criminals—unlike what Nandor Tanczos from the Greens was saying last night. When I said that this is a sad day for New Zealand in respect of prison officers up and down this country, I meant that they will be victims of prisoners taunting them and being able to say: “Ha, ha! We’ve got one up on you here. The Government is on our side. We’re going to give you a hard time and see what we can get out of this so-called justice system.” That is what they will do. This Government and the Green Party know it, but they will not do anything about it. They have not done anything about it for the last 2 years, since Justice Young made his decision. They have done nothing. They have sat on their hands because they have not wanted to do anything. They have wanted to keep the status quo, and they continue to do so with this bill today.

Members voting against this bill asked the Minister last night, before he got up and spoke, why he had to put the bill through, and why he had to put it through in this way. The Minister said, in his heartfelt speech, that—wait for it—this bill would not abide by international conventions if it took on amendments, such as the ones put up by my New Zealand First colleague Dail Jones, and so on, that would provide for money obtained to go to victims. He did not say—but he might as well have—that countries like Sudan, Namibia and Zimbabwe would be offended, and that groups like the Taliban would say: “Oh, no, no. You can’t do that.” That is how ridiculous that answer—that excuse—is. It is just unbelievable what this Government will stoop to, to find a way to be able to slip through its leftie, soft, liberal legislation. It is sad, and that is why it is a sad day for this country.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): We can tell that there is huge public support for this bill by the number of people in the gallery who have turned up to support it—or the lack thereof. A number of things about this bill deserve special mention. Although some of the broader themes have been talked about already, and no doubt will continue to be talked about and debated, I think that a couple of points in the bill are actually quite sinister.

Firstly, in clause 14, “Guiding considerations for awarding of compensation”, subclause (1) includes “(a) whether compensation is required to provide effective redress;”, and “(b) the quantum of an award of compensation required to provide effective redress.” The interesting thing is that that assumes a sum of money can ameliorate an infraction that no other form of redress can. Time and time again during the select committee process I asked what those things are that could not be addressed through means other than money. The Justice and Electoral Committee never received an explanation—not once. When we think about it, if an individual has a broken leg, he or she can be given medical treatment, and I do not think anybody is against that. And if some counselling is needed for those poor, misguided criminals in prison, then by all means let us provide them with that. But why should they walk away with a sum of money? Why should they be able to profit over and above the medical or counselling expenses that we would otherwise provide for them?

The interesting thing is that there is a bit of a contradiction when we look at clause 13(1)(b), which refers to exactly that: “another remedy, or a combination of other remedies, cannot provide in relation to the act or omission on which the claim is based redress that the Court or Tribunal considers effective.” The problem is that this Government never actually came out and said what that redress was. There is a bit of subterfuge here. The advisers told us that part of the point of awarding a sum of money is as a penalty against the Department of Corrections. Nobody can deny that that is a viable and reasonable option, but why should that money go to the offender in prison? It is one thing to exert a penalty on somebody who causes an infraction, but it is quite something else then to reward a criminal.

So we have had cases like that of Taunoa, who was paid $40,000-odd because with him we did the only sensible thing we could. That man had slashed the throat of a person so badly that it exposed the spine. He was a danger to guards and other inmates.

Peter Brown: How much did the Government give him?

MARC ALEXANDER: Over $40,000. There was an appeal yesterday. What are we supposed to do with him? If we try to elevate his human rights—as, perhaps, the Greens would want to do—then we put the human rights of guards and other inmates at risk. Where should the balance be? It seems clear to me that the balance has to be on the side of the prison system, the guards, and, in fact, other inmates. Taunoa was put in solitary for a prolonged period of time, and that was the only place for him. It was where he would do the least amount of damage. To turn round and reward him for that is crazy.

The point is that two things have been inextricably woven together that need not have been: firstly, the penalty against the corrections system for allowing infractions, brutality, or mistreatment; and, secondly, the rewarding of financial compensation to the inmate. If we skip over to clause 16, “Compensation of prisoners, etc, must be paid to Secretary”—and this is the part that I find very disturbing and, in fact, quite sinister—we see the subterfuge that the money will be put aside so that the victims will have the ability to take that money off the prisoners, but further down the track, in subclause (5), we find something that has been slipped in quite surreptitiously: “a creditor includes the Commissioner of Inland Revenue …”. Am I just imagining things, or is that a way in which the Government is trying to extract the victims’ money?

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): We are debating Part 2 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill, and the essence of this part—

Dr Richard Worth: No, “Prisoners’ Compensation Bill”.

Hon RICK BARKER: It is the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claim Bill. The first key element that needs to be made is that this is going to strengthen victims’ rights to make civil claims against offenders. Point No. 1, which the Opposition seems to overlook, is that it is going to recognise that victims have first claim against any compensation. Who in the House would say that that is wrong? No one. That is what it does, yet the Opposition votes against it. The bill goes on to state that when compensation is required to be paid by the Crown to prisoners, then the compensation will be first paid into a trust account to satisfy any valid claims that are brought by victims against the offender. So the victims get any compensation paid to them first.

Marc Alexander notes that the bill will also provide that if a person owes fines, or owes outstanding reparation payments, or other bills to the State, he or she will come second. He says this is somehow sinister. Well, I cannot get my head around that being sinister, but neither can I get my head around some other parts of this debate. It is true, as Mr Worth said before, that this legislation is closely linked to the case being heard in the Court of Appeal today. Yesterday, Mr Worth put up the proposition that we might not have to do anything, because if the Court of Appeal says there is no compensation to be paid, then this bill is irrelevant. Well, that is not quite right.

Dr Richard Worth: Why?

Hon RICK BARKER: Because it is the sort of logic that says we should not put the roof on the house, because it might not rain. Well, the fact is that the claims are there. The compensation has been awarded, and if this legislation is not passed through this Parliament, and the Court of Appeal does not uphold the appeal against it, then the money will be paid out to Mr Taunoa and others. The very action they rail against will happen. I am amazed that Opposition parties are trying to stop legislation going through this Parliament that will give effect to the end that they want for themselves.

The other thing that amazes me is that this issue has been before this Parliament and the public before. In 1994 a Mrs Baigent took a case against the Crown.

Dr Richard Worth: We were told this last night by you.

Hon RICK BARKER: And Mr Worth did not listen. Mrs Baigent went for a breach against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The then National Government Minister of Justice went to the Law Commission and asked it what it thought. The Law Commission said that there needed to be an effective remedy for breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that the international law reports link these remedies to these rights. The Law Commission said that people should be able to get monetary compensation for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The National Government did nothing about that, and accepted that advice. That is what it did. Now the National Party turns up here and says that it does not accept it. Well, why was it good enough for the National Government in 1994-95, and is now not good enough for it today? It was confronted with this problem and ran away with it.

This Labour-led Government, with the support of the Greens, says that that is not good enough. In our view if there is to be compensation, then compensation should go to the victims first, and then any other payments made afterwards. But better than that, we have said we want to see these breaches stop. We are going to have an independent commission look at prisons and manage the concerns or issues that prisoners raise. Because one of the problems with the current situation is that if people perceive that their rights have been breached, they can simply leave the issue until they go to court at a later date. The public have this perception that a person can go all the way around the board, back to “Go”, collect $200, and do nothing in the meantime. Well, we are saying that that will not be good enough.

So we are going to have an independent prison complaints authority by the end of 2006—independent of the Department of Corrections—to ensure that if people do have problems, and their rights are being threatened or abused, then they can make a complaint and it can be dealt with at that level and there will be no issue of compensation. It will be independent.

The third point that the Opposition overlooks is that the Government, with the Greens, has undertaken to have an inquiry into the victims of serious crime. Reference to this will be picked up very shortly, and we will be under way with it. This is something that the Justice and Electoral Committee said it wanted to see happen. The Government and the Greens are going to make it happen. The Opposition parties oppose this.

I reaffirm the point that this is about giving the victims their rights first; secondly, it is to make sure we are compliant with international law. Some people make a laugh out of this, and I find what Craig McNair says—that we are looking to have the same sets of rights as the Taliban—distasteful. Also, it is wrong, because the Taliban is not a signatory to the UN conventions on human rights, as he as a member of the House of Representatives should know. The Taliban is effectively a terrorist organisation, and to compare its rights with human rights is just absurd. The member devalues the currency of his own opinion and standing.

I make it clear that the advice given to the Government is that in other like countries, such as Britain, Canada, the United States, the EU, and Australia, the rights of people to take claims when their human rights have been breached do enable them to have monetary compensation as part of it.

Brian Connell: What about the human rights of victims?

Hon RICK BARKER: We have a shrill shriek coming from National members for political ends, but the truth of it is that that is the dispassionate advice to the Government from officials, with no political agenda at all. That is their advice. Members can check that advice if they want to. New Zealanders go overseas, and they like to hold their heads up high as being good international citizens. We do the right thing, and we are good international citizens. I say to those members opposite that we should not have laws in New Zealand that are less than those of the people in the countries we compare ourselves with—Australia, Canada, Britain, the US, the EU, and so on. Those are the places that will enable them to have compensation. [Interruption]

I still have barracking from members on the left of me, from the National Party. I say to Mr Connell that in 1994, when Mrs Baigent got paid compensation for a breach of her human rights in New Zealand, the National Government did nothing about it. It said that it was acceptable to it. The point of this is that Tony Ryall, who has been leading this campaign for the National Party, was a Minister in the then National Government, and all the other hangers-on and Klingons in the National Party are still here. They did nothing then; they said it was OK. They said it was good, that it was fine, and that it was acceptable to them. This Government has said that it is not. We believe that if there is to be compensation paid, the victims should get the money first, and that is what this law will do. If this law is not passed, then the money that has now been awarded by the court to Mr Taunoa and others will be paid out. The people who are opposing this legislation will do their best to ensure he gets the cash, and we are opposed to that.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): We have heard from this Minister. This bold Minister is apparently announcing an inquiry into victims’ rights. That says it all; that sets out the Government’s priorities. When confronted with the real issue—the balance, if you will—between this bill, the “Prisoners’ Compensation Bill”, and the rights of victims, what does the Minister do? He takes urgency on legislation for prisoners’ compensation, and apparently announces an inquiry for victims.

Lindsay Tisch: Another delay.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Just a delay. The Government had real choice. It could literally have turned that round. It could have had urgent legislation to provide compensation for victims, and have had an inquiry about discipline within prisons. Instead, it is doing it the other way round, and that is a disgrace.

I say to the country that this bill is a code of compensation for prisoners, and I say that because detailed rules whereby prisoners will receive compensation are set out in this bill for the guidance of the courts. Those are the provisions of this bill. No doubt the Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui, will take a call and try to deny it. But can he deny that under clause 14 detailed rules are set out whereby the courts will be required to pay compensation to prisoners? That is the effect of this legislation.

Under clause 14(1)(a) and (b), the courts will have to consider whether compensation is an effective redress, and then they will have to consider the quantum of an award of compensation. So they have to decide: firstly, whether compensation is the right remedy and, secondly, how much the prisoner should get. That is why National says this is a statutory code, being passed under urgency by this Government, to deliver monetary compensation to prisoners—not to victims but to prisoners. That is the starting point.

Then, and only then, will victims have any rights. The first rights actually belong to the prisoners. That is the whole structure of this legislation. It is a code whereby prisoners in our courts can sue for compensation and then, as an afterthought, maybe victims can have some rights to that compensation. But first of all the legislation is set up to enable the prisoners themselves to sue for compensation. It is a statutory code, being passed under urgency, that gives prisoners the right to sue for monetary compensation.

There were other alternatives. The National Party suggested another alternative, which was an inspectorate of prisons to deal with the issue of breach of rights, because that is an issue of some substance. I know that my colleague Mr Brian Connell has had something to say about the way to deal with issues around international law and breaches of human rights.

There is a different way, which National has suggested. We believe in putting victims first, not second. This bill puts victims second and prisoners first. We say turn that round, and then the Government would be doing something worthwhile for victims. At the moment it puts the victims into some kind of torturous relationship of further victimisation with the perpetrator of the crime. The victim is expected to almost “hope” that the criminal will get compensation, because only then can the victim get compensation.

I say to the Minister in the chair that the best thing to do would be to set up a proper victims’ compensation procedure—not an inquiry. We have had inquiries. The Justice and Electoral Committee has dealt with victims’ issues for a number of years, on other bills, and the committee recommended that there ought to be a system of compensation, as exists in virtually all states in Australia. The Government does not need an inquiry, and the House should not be spending time in passing a code of compensation for prisoners.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First’s view on this bill is straightforward. We want New Zealand to comply with all international conventions, so we support the right of prisoners to go along to the courts to make a claim, if they have been mistreated in prison. We say that any money they receive should be paid to victims, only. We do not want to see the murderer of Coral Burrows, or the murderer of the people at the RSA, being compensated for their time in prison. We do not want to see prisoners being encouraged to misbehave in prison, so they may then get compensation. This bill encourages prisoners to misbehave and make prison officers’ life hell. It is a difficult enough job to be a prison officer, without having prison officers being provoked by thugs and the absolute no-hopers of our society, which would make a prison officer’s life even worse than it is. This Government has no regard for the well-being of prison officers and for the things they have to go through. Of course, the Government closed down the private prison in Auckland. It really does not give two hoots about the prison service.

We say that no funds should be made available to criminals. The Government should take appropriate action against prison officers and any other persons employed by the Department of Corrections who have created a situation whereby prisoners are entitled to make a claim. That is the redress that we say should be undertaken. If a prisoner is mistreated, then redress should be taken against whoever has mistreated that prisoner, but no actual compensation should be given to the prisoner himself or herself. Remedies such as dismissal from the Department of Corrections and prosecution should be utilised by the Government to ensure that any situations that would give rise to claims by criminals will not be repeated. That is what we should be looking at. We should be looking at a non-repetition of those events. But this legislation will ensure that those events are repeated, and that is the whole problem with regard to it.

We want to see any money that will flow, as a result of a natural right that is available to anyone who has been mistreated, go to people who really have been mistreated. We take the view that when a murderer, like the murderer of Coral Burrows and the one who committed the RSA murders, commits crimes like those, he or she virtually loses his or her human rights. In many societies, when people go to prison they lose all rights. Well, we do not have that particular type of society, nor should we. We should make sure that when people are incarcerated, they are given a decent way of life, are able to do their time, and are able to come out of prison and make a contribution later on. But the people we are talking about—in particular, the ones who are before the courts now, making claims—have almost lost their right to human rights, because of the way they have behaved in society.

New Zealand First proposed various amendments to this legislation, and if those amendments had been supported, obviously we would be supporting the bill. That is why we agreed to its going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We wanted to give the Government the chance to get this bill correct, so that the various victims of criminal offences around the country could benefit from the funds that are to be made available as a result of this legislation. The Government was not prepared to listen to New Zealand First. It was not prepared to listen to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which took the view that the funds should go into a victims’ claims trust account and should be paid out to all victims around New Zealand, once the specific victim of the offender had first been compensated from the fund. But no, this Government wants to support prisoners; it wants to support brutal murderers. Well, New Zealand First cannot support that viewpoint. We have also made it clear by, if I may just indicate this in passing, an amendment to clause 2 that this bill should come into effect on 1 January 2005, and should apply to all cases that are currently before the courts, including any appeals, so that any money that is made available by the courts must go into a victims’ claims trust bank account and be there for the benefit of victims only, and not for the benefit of hardened criminals.

I am staggered that the Greens support this legislation.

Brian Connell: What are you staggered for?

DAIL JONES: Because the Greens are supposed to support the environment, and we know that many of those criminals have a great desire to go out into the pristine parts of New Zealand to grow certain plants that damage that pristine environment. I thought the Greens supported the conservation of our environment, but no, the Greens want to support those types of murderers, who commit their crimes while under the influence of cannabis and other drugs—cannabis that has been grown in the pristine parts of New Zealand and destroys our environment.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): There is a race on at the moment. It is a race between the Government and the Court of Appeal, because the Court of Appeal is hearing the very issues that gave rise to this legislation. After a quick flick through the New Zealand Herald this morning, I see that what is going on in the Court of Appeal is being reported. The argument that the Government lawyers are advancing is that there should be no compensation in cases of this kind; that it should be enough that a declaration is made that a particular prisoner’s rights have been offended.

I made comment last night, when we were talking about Part 1, about the seriousness of what the Government is doing in constitutional terms. It is, of course, worse than that, because both the paper this morning and the Associate Minister of Justice last night indicated that whatever the Court of Appeal decides will be captured in this legislation.

We heard the most amazing comment last night from a party that is supporting this legislation. That was when the Green MP Mr Locke rose to his feet and said these memorable words: “This is a bad bill, but the Greens are going to support it.” How unprincipled is that? “This is a bad bill, but the Greens are going to support it.”

He is in good company in thinking that this is a bad bill. The National Party, on whose behalf I am speaking at the moment, and United Future, New Zealand First, and ACT similarly judge that it is a bad bill, and we are voting against it.

But even within the Labour camp all is not well. I was looking at a newspaper report of 10 February. Probably, if there is a competent lawyer on the Labour benches, it is Russell Fairbrother. Currently, he is tasked to be the private secretary—without pay and without position—to the Attorney-General. His task is to support Government policy. His task in a select committee context is to support Government policy, but could he? No, he could not. He made clear his concerns to the media, and they were reported in this way: “Government MP Russell Fairbrother has labelled his Justice Minister’s prisoner compensation bill a ‘lottery’ for victims and suggested principles, not emotion, were needed ‘to guide us through this mess’.” Then he made another comment. I am a member of the select committee; I heard these comments. He said: “ ‘What worries me about this bill is that it makes a lottery, so that some people who deserve it get compensated and others who deserve it don’t.’ ”

I would like to explain to members of the House, and to those who may be listening, why National opposes this bill. This bill is all about giving prisoners who are in a harsh regime substantial compensation payments. It is about giving them money for hurt feelings. It is about giving them money in circumstances where their liberty was taken away because they had been misbehaving in prison.

The Government’s plan is to compensate them, and we have heard some very specious reasons advanced by the Minister as to why, as a matter of international law, New Zealand should do that. Well, the Minister is wrong, and he has been wrongly advised. New Zealand is completely performing its international obligations at present. We are a party to two relevant conventions that we have signed and ratified; we are a party to two international treaties, and we have made it clear in both those treaties that there will be the rare class of case where, on an ex gratia basis, if a prisoner’s rights have been grossly abused, compensation will be forthcoming. The law calls those payments ex gratia payments. They do not arise as a result of the pursuit of legal remedies. Instead, they are payments made in the context of our international obligations. So if one looks, for example, at the New Zealand reservation to article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, one sees that we accept that there is a very limited class of case where such payments should be made. But the Government will go much further than that; it will set up a statutory framework for prisoners to sue, and, potentially, receive massive amounts of money.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): It was refreshing to hear the Hon Rick Barker speak some while ago. [Interruption] Well, it was for one reason. He held truth in the same regard as one would hold a duck during duck-shooting season. One would not buy it any insurance whatsoever. He was a bit disingenuous when he talked about how all the moneys were earmarked for victims and everybody else who came second and third, because clause 17 clearly contradicts that. Clause 17 talks about the secretary deducting money for legal aid, reparation, and earlier orders and then paying the surplus into an account. Clause 17(1)(a) states: “first, pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any relevant charge—”—then it lists three—“(i) in favour of the Legal Services Agency; and (ii) on proceeds of proceedings relating to the specified claim, and to which a grant of legal aid relates; and (iii) arising by operation of section 32 of the Legal Services Act 2000; ”. Then the clause moves on to the second category. Subclause (1) states: “(b) secondly, pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any amounts of reparation …; and (c) thirdly, pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any amounts owed by the accused or the offender under any relevant order made under section 43 …; and (d) fourthly, pay any surplus remaining into the account.”

This is a sinister attempt at the Government being able to recoup some of the money that has been allocated on the premise of human rights for these offenders. The victims actually come off second best. It is a way of putting the Government’s grubby fingers all over the compensation that it is forced to pay out by the courts, ahead of the interests of victims everywhere. It is a perversity, it is utterly wrong, and it is incomprehensible that any Government—or the Greens for that matter, who pretend to put the interests of victims first—can support a bill that does exactly the opposite.

Another interesting fall-out from the bill, as one sees if one reads through it, are two things that I think are perverse. The first is that prisoners will be able to bargain their proceedings for privileges. One can imagine a situation whereby a bunch of prisoners who state that they have claims for one thing and another, will then be able to bargain that off within the prison system in order to gain privileges so that they do not pursue the claims. The reason the Department of Corrections might accept that is that, first, it does not want the embarrassment, and, second, it does not want the additional costs of the legal proceedings in pursuit of it. So there is a very real danger that we will end up with prisoners being able to bargain away their proceedings for personal privileges within the prison system.

The second perversity, and it is the one that really bothers me, is that victims will be rewarded or not rewarded depending on whether their offenders pursue a legal claim. The bill will actually set up two categories of victims: those whose offenders are liable for a compensation claim, and those whose offenders are not. The interesting thing is that we heard testimony after testimony through the select committee process that victims do not actually want the money. They do not want to have anything to do with their offender. They want to heal and get on with their lives, but they cannot rest or heal their lives knowing that their offender is able to access any compensation at all. So they are forced by necessity into an arrangement to try to get it off them. That is an utter perversity, because in pursuit of the so-called human rights of these offenders we are, necessarily, undermining the human rights of the victims they offended against—and those offenders, because of their actions, chose to go to prison in the first place. It is an utter perversity, but that is what this legislation will do.

This bill will set up victim against victim. Even if another agency is authorised to go after the compensation, such as Victim Support or the Sensible Sentencing Trust, they will still have to partake of the process and be part of it. Obviously, they will be watching it. They will not sit back and just pretend that it never happened. Unfortunately, they will be dragged into it, and it will halt the whole process of healing on behalf of victims. I do not know how many members have spent much time with those victims who have to go to parole hearings time and time again to ensure that their offender stays in prison. It breaks them up. It rips those victims apart because they have to relive the crime all over again. This legislation will do the same thing.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): This part of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill is the heart of the bill. In simple summary, for the benefit of those who are listening to this debate, it states that prisoners must exhaust all the internal remedies before they can go to court and bring claims based on human rights law or tort law. It states that if prisoners do get an award, it must be held for claims by victims. The bill takes a lot of pages to state that. I think this Parliament should go for a practical test: what does this legislation save? What will it do for this country, for prisoners, for discipline in prisons, and for victims?

I have gone back to the judgment that prompted this legislation: the judgment of Justice Young in the case of Christopher Taunoa and others, as a result of which more than $200,000 has been awarded to Taunoa and his mates. That judgment, which is only the first of the judgments, is 136 pages long. It is 136 pages of a judge, at great distance, reviewing the case and expressing a view on how prison officers should have dealt with some of New Zealand’s worst prisoners. The judgment is fair-minded and even-handed, or it tries to be even-handed. But on a typical page the judge goes through a complaint by Christopher Taunoa that he was unreasonably restrained—the technical term is “confined and restrained”—after he had shouted at prison officers, rung the bell for prison officers, and gesticulated. The judge, having heard all the seemingly endless evidence, concluded that it would have been better to leave Mr Taunoa in his cell. That is an example of exactly what this bill should be making irrelevant.

This bill should simply state that people can bring proceedings—prosecute or foster prosecution—and that there should be a complaints system to prosecute prison officers who have broken the law. This bill should not have Her Majesty’s judges, at great length, second-guessing about prisoners who have suffered no injury that we can read about—prisoners whose litany of complaints included the lights being left on for too long or being too bright, there being too much noise, the windows being open or not open at various times, and there being a lack of respect for their dignity, and who then tried to categorise that as torture. The Government needed to make a simple response. It should have been “Stuff off.” The victims of prisoners have had their remedies eliminated under New Zealand law by the accident compensation scheme. Mr Taunoa and his mates qualify for accident compensation coverage, and they are therefore in the same position as their victims in relation to the alleged abuse. We should leave it at that.

Instead, in this bill we have pages of cynical pretence. The bill would be perfectly unobjectionable as it stands, if it were not being held up as the solution for victims, who will continue to see monetary payouts to those who have hurt them, when the victims themselves will not qualify for compensation for far worse hurt. The Government can do nothing to hide that. All it can do is to rush this bill through and hope the issue goes away, because the bill does absolutely nothing for victims. It does not respond at all to the victims who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee and said they were not looking for money, but were simply looking to make sure that punishment was punishment. The Sensible Sentencing Trust has essentially done more for victims than this Government, with all the resources it can command, has done in 6 years. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is living off the generosity of a very fine farmer and his wife who decided that something needed to be done, and who put their own time and money into it. The money from one of those prisoner claims cases would keep the Sensible Sentencing Trust going for a year.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): The speech made by the Hon Rick Barker was probably the most pathetic PC nonsense I have heard in a long time. His message is that the rights of prisoners are more important than the rights of victims. If that Minister had got out of his office more often and come down to the Justice and Electoral Committee and listened to the parents of some of the victims of those lowlifes, he could not possibly hold the opinions he holds now. He typifies why there will be a change of Government when we go to the polls on 30 July this year.

A mother of one of the victims, who lost her daughter to one of those lowlifes, came to the select committee. She said that a gentleman—although I cannot use that term; a prisoner—by the name of Sam Te Hei had beaten her daughter so severely and so badly that she, her own mother, could not recognise her. If the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, had been at that select committee, I daresay that he, like everybody else there, would have had a tear in his eye, because—

Peter Brown: Like John Key.

BRIAN CONNELL: Well, anyone in that select committee, I believe, would have had a tear in his or her eye. The mother said that she could not recognise her own daughter, because she was beaten that severely. I say to Mr Barker that her daughter’s “crime” was that she would not have sex with Te Hei, a stranger, when she was walking by. Mr Barker now proposes that Te Hei get compensation.

Judith Collins: It’s a disgrace!

BRIAN CONNELL: It is a disgrace. That is what the Minister is proposing. Following that mother into the select committee was the mother of the Sanson hotelier, in the North Island, who had his throat slit from ear to ear by one of the thugs that the Government now wants to give compensation to, as well.

Lindsay Tisch: That’s disgraceful.

BRIAN CONNELL: It is disgraceful, but what is worse is that when the act was perpetrated, that thug then tried to blame the victim’s son. The Minister is saying that that family, having been dealt those savage blows, can then go to court and sue that prisoner for the money, should he get it.

Are people going to get money out of prisoners? Yeah, right! Are they going to get money out of those thugs? Yeah, right! Does the Government have any regard for the law? Does it have any regard for the human rights of victims? Absolutely not. The only regard for human rights it has now is for those of prisoners. It is suckers like the Hon Rick Barker and his cohorts, and the Green Party, which says that this is bad law, who have come to the House and said that it is bad law but that they will vote for it anyway.

We in the Opposition parties are not unreasonable people.

Lindsay Tisch: Soon to be Government though!

BRIAN CONNELL: We are soon to be Government, because we are seen as reasonable people. If prisoners do not have their rights or sentences adhered to in a fair and just way, then, sure, there is a problem. But we should fix the problem, rather than give compensation to prisoners. We should fix the problem. We should go and talk to the prison authorities and make sure that they conduct themselves in a way that is appropriate. We should deal to those prison authorities and take them before the courts, if that is the case.

But to stand up, as the Minister is now doing, and say that prisoners have more rights than the victims against whom they perpetrated the most unthinkable acts is absolute nonsense. The Minister should not look me in the eye; he should hang his head in shame. He is a disgrace to the House, and the people across the country who are listening to this know that he and his cohorts will get turfed out on their ear, because they have had a gutsful of this type of PC nonsense.

It gets worse. I will come back to what we are being told about victims.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Is the Minister’s microphone on? If it is, he has been interjecting all the way through without regard to the convention that he not do so, because he is in the chair and the microphone is on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I take the point.

RON MARK (NZ First): In speaking on behalf of New Zealand First on Part 2, I ask first why this bill is before us. It is here because the public have become disgusted with the payouts that have been given to various inmates since Labour has been in Government. I will give an example, not in the words of New Zealand First but in the words of a newspaper article. It says: “A notorious Mongrel Mob member who once stabbed a police officer with a screwdriver,”—Mr Barker, although he is a former union representative who I do not think has worked with his hands for many, many years, might know what a screwdriver is; it is a tool, and a very blunt tool at that—“leaving him partly paralysed, has been convicted of assaulting another two officers.” This man, Mr Gillies, who left a police officer paralysed, subsequently received a $40,000 payout as a result of a deal done by this Government with him and with a bunch of other inmates like him, who supposedly were mistreated and had their “feelings hurt”. Well, I ask members to imagine the feelings of the wife of that police officer. I ask them to imagine the feelings of the partners and spouses of those prison officers, and to imagine the feelings of Mr Gillies’ own children, from whom he stole between $60,000 and $80,000 after his release from prison and after he had received $40,000 in compensatory payment from this Government.

Let us just think about that. That is taxpayers’ money. This man, who stabbed a policeman with a screwdriver, and who got $40,000 of taxpayers’ money for having his “feelings hurt” when he was insulted by a prison officer, within months of his release from jail had stolen from his children, out of their education fund—[Interruption] He stole $60,000 to $80,000, and Jill Pettis thinks that that is a joke. Jill Pettis is the woman who has been reported around the country as having said that she would not contemplate a coalition with New Zealand First, because its members are so unsophisticated. Jill Pettis, the woman who strips the varnish off the walls behind me when she speaks, dares to consider Winston Peters and New Zealand First MPs unsophisticated. It is no wonder she has some feeling deep down inside for men who would steal money from their children.

Jill Pettis: When was I reported?

RON MARK: The member should not worry; it is all around the place. Why do we have inmates claiming money for abuse within our prisons? I hold in my hand right now a document, almost an inch thick, entitled: Report for the State Services Commissioner into the Department of Corrections Canterbury Emergency Response Unit (CERU). We waited for this document for 4 years. For 3 years New Zealand First asked for an inquiry into what was going on in prisons, and for 3 years this Government refused an inquiry. Then, when it became too embarrassing, the Government finally conceded, and 1 year later we have this report. What does it say? It says that abuses in our prisons have been going on for years, sanctioned by senior management at the highest level, under this Government.

Why do we have prisoners claiming compensation? That happens when a lazy Minister who thinks he knows everything and a Government that thinks it knows everything refuse to believe or accept the criticisms and observations coming from New Zealand First, the National Party, the Greens, and United Future. They refuse to listen, and the abuses go on. Is it any wonder that inmates are lodging claims and bringing charges? There are a couple of easy solutions to the problem, but they do not lie in Part 2 of this bill. They lie, firstly, in the next election. People need to vote against Labour in every way. They need to get Labour out. Secondly, we need a system in which our Department of Corrections is run by good people who respect the law.

NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui): I move, That the question be now put.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I want to put it absolutely on the record that the National Party and the other members of the Opposition—and even United Future, which is not in Opposition because it supports this Government—do not support brutish behaviour within prisons. We do not support the abuse of prisoners by people in positions of responsibility and power in prisons. But we do not support the nonsense the Minister has talked today and last night—that we cannot do anything about it because the Court of Appeal said so, and that we cannot do anything about it because there is an international convention. Well, what about the international convention that says that a woman should be able to walk in the streets of this country without being raped? And what about the international convention that says that victims have rights too, so that they can in fact become survivors? What about those conventions? What about a convention for human dignity and a bit of decency? What about a convention that says people cannot abuse their positions of power against little children? What about a convention that says people cannot abuse their positions of power against people who are in their charge? How about that?

In this country at the moment we have a prison service that is in dire need of reform. In this country we had a model prison. It was run in Auckland and it was a private prison. We had that operating, and it was a model prison. What did we get from this Government? It said we could not have the private prison because the idea was not ideologically pure. Where is all the abuse coming from? Did it come from the private prison? No, it did not. Where did it come from? It came from the Government-run prison—this core service that had to be run by the New Zealand Public Service Association, the trade unionists. That is what we had to have, and it came from them.

When we look back at the abuse that has been carried out in this country by big organisations against little people—such as the abuse at Lake Alice Hospital—and ask where that abuse came from, we see that it came from Government-run institutions. When there has been abuse in schools, where has it come from? It has come from Government-run schools. Big Government breeds big abuse against little people. [Interruption] I say to Mr Mark that I will not get into the tennis ball thing. We know that no abuse like that by people in power against children and prisoners is acceptable. That does not, however, mean that those people should get money. If there is any money, it belongs to the taxpayer. The very victims who pay their taxes are now paying for those thugs because the thugs have hurt feelings. That is not right. If there is to be any payment, it should go into a victims fund. It should go to the victims so that they become survivors. That is where it should be.

Marc Alexander made a very good point this morning. He said that the victims, the survivors, do not actually want money. They want to get on with their lives. They want their dignity restored. They will not get it restored while knowing that the killers and abusers of their children are out there getting paid for it. Do we think that the prisoners who abuse people, abuse the system, and then are themselves abused by abusers, care what happens to their victims?

Lindsay Tisch: No way.

JUDITH COLLINS: No, they do not. If they did, they would reform. We know that they are recidivists. Time and time again the same people are committing the same or worse crimes, and this Government sits by and says that no matter what, it cannot do anything because it might hurt someone’s feelings. I suggest that Government members get out there, talk to victims and survivors in this country, and tell them that they care more about them than maybe they thought. This Government does not have the courage to do that.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State): I move, That the question be now put.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This part is the meat of the bill. There is an awful lot in the part that needs to be discussed, and I would hope that the Chair recognises that the debate needs to carry on in order to appreciate the full depth and complexity of this portion of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I ask the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, to explain the thinking behind the time limit that this bill is now to have. Supplementary Order Paper 374 will have the practical effect of making the bill expire in a couple of years’ time. That needs explanation, because if the bill is a good idea, we need to know why it will suddenly cease to be a good idea in 2 years’ time. If it is a good idea for only 2 years, we need to know what will change in 2 years’ time. If it has a time limit because it is not really a good idea and the Government wants time to get a better idea, we ought to get some explanation from the Minister of just what would be better, and just what we as a Committee should be looking out for that ought to be improved.

If, in fact, the bill will expire because the Government expects the current proceedings before the Court of Appeal to make it irrelevant, we ought to know that. It is very curious that the position the Government seems to be arguing in the Court of Appeal is so different from the position being advanced by the Minister in here. The Minister is saying that we must have rights of financial compensation for prisoners in order to suck up to all those thugs and tyrants in the United Nations. Meanwhile, the Government’s own lawyers are telling the Court of Appeal that it does not need to award compensation, and that this is not a matter where Baigent’s case should have been applied. Which is it, and what is the reason for putting a time limit on this procedure? Why is the Government doing this, in fact, without explanation? The Supplementary Order Paper does not explain why this particular structure will expire in 2 years’ time.

There is another reason that the Minister should explain it. The Budget says that the Government will spend $534,000 on setting up the tribunal that will look after these cases, and $379,000 on it for each of the 3 years after that. Does that mean the Government actually expects it to continue—that when it expires the Government will simply renew it? The Government has provided in the Budget for it to continue 3 years after this year; in other words, it has provided for 4 years of expenditure on this tribunal. I would like to know, because I think the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which is struggling to stay alive, and which has done more to restore pride to victims, in the sense that they can be masters of their fate, than anything the Government has done, would love to have just a tiny fraction of the amount that is going to be wasted on a tribunal that probably will see two or three cases a year. That sum of $500,000 is more than the Government has paid out in compensation! Are we going to spend $500,000 to supervise the distribution of $200,000? Why not just give it to the victims straight off and say: “We’ll match whatever is given to the thugs; we’ll match whatever is given to the criminals.”? How can a Minister who has concern for taxpayers and public money be wanting to spend $534,000, and $379,000 a year thereafter, on a new tribunal to administer payouts to prisoners that in the past have never exceeded $300,000 in a year? Has anyone asked why we are doing this?

Why is there a time limit? If it is a genuine time limit, why are we providing in the Budget for the tribunal to carry on after the time it expires? The Greens say they will vote for this time limit. I hope that a Green member in the House will take a call to explain why they want to vote for a time limit. One would have thought that, with their sanctimonious principles, they would think either it is a good idea and they will vote for it for good, or it is a bad idea and they will not vote for it. But they seem to think that something bad is OK if it lasts for only 2 years.

What is this measure achieving in those 2 years? Why is the Court of Appeal being told that compensation should not be paid, while the Government, in the House, is turning its other face to the members of this House—and, of course, to the United Nations, which it hopes will one day employ the Prime Minister, when she has passed her use-by date—and saying: “Of course we’ll hand out money to criminals, because that is what the likes of Mr Mugabe tell us should happen.” The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations is a joke. When the officials came before the select committee, it was an absolute—and I cannot remember the phrase that describes something that is the exact opposite.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 11 and substitute new clause 11 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 11 be agreed to:

to omit this clause, and substitute the following clause:

11 Court or tribunal must not accept specified claims for filing during restricted period

No court or tribunal may accept a specified claim for filing during the restricted period.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 11 be agreed to:

to omit the words “To help”, and insert the words “To facilitate”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (a).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (c).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The next amendment is in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 11. It is a typescript amendment to omit paragraph (c). It is out of order, as it is the same as the previous amendment.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (d).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to:

to add the following new paragraph:

(e) does allow for prisoners to receive some, if not all, of any compensation payable to them.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 12 be agreed to:

to omit this clause, and substitute the following clause:

12 No compensation to be awarded

No court or tribunal may, in proceedings commenced, and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal, before the commencement of this Act, award any compensation sought by a specified claim.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 13 and substitute new clause 13 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During that vote the senior Labour whip actually voted “two” before the party she was casting the vote for was called. She said “two opposed”, but we do not know what party she was voting for, because the Clerk did not ask what party it was.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We can ask for clarification on that matter.

Jill Pettis: The two votes were for the Progressives.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would have thought that the Clerk would ask each party the way it wished to vote, which is the normal practice, and we have followed that for some time. For the senior Labour whip then to call out “two” when we do not know what party she was voting for is out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that in terms of voting they cannot anticipate what will be said by the Clerk. I ask them to reflect on that, because it will help the progress of the business through the Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 13 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) all the words after the words “by a specified claim”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 13 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) the words “unless satisfied that—”, and paragraphs (a) and (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13(1) be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (a) the word “reasonable”, and substitute the words “full and exhaustive”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) all the words after the word “means”, and substitute the words “use that is full and exhaustive”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 14 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to omit clause 14 is out of order, because it is the same as an earlier amendment that was defeated.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) all the words after “or tribunal”, and substitute the words “must not award any compensation payout to any plaintiff”.

A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance. Is it not the common practice that when you ask for those in favour and those against, the members stating the votes actually desist from making comments until such time as you call for the votes to be heard? The chief Labour whip has been flapping her jaw at the wrong moment. I ask for your guidance. That practice is incredibly irritating and distracts from the process of the vote. It holds things up, and that is unacceptable in terms of the process in the Committee.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): Sometimes in this place you win, and sometimes you lose. The way that we have been responding to votes today has been the same way it has been done since MMP was introduced. There is nothing different happening today that does not happen any other day that we are taking votes in the Committee stage. You do not need to get personal, Mr Alexander.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I do not want to accuse the member over there of misleading the Committee, but I have to say that her performance today lacks the necessary decorum, and it has not been as bad as that in the past. A little bit of decorum would not go amiss, and a little bit of respect for other people casting their votes would be appreciated.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am just about ready to rule, but I will hear the member.

MARC ALEXANDER: I do believe that the whip of the Labour Party actually brought you into disrepute and into the debate by using the word “you”, with a clear reference to me.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to members that there is such a thing as common courtesy. Members might like to look at Speakers’ rulings 61/2 and also 61/5, which actually mention that no other comment at all is allowed while the vote is being taken. I think it would be orderly to work along the lines of previous Speakers’ rulings, being those of Speaker Kidd and Speaker Hunt. If members would wait until they are called, it would help facilitate the business of the Committee.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have ruled on this, Mr Tisch.

LINDSAY TISCH: I think this is a serious matter. Mr Alexander has brought up the issue, and I reiterate the point we made before about the senior Government whip. She was pre-empting what the party votes would be, and you have ruled on that. There is actually nothing different from what has now been happening, where the senior Government whip has been pre-empting what the Clerk might call out when we are going for the votes. I find that unacceptable, and I think that the ruling you made earlier, that the whip cannot pre-empt what the Clerk may be calling out, is the proper course of action to follow. If that was your ruling, then we can move to a process of decorum in this Chamber, which has been lacking this morning since we started at 9 o’clock.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Tisch. The matter has already been dealt with. The situation is that I had put the question on the amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 to omit and substitute words in subclause (1).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(1) be agreed to:

to omit paragraphs (a) and (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 be agreed to:

to insert the following new subclause:

(1A) Notwithstanding any other matters detailed in section 14(2), the rights and views of victims must be paramount.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is an amendment to clause 14 in the name of Marc Alexander. It is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment affecting subclause (2)(b).

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (c).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (d).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraphs (d), (e), and (g).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (e).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We also have an amendment to clause 14 in the name of the honourable Marc Alexander to omit paragraph (e) from subclause (2). However, it is out of order, because it is exactly the same as the previous amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14(2) be agreed to:

to add the following paragraph:

(h) the clear view that the public abhors payouts to prisoners.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following typescript amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (3).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following typescript amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 15 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to the heading to clause 16 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16(1) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (a), and substitute the following paragraph:

(a) in satisfaction of an assumed right of the compensation by either victim or authorised agent of the victim.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16(1) be agreed to:

to omit paragraphs (a) and (b), and add to subclause (1) the words “as an out-of-court final settlement of a specified claim.”

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraphs (a) and (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 16 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (3) the words “provided that any monies paid or received in terms of this subsection must also be paid into the victims’ claims trust bank account.”

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (5) the following paragraph:

(b) And includes a repayment for the costs incurred to the state of all legal fees, costs of incarceration and any additional expenditures as a result of the criminal conviction.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 16 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (6).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(1) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (d).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.

Noes 69

New Zealand Labour 51; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(3) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (a).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(3) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(3) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (c).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8.

Noes 69

New Zealand Labour 51; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 18(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 18(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraphs (a) and (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 18 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (2), and substitute the following subclause:

(2) No sum may be paid to the accused or the offender.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 18 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (3).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 18(4) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 18 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (4) the words “the accused or the offender”, and substitute the words “the victim”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): A further amendment in the name of the honourable Dail Jones to clause 18(5) is now out of order, because his amendment to subclause (4) has been defeated; therefore it is inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. Further amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of the honourable Marc Alexander to clauses 18, 19, 24, 30(1)(b), 48, 49, 50, and 73, concerning victim support, also are now out of order, because they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 19(1) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (c), and substitute the following new paragraph:

(c) give in the notice general information about how victims, authorised agents of victims, and/or Victim Support in the absence of the victim or authorised agent of the victim.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 19(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (a).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 19(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 20(1) be agreed to:

to add to paragraph (a) the following new subparagraph:

(iii) Victim Support; and”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 20 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (4), the following new paragraph:

(d) Victim Support.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b), and substitute the following new subparagraph:

(i) the close of the day that is 7 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b), and substitute the following new subparagraph:

(i) the close of the day that is 8 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b), and substitute the following new subparagraph:

(i) the close of the day that is 9 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b), and substitute the following new subparagraph:

(i) the close of the day that is 12 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b), and substitute the following new subparagraph:

(i) the close of the day that is 16 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b), and substitute the following new subparagraph:

(i) the close of the day that is 18 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b), and substitute the following new subparagraph:

(i) the close of the day that is 24 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There are a number of amendments in the name of the honourable member Marc Alexander to clause 26. They are out of order, but I will go through them one by one. The first, to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a), 7 months, is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. The next, to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a), 8 months, is out of order because it is inconsistent with the decision on a clause 21 amendment. The amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause 3(a), 9 months, is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. An amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a), 12 months, is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. An amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a), 16 months, is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. An amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of subclause (3)(a), 18 months, is out of order because it is inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment. An amendment to omit and substitute paragraph (i) of (3)(a), 24 months, is out of order because it is also inconsistent with a decision on a clause 21 amendment.

The third amendment to clause 30 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander is to omit words from subclause (2). The first and second amendments to that clause on the Supplementary Order Paper have been ruled out of order. The subclause was numbered (1) in error; it should be subclause (2).

The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 30 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) the words “withheld from the accused or the offender and”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 44 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (4).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 45(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The additional amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 45(3) is ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision.

The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 46 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) the words “to the offender”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The two additional amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 46 are ruled out of order, because they are inconsistent with the previous decision.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 48 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (1), and substitute the following new subclause:

(1) The Secretary must not pay to the offender any amount of money that continues to be held in the account for the offender but surrendered to the victim, a recognised authority acting for the victim, or Victim Support.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit subpart 2 of Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 50(3) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (c), and substitute the following paragraph:

(c) must pay into the account for the benefit of the relevant victim claimants any interest payable by it on the account and that is not retained under paragraph (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 52 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The amendment in the name of Dail Jones to omit clause 52 is ruled out of order, because it is the same as the previous amendment.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 52(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (b), and substitute the following paragraph:

(b) must be transferred to Victim Support.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit subpart 3 of Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to insert new clause 15A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to:

to omit proposed new clause 15A.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to the amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to:

to omit from proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “1 July 2007”, and substitute the words “1 July 2006”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to the amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to:

to omit from proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “1 July 2007”, and substitute the words “2 July 2007”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to the amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to:

to omit from proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “1 July 2007”, and substitute the words “3 July 2007”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 16(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to:

to omit from proposed paragraph (ab), subparagraph (i).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 16(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to:

to omit from proposed paragraph (ab), subparagraph (ii).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 16(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to:

to omit from proposed paragraph (ab), subparagraph (iii).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 58

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to other Acts

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw it to your attention that the voting on Part 2 took well over an hour. I know that you were not in the Chair for most of the debate on that part, but the debate itself took about an hour and 20 minutes, and we took an hour and 10 minutes, I think, for the voting on it. People are listening to this debate. It is about a contentious issue that is of much concern to New Zealanders, and they are not getting a fair go here. Marc Alexander and United Future have had a real road to Damascus experience with regard to this bill. I think Marc Alexander took two calls, but he explained very little about the amendments in his name we are going through. There is a huge number of them. We are entitled to hear his explanation of them, and so is the public. So I ask you, Mr Chairman, to be a little more liberal on Part 3, so that we can all have a fair go. I was denied the opportunity to take a call on the previous part, and I make the point again that this is a contentious issue. The people out there who are listening to this debate want to know where we stand, and why we are doing what we are doing.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. As I am in the Chair at the moment, I will take his arguments into consideration when the calls are given.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Before we start to discuss this important part in depth, I wonder whether the Minister would look at clause 62(1), which states: “Section 4(1) of the Legal Services Act 2000 is amended by omitting from the definition of transition date the expression ‘2001.’, and substituting the expression ‘2001’.” It seems to me rather ridiculous that the expression “2001.” should be taken out, only for the same expression to be then substituted. The Minister may take a moment or two to look at that, and then come back to us with an answer. I can tell him exactly where to find it. It is on page 54, in subclause (1) of clause 62, “Interpretation”.

This part reinforces, absolutely, the relationship that the victim of a serious crime will have to maintain with the perpetrator of that crime for the rest of his or her life. Let us be clear about that. Given that a violent crime is committed in this country every 9 minutes—that number has increased by about 15 percent under the rule of the Labour Government—and that Parliament today, in this bill, is not worried about the victims but about the perpetrators of those crimes—

Brian Connell: The Government is.

GERRY BROWNLEE: My colleague is right; the Government is worried about the perpetrators of crime. The National Party does not have much time for them, at all. Here we have a bill about the best interests of the perpetrators of violent acts, and now we are able to see, in clause 73, that the relationship between the victims and perpetrators of crime is to be formalised, and that that link will be there for the rest of their natural days. That has to be a clear indication to the public of this country of how out of touch with them the current Government is, in the way it thinks about things.

As a consequence of this part, a change will be made to the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. Victims will now have to supply their information to the secretary—and the Minister may like to tell us who the secretary is—who will put details of their names, addresses, and other contacts on a file alongside the names of the police commissioner, the perpetrator of the crime, and a number of other State officials. That information will sit on the file, just in case a violent criminal finds his or her human rights offended against whilst in prison. So the victims of crime, who are out there fending for themselves, without even getting a fair shake out of the Accident Compensation Corporation most of the time, and with no other Government agency out there to hold their hands or show deep concern for them, have to have their names on the files next to those of offenders, just in case offenders’ human rights are violated while they are in prison.

If that happens and the prisoner goes to court and gets an award, the money is paid into an account and the victim is notified. Then the victim can make a claim on that money.

Brian Connell: Yeah, right!

GERRY BROWNLEE: Exactly! What sort of Tui’s advertisement would that make? So the victim is to be notified that the prisoner—who has ruined the victim’s life, in many cases—has been awarded a sum by the State for hurt feelings or another transgression of that person’s human rights, and that if the victim wants to have a slice of that sum, he or she can make an application. The Labour Government, very generously in this bill, states there will be no filing fees involved in that application. But we know there will be costs, because the victim will have to make a case to get a slice of the money.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): We are debating Part 3, which amends the Human Rights Act 1993. I have not had a chance to discuss the part with my colleagues, so I apologise to them, but I picked up some informal legal advice, and I hope the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, will clarify whether I am right or wrong in this respect. I have been told informally that this legislation is one step away from allowing prisoners to sue for accident compensation. We are allowing them to sue for claims against prison officers and the Department of Corrections under the human rights legislation. We have denied them, and all New Zealanders, the ability to sue under accident compensation legislation and we have denied prisoners the right to be awarded compensation under that legislation. I am suggesting to the Committee, as has been suggested to me, that this bill is but a fraction of a step away from allowing prisoners to sue for lump-sum compensation in the event that they get injured by some “accident” in prison.

The Minister in the chair is shaking his head, but I suggest he give this some serious thought, because huge pressure will be put on prison officers as a result of the bill. There will be a blurring of the line between a genuine accident and what one might call an abuse by a prison officer. The line will be deliberately blurred. I would not want to be a prison officer, and I would not advise any of my friends or family members to be prison officers once this legislation comes in. Prison officers are being treated like second-best citizens. They will be prisoners in their own jails—maybe not physically but certainly mentally. Prison officers look after the roughest, toughest thugs we have in this country, and they will be set up every hour of every day of every week in order to have a claim taken against them, and this Minister and this Government will award those prisoners thousands of dollars of compensation. We know that some of it will be stopped and victims will get the right to argue over the claim, but we also know that there will be cases where these thugs will become relatively wealthy people, and they will leave jail with a lot of money.

In the House yesterday Keith Locke said that money is no good to a prisoner in jail. Yeah, right! I tell him that if these thugs get $40,000 or $70,000, or whatever the Government will allow them to get, they will use that money with evil intent. My colleague Dail Jones put forward a very, very good Supplementary Order Paper. It would have stopped money from going to the prisoners, in total—no ifs, no buts, no maybes. It recognised their ability to take legal action but it said that no money will go to a prisoner. That is the way most New Zealanders want it. Indeed, they want it tougher. Dail Jones’ amendment was a very good midway position. It recognised the human rights of prisoners and their ability to take legal recourse, but it said they will not gain from it. It removed the incentive for prisoners to take a claim against the Department of Corrections.

We have here a protocol between the Department of Corrections and the Office of the Ombudsmen, yet the Minister stood up here earlier today and said we need a review and we need a prison inspectorate. Let us look at the responsibilities of the Office of the Ombudsmen under this protocol. The Minister in the chair is looking as if he has never heard of this. It was signed up to by the Labour Government in 2003, and it gives the department some rights. It states that the Department of Corrections is responsible for the administration of prisons under the Penal Institutions Act 1954. Under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, an ombudsman can investigate decisions made by prison management that a complainant thinks are unlawful, unreasonable, or wrong. An ombudsman can also initiate own-motion investigations. That protocol was updated, upgraded—call it what you will—in 2003. The Minister says the Labour Government is not mollycoddling prisoners. Well, I do not know what it would do if it were mollycoddling prisoners. It would give prisoners every right it could think of. It is giving such rights to people like Gillies, whom my colleague referred to earlier, who virtually paralysed a law-abiding police officer who, like all police, goes out into the dark of night, looking after the public’s interests. Gillies virtually paralysed that police officer with a screwdriver, yet he got 40 grand because his feelings were hurt while he was in prison.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I want to refer briefly to some comments made by the previous speaker. The Greens are supporting the Government on this legislation. The Greens are trying to make themselves relevant just before the election, because they have been totally irrelevant for the last 3 years. It is a waste of their time, because they will be leaving Parliament. National certainly would not be dealing with the Greens.

Talking about relevance, it is totally irrelevant and obscene that under urgency, just weeks before an election, this Government should bring into the House this bill, which is weighted totally in favour of some of the worst criminals in our jails. As I said earlier, if the women on the other side of the House are happy that victims are only second class in this bill, when many victims of violent crime, as we know, are women, then good luck to them. But that is exactly why this Labour Government is on its way out of power. National will be sitting on that side after the election, and, of course, the Greens will be nowhere. New Zealanders are sick of this softly, softly approach to criminals.

If we look though this bill, we see that Part 3 also sets in concrete the fact that this bill is totally weighted in favour of offenders—including, of course, some of our worst offenders. On the other hand, if one is a victim one may or may not think it is worth going through this awful, awful process to try to get some recompense for the hurt and the suffering that one has endured at the hands of some of our worst criminals.

My colleague Gerry Brownlee made reference to clause 73, which inserts new section 33A. That new section basically sets out that information about victims is to be held somewhere in the office of the Secretary for Justice, alongside information about offenders. Why would anybody in his or her right mind have that sort of information sitting there? Although the bill supposedly says that none of that information on victims will ever be put before the offenders, before our worst criminals, how can we trust that sort of assurance from this Government? This Government does not know what is going on in its ministries. What has happened over the last 4 months has shown that very clearly. It has no control over what is happening in some Government agencies, and it will have no control over this issue, either.

The very fact that that provision relating to information on victims is included in this bill shows exactly what the Government thinks about them. If it is right to compensate victims—and National certainly says it is; in fact, we would be on the side of the victims, not on the side of these criminals—we should not have information about the victims sitting alongside information about the offenders, the criminals. Why do that? Why would victims go through the trauma of filing their claims, if the criminals are able to see the claims and comment on them? Why would any victim want to go through that process? Well, that is why this bill is a hoax. No doubt, it raised victims’ expectations throughout the country, but I do not know any victim who would put herself or himself through that trauma.

This Government ought to be ashamed of itself. It will get punished for this bill, just as it will get punished for Dr Cullen’s piddly Budget that tells hard-working New Zealanders they are not worth it. On the other hand, this bill tells the crims that they are worth the Government’s time and effort. Shame on the Government members! And they know it. They are scrambling. Shame on them that one of the last pieces of legislation they are likely to bring in is being dealt with under urgency! They are being assisted by the Greens, who are trying to make themselves relevant. The Greens have been totally irrelevant for 3 years. Nandor Tanczos is no longer regarded as relevant by even his own party.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): One of the things Part 3 does is make some consequential amendments to the Human Rights Act, the Legal Services Act, and so on, but in looking at where we put the emphasis on human rights, I think we need to find a balance. If we look at the victimisation rates in New Zealand, every year there are about 2,300 assaults, 4,600 grievous assaults, 1,000 abductions, 70,000 cases of sexual offences against women not including rape, and 95,000-plus burglaries. If we look at theft, half a billion dollars a year worth of goods walks out of our shops, through retail theft; and if members do not know what half a billion dollars looks like, it is the equivalent of eight city supermarkets having everything they sell in a year stolen. Alongside all of that, the law-abiding are the ones who pay every step of the way. They pay for it through higher prices for the goods they buy, to cover the cost of retail theft from shops.

We pay the police to go after the bad guys. We pay the court system, which is inadequate. In fact, 35,000 cases are waiting to go to court. We pay the corrections system to hold these guys in prison—about $40,000 a year if they are in minimum security and up to $76,000 if they are in maximum security. In terms of compensation, none of the victims of crime, including the people who have to pay for all of this—who themselves are victims of crime in that their pockets have been robbed to pay for this—have any access to compensation at all for what has been done to them. But if a person commits a murder, a rape, or a burglary—something one chooses to do—and goes to prison, and then has hurt feelings because of something done by a guard or somebody else, the prisoner can make a claim for compensation. The person chose to be in prison by the action of committing a certain crime, and then the prison system has to deal with the prisoner one way or another. People like Taunoa have to be put away and segregated to safeguard everyone else, but such people can collect compensation. They can be rewarded for their choice to have a life of crime. How the hell is that fair? How is it fair that the law-abiding and the victims are out of the loop in terms of compensation but those who commit crime are up for it? That is an absolute perversity.

The kind of people we are talking about are Denis Hines, who has 80 convictions, including one for slashing the throat of a rival gang leader when he tried to fire a gun, and of killing another; Gresham Marsh, who already had 60 convictions before killing an elderly couple, and told the police he just wanted to watch them die; Joseph Thompson, who had 129 charges, including 46 for rape, and had 50 victims, the youngest of whom was 10 years old; Jules Mikus, who had 60 offences. Then there is Douglas Ronald Corkhill.. He is aged 76. One would think he would slow down! But no. He faced 34 indecent assault charges on 12 October last year involving 11 boys. Eighty-six percent of those people will come out of prison and return to prison within 5 years. Seventy percent of them who go to prison have 10 or more convictions. And here is the kicker: Brian Alan Bolt, 48 years of age, was convicted on his 636th criminal offence—members heard that right—while on parole, and those people can get compensation.

This Government, with the support—up until today—of the irrelevant Greens, and their only relevance is to put the agenda of offenders ahead of victims, is pushing this law through under urgency. This problem has been around for quite some time. We have had the opportunity to deal with this problem, but the Government has decided not to take it up—against probably, some of the better judgment of most of its own members. United Future offered a moratorium until a decent solution could be found. But no, the Government chose to try to get this out of the public limelight, so it will not be tarnished with it during the process of election. The Government will not escape it. The reason why it will not escape it is that we will not let the public forget.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): We come now to Part 3 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill, and on behalf of National I indicate that throughout the extended debate that is taking place under urgency National has opposed this legislation. We have done that for reasons that we judge to be principled, and for reasons that we think reflect substantial community concern about the Government’s policy to compensate prisoners. Part 3 is one of the wrap-up provisions that one often finds in legislation. It makes amendments to a number of Acts, including the Human Rights Act, the Legal Services Act, the Limitation Act, the Privacy Act, and the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002.

A most bizarre situation has arisen. Not more than 150 metres away from here—and I am now speaking with reference to clause 61, which is the first clause in Part 3—the Government’s lawyers are arguing that there should be no monetary compensation payable. They are arguing that it is not required to be done as a matter of international law, and it is not required to be done as a matter of human rights. Yet here, those lawyers, retained by this Government, are met by a completely contrary argument. It is the argument contained in this bill that prisoners should receive monetary compensation. So 150 metres away from here the Government’s lawyers are saying one thing, and in this debating chamber the Government is saying precisely the opposite of that. To add fuel to the flames in that bizarre setting, we have the Greens supporting this legislation, through one of their members who stood up and said that although this is a bad bill, they will vote in favour of it.

I shall now talk about the Legal Services Act provisions in Part 3. They are all about the provision of legal aid to victims, so that they can mount claims to the bounty that prisoners score in jail as a result of successfully receiving a damages award. What we are all about here, then, is the setting up of a special tribunal that will form judgments on the merit of victims’ claims. We have the situation that compensation, after any legal aid charges and unpaid reparation are deducted, will be held in trust. Steps will then be taken to identify and notify the prisoners’ victims that money is available. They then have a fixed period of 6 months, I understand, to file a claim. There will be, and this is what this part is about, eligibility for legal aid, and normal court fees will be waived. So there is the rub. Legal aid is to be provided for those claimants who, as victims, seek to advance their claims. The claims will be determined by a District Court judge sitting as a victims’ special-claims tribunal, but—here is the but—the plan is that claims will be determined on the papers. It will only be the rarest instance, what are called “exceptional reasons”, that will justify a hearing. So legal aid is given on the one hand and taken away on the other.

The plan is basically that the tribunal will work from findings of fact in the criminal cases that led to the offenders’ conviction. What is wrong with that process is that it will lead to the re-victimisation of victims. I just throw up some of the challenges that will be presented to the person who is tasked to make the compensation apportionment decisions. We may have the case of living victims—say, people who have suffered at the hands of a serial rapist. Let us say that there were five of them. How will the damages be apportioned? Will the damages be awarded to each victim equally?

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I shall take a very brief call, because I cannot tolerate the sanctimony that has been going on around this Committee for much longer without responding for a couple of minutes, at least. When the previous National Government was in power for 9 long years, it let more people out on parole, and it never ever built enough prisons to cope with the number of people who should have been locked up. The difference between the National members and us is—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The honourable member is supposed to be addressing Part 3. Part 3 is concerned with four or five statutory changes. We are nowhere near that issue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. The previous speaker did indeed stick to the part. I know that the current speaker is just leading into it.

JILL PETTIS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I was just doing a bit of rebuttal. Opposition members should not try to appear too holier-than-thou, when their own history is not very long ago. This legislation will provide victims with opportunities for assistance that they have never had before. I remind Opposition members that some people’s memories are a bit longer than theirs, and I say they should be aware of the sanctimony of what they are saying.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): This part is, as has been said, the grab bag, the loose ends, of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill, which we are debating. On behalf of the ACT party I want to draw attention to the statements made by Mr Goff when he promised, yet again, to introduce a bill on this issue. Among the assurances in his press release of 4 October last year was the following statement about the legislation: “Victims will of course be able to bring civil claims for damages not only when the offender receives state compensation but also for any other windfall gains such as inheritances, the proceeds of any book written, or even winning lotto.”

I did not see anything about windfall gains of those kinds in the earlier parts of this bill, so I have looked carefully to see whether, as grab-bag matters, they are somewhere in Part 3. Part 3 does not seem to deal with Lotto winnings, income from books, or windfall gains. It deals with the Human Rights Act, the Legal Services Act, which provides for legal aid, the Limitation Act, the Privacy Act, and the Victims’ Rights Act. But I see nothing there to state that windfall gains will have to be put into trust when prisoners get them, or to facilitate people who have had their reparation claims ignored to get access to those windfall gains. Indeed, the bill is very, very strict about what a specified claim is; that is in a provision in an earlier part. The Government rejected my amendment to help to extend it, so we cannot deal with that.

The grab bag in Part 3 is actually very small. There is another Act that this part does not refer to. I think members will be stunned, given that they have heard all the assurances that the key thing is to make sure the complaints do not arise in the first place—that prisons must be made into places where there is no cause for a compensation claim—to realise that the Corrections Act does not seem to be touched by this bill. The bill is about reacting to the mistreatment of prisoners, yet the Government has not even bothered to do anything in it about the Corrections Act. I have an amendment to this part. In that amendment I reinstate some provisions that this Government left out of the prisons legislation or changed when it passed its new Corrections Act.

I believe the first thing this Government should have done was to ensure the independence of visiting justices. The term “visiting justice” meant just that, until last year. It meant a judge who would go into a prison and be an independent person, armed with all the clout and authority of the judicial office, and give us all an assurance that our prisons were not like Turkish prisons—that people were not being beaten up and brutalised, and were not being made too frightened to report it. I thought that the visiting justices were independent experts who were not beholden to anyone, and who were assured that they would not get sacked or victimised by the Government, because they were judges. Well, the Government has kept the label, but under the Corrections Act a visiting justice is now simply an appointed employee of the Department of Corrections. The label “visiting justice” has been used, but the authority has been stolen—the brand that has been built up by judges in our system over generations. A visiting justice now just has to be a lawyer of 7 years’ practice. He or she can be a full-time departmental employee, who goes around using the label of visiting justice and pretends to be independent.

My amendment would reinstate the requirement for the genuine independence of visiting justices. I think that if the Government really meant what it was saying—if it really wanted to make sure that the causes of the payouts to prisoners would be removed—it would have included provisions to make the disciplinary system more robust. Then we would not have judges deciding to take it on themselves to invent remedies, and to punish the department by ordering that it pay $358,000 in legal fees and $55,000 to one of New Zealand’s worst scumbags, Christopher Taunoa, and thousands of dollars to his mates—over $500,000. If the Government meant what it said, it would not have responded to that situation with cosmetic legislation. And it would feel ashamed to see the Sensible Sentencing Trust—

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): Part 3 is a consequential part. It amends the legal services provisions to ensure that people have access to legal services and it puts caps on them. The second important aspect, and this was raised in part by Stephen Franks, is that it alters the statute of limitations and suspends it so there is a much longer period in which people can make a civil claim.

Brian Connell: Yeah, right!

Hon RICK BARKER: If Mr Connell reads it he will see that it does exactly that. And it does that for a number of reasons. It will strengthen the rights of victims to sue, which will be a very valuable tool in the future. Mr Franks says that in terms of claims the bill does not cover windfall gains that a person might get by virtue of Lotto or writing a book. We do not have to mention that. The statute of limitations is extended, so if a prisoner, at the end of a 20-year sentence, for example, writes a book and gets a substantial amount of money for it, then the way is still open for the victim to sue for compensation as a civil matter. If victims wish to do that, they will be able to do so. Without this amendment they would not be able to sue, because there is a limitation on the time in which to sue. If Mr Connell was on the side of victims, he would support this extension, because it improves their powers. [Interruption] But, as someone on this side of the Chamber has said, he is not quite that bright.

The second thing the bill does is amend the Victims’ Rights Act to ensure that the secretary is able to identify the victims. Gerry Brownlee asked who the secretary was. It is the Secretary for Justice; it is defined in the legislation. The hard-working deputy leader of the National Party has spotted that in clause 62 we are deleting “2001” and substituting “2001”. On the surface that seemed a very good argument that the amendment was foolish, but in fact the amendment is very pertinent. That member has missed a full stop. We are taking out “2001.”, and inserting “2001” without a full stop. Without this grammatical change, the clause would make no sense. It is a very important grammatical change. As I am sure Mr Dail Jones would say, it needs to be done. The grammar has to be correct, does it not?

Mr Peter Brown raised the prospect, as Opposition parties do—they try to raise all sorts of dire prospects of doom and gloom—that we would open the way to suing for accident compensation payments. The second thing Peter Brown said is that the Government gives prisoners money. The court gives them that money. Peter Brown knows very well that it is an order of the court, not a Government decision. I come back to the point that the reason the court can do this is that in 1994—when Tony Ryall, who has not taken a call in this debate, was in Government—we had the Baigent decision, in which a person who sued the Crown for a breach of human rights was awarded compensation. The then National Government decided that that was OK; it had no objection to that at all. I notice that Mr Tony Ryall has not stood up in this debate and denied it. The National Party did nothing about that ruling. Nor did New Zealand First when it was in power with the National Party.

I want to make a further point concerning the claim that has been made in this debate about compensation. Under the regime endorsed by the previous National Government a prisoner who claimed that he or she had suffered some breach of human rights could hold the matter over and do nothing about it at the time, and could sue for compensation some time later—go all round the board, land on “Go”, and try to get $200. This legislation will stop that, because it will require the prisoner to have exhausted all remedies and avenues before filing for compensation or going to court.

The second thing that will happen, as we have made very clear, is that the Government will establish an independent prison complaints authority. This is quite different from the issue raised by Peter Brown about the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman does not have the sort of investigative powers that we would like a prison complaints authority to have. We want an independent prison complaints authority—one that has strength and teeth, so that if someone feels aggrieved he or she can write to the authority directly and have the matter resolved at that point. If processes are not working well, we want them fixed at the point at which they occur. This Government is committed to fixing the problem where it starts. Unlike the previous National Government, which did nothing to fix this problem from 1994 onwards, we will fix it. We will have an independent complaints authority to inspect prisons to make sure that such problems do not occur.

I want to come back to Marc Alexander, who talks about a moratorium. Even if this Committee agreed with his proposal about a moratorium as he has written it, the people who currently have an award for compensation by the court would not be captured by it. If the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, the money would have to be paid out. So the objective of that member—to stop the compensation being awarded to Mr Taunoa and others—would not be achieved. This legislation will ensure that if the court decides to uphold the award of compensation, then the money will go into this process and will be available to victims. I would have thought that Mr Alexander would support that. So this bill is, in fact, a more effective vehicle, although it does not have the simplicity Mr Alexander claims his proposal has.

I finish by saying that this bill does strengthen victims’ rights, despite the comments of the Opposition. It strengthens victims’ rights and ensures that we can hold our heads up in any forum and say that we have done the right thing. Firstly, we will do so by having a stronger prisons inspectorate. More important, this Government has made a commitment to undertake an inquiry to see how we can better support victims—how we can provide them with the necessary support and so on that one would expect for them. This will be a very complex issue. There is no simple, easy answer. But I want to say that no previous Government has ever attempted to do find one. This Government is prepared to do it. We will do the job very well, and we will be here after the election to make sure it happens.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): That Minister has taken two calls of the most sanctimonious, politically correct nonsense I think I have heard since I have been in Parliament. What absolute drivel that was in self-justification! I tell the Minister that there is a very simple answer: prisoners simply do not get compensation. Throughout this debate the hitherto irrelevant Green Party has been voting in favour of this legislation, despite the much-heralded Trotskyite Keith Locke coming down to the House last night and saying that this was bad law. He said that it was bad law but that the Greens would vote for it, anyway. I am reminded of Groucho Marx saying: “Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

The Minister talked also about international conventions as a means of justification. What about the convention that one shall not kill? The Minister just conveniently forgets about that. When the mother of the victim of Sam Te Hei came to the select committee, who is one of the most courageous people I have ever seen—I am coming to Part 3, because this is an important component of going to the heart of damages—she looked us in the eye and said: “What about justice for my little girl?”. We are not here for money—we do not want compensation. We simply want justice. What about her human rights? I found that an extremely compelling argument.

The Government tells us that it will change the statute, by means of clauses 63 and 64, so that it can put into play a situation whereby the victims of heinous crime will now have to go through this nightmare time and time again, because they can sue for compensation. As I have already said, they do not want compensation. What has happened to this society so that we have got ourselves into a situation like that? Whoever would have thought that 5 years ago—let alone now—we would have said that those who commit vicious crimes against humanity will be compensated? It is happening under a Labour Government.

Let us have a look at what takes place. The scenario is that a victim goes after one of the perpetrators, who has now got some money by virtue of the State. Having incurred substantial costs through the legal system to win it, that is now what will happen. In terms of deductions from the quantum, clause 17(1) states that the Secretary for Justice must “(a) first, pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any relevant charge—(i) in favour of the Legal Services Agency; and … (b) secondly, pay out of that money any sum necessary to satisfy fully any amount of reparation owed by the accused or the offender;”. What the bill is saying is that the victims are third in the pecking order. Having gone through the battle to get compensation and having incurred their own personal expenses, offenders’ victims will now have legal aid in favour of the State and any other order payable against the offender deducted from the quantum before they get a look at the money That is not only disgraceful, it is inhumane. The bill is badly named. It should be called the “Prisoners Compensation Bill”, and I can hardly wait for the title debate just to express that view.

Whatever happened to this country whereby victims’ rights have become secondary to those who commit heinous crime? Why should we ever consider that that is fair, relevant, and just? Who thinks that it is fair, relevant, and just? Clearly, only the members of the current Government do, supported by the Green Party. It is not fair and we strongly oppose it.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): Having listened to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, give his excuse for Part 3 of this bill—

Brian Connell: It was an excuse.

JUDITH COLLINS: —and it was an excuse—there are a few matters I wish to take up. He told us that we could not have retrospective legislation to deal with those dreadful criminals and the payments for their hurt feelings. Time and time again in this House, we get retrospective legislation from this Government. Time and time again in this House we get told that something will be retrospective. There is always retrospective legislation when it concerns the Government taking money from hard-working taxpayers. Funnily enough, the one time the Government gets all squeamish about retrospective legislation is when money is going to criminals because of their hurt feelings. We in this House are supposed to sit here and swallow that one. Well, that is just too much of a dead rat, and, frankly, we are not swallowing it.

Obviously, retrospective legislation is never ideal, but there is a time and a place for everything. This is the time and this is the place for some retrospective legislation to sort out the nonsense of hurt feelings for people who have not shown one scrap of feeling for their victims and their victims’ families. Those people have been brought up—or dragged up—to believe that only they have rights. They do not have one responsibility, other than to themselves, and they care nothing about anything other than getting some money in damages off the taxpayer, under Part 3 of the bill. They can say: “Aren’t we lucky! It’s better than robbing the bank.”—and that is exactly what they are doing.

Then we heard from Mr Barker the pathetic excuse as to why Part 3 is in the bill. He said that the victims can sue the criminals. Now, we all know that Mr Barker is a very simple man, but at no stage did I think he was that naive. What planet is that man from? [Interruption] Is he from the same planet as Lynne Pillay? Perhaps he is. If he thinks those victims and their families wish to go back into a courtroom and sue the scum that has destroyed their lives, then all I can say is: what planet is he on? Of course they do not! Then he talked about how those criminals could write books. My goodness, I do not think they are writing books! He said they could write books and make money out of that, which would mean there would be money for the victims. Rubbish! All he needs to do is to think a little bit and get some advice. If he got some advice he would be told that the book could be written by someone else—in someone else’s name—who could then give the money to the criminal. In fact, the victims Mr Barker talks about will never get a cent. Criminals can write under ghost names and through books owned by companies. They will do anything so that not one cent goes to those victims. We on this side of the Chamber know that will happen, because we have thought this thing through. But Mr Barker thinks that those criminals will suddenly get a conscience and want to give money—

Stephen Franks: Mr Goff.

JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, Mr Goff will, too. Mr Goff—who is very silent on the bill today, I notice—wants to allow those vicious criminals to benefit from their crimes, but he says they will not be able to because somehow the victims will get the money. Well, I suggest he wakes up and smells the roses, because that will not happen under this bill, and certainly not under Part 3. Those victims have never asked for money. How much do we put on a life? What is the price of a life?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Not much, according to this Government.

JUDITH COLLINS: Georgina te Heuheu has said it—not much, according to this Government. Actually, no amount of money will ever compensate a parent for losing a child. No amount of money will ever bring back the innocence and freedom a young girl had before she was raped—no amount of money. This Government does us no credit in this Chamber when it tells victims it will get them some money. The Government is taking the money off the victims, who pay taxes.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): Part 3 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill should have been the part wherein the Government grasped a nettle that the National Government was too afraid to grasp. When Baigent’s case introduced into the scheme of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act a right that judges had been developing all on their own—a right for financial compensation for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—we had judicial lawmaking at its most naked. That remedy had in fact been considered by Parliament, and discarded. When the Law Commission was asked to comment, it was predictable that the commission—part of that same cosy establishment, part of the “anointed” in the justice establishment—would decide that it was a good idea to let judges run free. Now we are seeing part of the price. It is not that judges are not well meaning, it is not that they do not see a need, but there should have been a legislative response that said to them that when that kind of invention occurs, and when Parliament had clearly not intended it, Parliament should act.

Part 3 is the place that should see a reversal of the decision in Baigent’s case. If there is not enough courage on the part of the Government to reverse it completely, it should at the least have reversed it in relation to prisoners’ claims. What we would have had was what I have moved in my amendment to this part: a simple statement that, in relation to proceedings to do with prisoners’ treatment, the Employment Relations Act, the Harassment Act, the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will not give rise to orders for compensation or damages. That is very straightforward, and it is consistent with our constitutional theory. Our constitution assumes that if Parliament does not like what judges are doing, it changes it. But, instead, this Government and the last Government were too afraid to take it on. They were too afraid to assert that the people who make the law should be subject to being sacked by the people—that legislators should make the law, not judges. So we will see $500,000 spent in this Budget year, and $379,000, at least, in each of the next 3 years, on a tribunal that will be presiding over next to nothing.

I was glad that the Associate Minister took a call to explain where the assurance was that victims would have access to the proceeds of book sales, Lotto wins, and inheritances. He said it is because the limitation period is being expanded—that is, the limitations will not run while prisoners are in jail. But that is only a small part of the problem for prisoners. They will not have access to those windfalls unless we also suspend or change the rules that prevent suing under the accident compensation scheme; or unless we make sure that when a windfall comes to a prisoner or ex-prisoner, someone knows about it; or unless we make sure that those prisoners cannot divert their entitlements. For example, as Judith Collins mentioned, we could have had some anti-avoidance provisions. None of that work has been done.

In this bill we see only enough to pass muster as a smokescreen of apparent action. There is no real commitment to prisoners’ interests. There is not the beefing-up of the role of Victim Support that the Minister of Justice foreshadowed on 4 October, when it was contemplated that there might be a role for such organisations as advocates. No, victims will be left to look at litigation against those people who have wounded them, and they will have to do that on their own resources, with all the current fears of throwing good money after bad.

There is a little bit of a relaxation of entitlement under legal aid. From what has been set out in this legislation I cannot tell whether it will mean anything to any people other than those who are too poor to qualify at present. But whether it reaches back into what people call the middle classes—those who currently cannot afford litigation, because only the poor and the rich can afford litigation—we cannot tell.

So I urge members to vote for the amendment I have put forward, which includes a new section 179A of the Corrections Act. It will be the only change to that Act in this bill. We might have thought this bill would be a substantial rethink of what the Government has done, but, instead, it has had its entire attention focused on getting rid of private involvement in the Auckland Central Remand Prison.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I want to carry on from my most able colleagues in their attention to Part 3, and in their overall attention to this bill. They have done a magnificent job. Part 3 amends the Human Rights Act. Clause 61, “Damages”, states: “Section 92M(2) of the Human Rights Act 1993 is consequentially amended by inserting, after the expression ‘920’, the words ‘of this Act and to subpart 1 of Part 2 of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2004’. ”

Subpart 1 of Part 2 is quite a substantial inclusion within the bill. It is interesting to note that the provisions always refer to prisoners and victims. That shows the intent—that the prisoner always comes first and the victim second. The New Zealand public made an overwhelming statement that they did not want prisoners to receive compensation. Not only has this Government provided a bill that gives prisoners an enshrined right with regard to suing for compensation, but also Part 3 amends the Human Rights Act to enshrine that right. I think that goes much further than what we anticipated when we started to debate this bill. I find that extraordinary in the extreme. That provision in clause 61 places emphasis on the fact that prisoners have a right to compensation. Instead of saying that prisoners do not have a right, and instead of curtailing that right in the way the New Zealand public has demanded, the Government has gone completely to the other extreme and instead is enshrining it in the Human Rights Act. I find that extraordinary. Perhaps the Minister will take a call and explain.

It is particularly extraordinary in light of the comments made by my learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. Some interesting comments have been made in the House regarding international law. Dr Mapp said quite clearly that international law does not state that we have to provide monetary compensation if any matters need to be addressed with regard to prisoners. If prisoners need some right to justice, then monetary compensation does not have to be a part of that. There can be other remedies. I am just so glad that National is opposing this legislation. It sensibly recommended having an inspectorate of prisons, and I think that is absolutely the way to go. Let us face it, it is far more fiscally responsible than what is being promoted through this bill.

Brian Connell: And morally responsible.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Yes, and morally responsible. Victims in no way get any support from this bill. It is all about prisoners and what they can do; it is all about setting up prisoners to take advantage of and indulge in a huge number of rorts in relation to what is being provided for them.

Clause 63 relates to proceedings for which legal aid may be granted. Is it not extraordinary that victims have to go through the legal aid process and establish whether they are entitled to legal aid just to be a part of proceedings? I find that extraordinary in the extreme. Victims do not have first crack at any compensation that may have been granted. But I do not want to go there, because National totally opposes prisoners getting any form of compensation. Clause 63 is about the granting of legal aid. It raises the other matter that was commented on by my learned colleague Dr Richard Worth relating to the manner in which the tribunal will decide on how compensation is allocated. It will decide on the facts of the original case. How will the tribunal reflect on, take into account, or consider in any way, shape, or form the ongoing effects on the victims if it is dealing only with the immediate act of the offence and consequence of that offence, and not necessarily with the impact on victims? I raise questions around that.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit Part 3 is ruled out of order because it is a direct negation of the question. The proper course of action is to vote against the part.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 68 be agreed to:

to omit from section 113(1) of the Legal Services Act 2000, new paragraph (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to add new clause 74 is out of order. It is outside the scope of the bill in that it amends an Act not being amended by the bill in a manner that is not consequential.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Part 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

PANSY WONG (National): I was interested to see that the Minister, the Hon Rick Barker, was quite diligent in getting to his feet. I invite him to take another call to explain why he is wasting Parliament’s time in forcing through this legislation under urgency, while at the same time the Crown lawyer, Terence Arnold QC, is arguing in the court that a court declaration and not compensation is the proper response if a breach is held to have occurred. So I invite the Minister to take a call. How does he expect the court to rule in favour of the Crown when it realises that Parliament is taking urgency to award and confirm rights through this legislation, which is probably more appropriately, as my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp says, the “Prisoners’ Compensation Bill”?

I found it outrageous just now when the Minister who was on his feet actually made it sound as though the victims should be grateful that in Part 3 the Minister and the Labour Government allow them to take action when a prisoner gets compensation. Speaker after speaker has stood up and made it quite clear that the victims did not actually want to have a share in any compensation. They just want to get on with their lives. But once again this PC Labour-minority Government has been backed up by the Greens—the “party of principle”, which is how the Greens label themselves. The Greens say they will support this bad legislation for 2 years; they think it will be harmless to support it for 2 years. I tell the Green Party that I am looking forward to campaigning against them during the election—which will be announced to take place on 30 July—to tell the people that that party of principle went to Parliament to support bad legislation.

What has saddened the public today is that we are debating legislation that sets out the whole procedure of how prisoners can claim compensation. It is an endorsement. I want the Minister to stand and take a call and tell us how much is provided in the Budget for him to conduct workshops and education seminars in prisons for the prisoners to understand their rights, and to provide copies of this legislation to enable them to complain.

The Minister did not even take note of what its own defence counsel, who tried to appeal this prisoners’ compensation, said: “The inadequate daylight for prisoners on the slated behaviour management regime was more than many Wellington houses receive.” The Crown was arguing in court that the condition of the prison that was complained about by the prisoners was better than in the houses of some Wellingtonians.

I think the Labour Government has a lot to answer for. What happened to the Government’s so-called promises to provide State houses? We have the Government’s own lawyers saying that ordinary Wellingtonians are not receiving better treatment than prisoners. This Minister, and the Labour-minority Government, keep us here from more important business by debating a bill that would confirm prisoners’ rights to compensation.

Has the Government got its priorities right? It never gets its priorities right, as I pointed out in the Budget debate earlier. The nation is crying out for safety and protection, and for more police. The police got $41 million in the Budget. The Government provided $33 million for tax collectors and a mere $41 million for the police. It is outrageous.

RON MARK (NZ First): In debating clause 1 and clause 2, the title and the commencement clauses, it actually causes one to reflect back on the content of this debate as to what one may appropriately title this bill, which is soon to become an Act. A couple of thoughts spring to mind. One of them, based on the evidence that has been produced by the Opposition parties, is that we could name this legislation the “Prisoners’ Rights Bill”. The reason is that this legislation gives prisoners, convicts and inmates, the right to access money—taxpayers’ money.

Hon Rick Barker: They get that right now.

RON MARK: I tell the Minister that we could solve the problem by removing that right in its entirety, if we followed the recommendations of New Zealand First. The Minister interjected and said that prisoners have the right to taxpayers’ money now. I tell him that that is precisely the problem, and that this bill does not change that right.

It would have been very easy to resolve that issue. This Government, had it listened to New Zealand First, could have produced a bill that simply stated that inmates who are abused by prison officers—by the Department of Corrections—have the right to have charges laid and heard. Inmates should have the right to see the officer who abused them prosecuted, convicted, and jailed alongside them in the same cell, but that does not give them the right to receive compensatory payouts. The rationale is quite simple, from where New Zealand First sits. If the original victim of the crime that saw the inmate put in jail is not entitled to compensation, why the hell should the inmate be entitled to compensation when he or she is offended against? It is a simple case of basic logic, a logic that seems not to exist in the Government ranks. Yes, it is wrong to beat and bash an inmate. The report into the “goon squad”, a report that the Government fought so long not to have, highlights many examples of inmates being abused by the Government’s own Department of Corrections, and abused in the knowledge that that was going on. It is not appropriate for inmates to be so abused in a civilised society, but it is appropriate to charge the people who do that—and it is appropriate to convict those people and to imprison them. That is where the matter should end. We do not need to have a prisoners’ rights Act that guarantees prisoners will get their money.

Maybe the title of the bill could be the “Victims’ Wrongs Act”, because the greatest wrong here is that victims nationwide will not get all the money. Again, that is what New Zealand First said should occur. Well, if the Government is to still pay out the money and make some of it available to the victims of the original crime, why not go to the next step and put all the money in trust, give the inmate nothing—not one red cent—and make all that money available to all victims? But no, the Government does not want to listen; it knows better than us.

Maybe we could call this bill the “Wake Up and Smell the Coffee, United Party, Bill”, because United Future has only just realised how it can be used and abused by this Government. I commend Marc Alexander, because it is his work that has got United Future, finally, to say no to this bill. But I say to Marc Alexander that in the absence of a solid coalition agreement, the Government can do to him exactly what it has just done. It is saying to him: “Thank you very much for voting for supply and confidence yesterday. Thank you for keeping us all in our Cabinet chairs, with our big, fat salaries, and thank you—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RON MARK: I am saying to Marc Alexander that the Government is saying to him: “Thank you for that, but now we’re going to go to the Greens and do precisely what you, Marc Alexander, do not want us, the Government, to do.”

The bottom line is that United Future has been done over, like a dog’s dinner. If it survives and comes back to Parliament after the election, I would hope that it will not only have a new leader but, seriously, be very much wiser. Regrettably, Marc Alexander will not be here, yet he is the member who has done the most work for United Future. The “Wake Up and Smell the Coffee, United Party, Bill” would be an apt description right now. But, sadly, this bill will probably go down as the “Slap in the Face for the Taxpayer Bill”.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I thank the previous speaker for his contribution, and I ask him whether he thinks I should make my valedictory speech now, or wait for New Zealanders to vote in a common-sense way and return United Future in the much more powerful position of being kingmaker after the next election—a position that New Zealand First squandered when it had its opportunity, thereby putting National out of contention for two, or possibly three, elections. Nobody will reward New Zealand First for that.

Before I discuss the main part of the topic, which is what we should name this bill, I would like to point out something that is quite curious and interesting: we are talking about victims’ rights. The primary reason the bill is before us is so we can deal with the issues of victims and their sense of injustice. That is what this bill proposes to do. The problem that this bill attempts, woefully, to try to address is that of ensuring that victims are not left out of the loop—that they are not marginalised or put at the outer fringes of our criminal justice system. But this bill actually enshrines that. It actually makes matters more difficult for the victims of crime.

Interestingly enough, not long ago I had a conversation with a Labour member, whom I will not name, who basically accused me of being sanctimonious when I pointed out that she should spend a bit more time with victims, to find out how they feel about things. It is interesting that she thought spending time with victims and advocating on their behalf would qualify one to be regarded as sanctimonious. So I guess the reverse is true: someone who does not spend any time with victims will have a much better perspective of them. That is the perspective of the Government and of the Greens, and it is wrong—it is utterly wrong. If one wants to understand what victims are about, one should spend time with them, to understand why their victimhood chases them and casts a long shadow right throughout their lives. If people did that and understood where victims were coming from, they could never support a bill such as this, because this bill does one thing, if nothing else: it enshrine offenders’ rights above and beyond victims’ rights. It is an appalling bill because of that.

It is true that United Future supported the bill through its early stage and supported its referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee, the main point being that something had to be done. We thought—wrongly, as it turned out—that something could be done to make this bill place the interests of victims first. Unfortunately, the bill does not do that, and that is why we cannot support it. But we gave the Government an out: we offered it the opportunity to put a moratorium in place, so that no more prisoners’ claims could be put forward. The Government, for its own reasons, chose to walk away from that offer. It probably thought the bill would put the issue to rest. Well, it will not.

What can one say about the Greens’ complicity in being the only other party, apart from Labour, to support this bill? The Greens are supposed to belong to a party of principle, but they walked away from their principles regarding GE, and they walked away from Nandor Tanczos’ bill, thinking the marijuana issue may blight their chances at the election. The only Green member who is worth talking to, and worth having a comprehensible conversation with, is Ian Ewen-Street. But he has decided that enough is enough. He is going off into the sunset and leaving the Greens, and I do not blame him. I would too, if I were him. Ian Ewen-Street should be commended for voting with his feet. It is something that the people of this country should take into consideration when they go into the polling booth and see the word “Green”. That party name should be taken off the ballot, because the Greens have no pride of place in this Chamber when it comes to advocating for the right sort of human rights—that is, victims’ rights above the rights of prisoners. This bill is a disgrace.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): Ordinarily, at this phase of a Committee stage consideration of a bill, I like to sum up the key tensions, the key policy issues, and try to avoid what can be interpreted as, or is, in fact, party point-scoring. But there is a lovely temptation in this case that I can do both at the same time.

I will quote from the minority report of United Future. United Future has been rescued by Marc Alexander in this case. United Future has been rescued by a man who, as he says, has had contact with victims. It is very interesting that, when we sit in this Chamber, the depth to which the committee members were moved when we saw the victims in front of us—how hard it was for us to fight back tears as they pleaded for this bill not to proceed in a way that would leave them facing the prospect of watching the people who have hurt them get money for trifling, ludicrous claims, while they themselves cannot claim—falls away. The bill changes nothing in that respect. The chance that this bill will reduce the amounts received by prisoners is the same as the chance of one of the victims winning a lottery, because the number of cases where people are entitled to exemplary damages, then find that their particular villain has not managed to go through the human rights route and jump or sidestep all the constraints on suing—the coincidence of that happening—will be the equivalent of a Lotto win, of getting the bonus.

The Government knows that. It was told that by the Law Society. It was told that by nearly every victim who came along. It was told that the victims did not want to have to go through their wounds again. They did not want the system that the Government forces them into, whereby the only role they have in the justice system is as losers—complaining and emphasising the damage. They want a role of seeing that justice is done, and that will suffice.

The whole problem about the bill is that it does not acknowledge that prison is about punishment. The whole idea of punishment is utterly undermined when windfall gains are handed out, not because of anything that the prisoners have done to deserve them but because that is the only way the judges can find to punish the Department of Corrections. Instead of being able to force the department to operate a disciplinary structure that tells prison officers not to breach prisoners’ rights, the courts say they will punish it by handing windfalls to the prisoners. This bill does not change that.

The Chairperson ruled out my amendment to the Corrections Act. Here we have a bill that is said to be about—and there are all sorts of pious words at the beginning—fixing up and removing the causes of these claims, yet it does not even touch the Corrections Act, so my amendment was ruled out because it was outside the scope of the bill. What an emphasis of the travesty that this bill is! It is a piece of classic Phil Goff cosmetics. And the Government is to spend $534,000 this year on setting up a tribunal that might get one or two cases; a tribunal that is going to administer, if history is any guide, no more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, at most. And the Government has put in the Budget that $379,000 a year will be spent running this tribunal, when it might get to consider dispensing a third of that amount. The bill is a very expensive travesty.

I am glad that Marc Alexander brought United Future to its senses. That party was part of the majority that recommended this bill proceed. He has turned that round. I say “Good on him!”, but it is a great shame that we have had the agony that these people went through, the furore in September and October last year when people realised just what was happening. The Prime Minister 4 years ago said to the Hon Margaret Wilson that she did not agree with giving prisoners payouts; that they should be forced to go through the court. The Prime Minister said publicly that she did not agree with it. The Government has had all this time to fix it, but it is too scared of what might happen when its members next go to New York and suck up to the representatives of Mugabe, the representatives of the Sudan—countries that truly torture their people. They are not prepared to say to them that we will not pay our prisoners.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First opposes the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill, which ultimately puts money in the hands of the scum of our society. The Labour Party is pushing this bill, and United Future wanted to have nothing to do with it, finally. But who came along to help the Labour Party? The Greens did. The Greens cannot wait to jump into bed with the Labour Party.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

DAIL JONES: As you have said, Madam Chair, we have before us the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. This bill has come about because a group of hardened criminals who are in prison for some of the most vicious crimes against society have been able to exercise their common-law rights, and other rights, and to sue prison guards and the corrections service, in particular. That was because the prison guards and the corrections service responded to the disgraceful behaviour of the prisoners while in prison, and because a judge decided that the poor darling prisoners who had murdered, beaten, and raped, and who had destroyed people’s lives, were entitled to some recompense for having the lights on for too long, for being locked up for too long, and for being restrained when shouting out, screaming, and making everyone’s life a misery. The judicial system has decided that prisoners like those were entitled to up to $140,000 by way of damages.

New Zealand First says that the first people, and the only people, who should share in those damages are the victims of those disgraceful criminals, who are really the scum of New Zealand society. New Zealand First says that any funds received by criminals as a result of a successful claim should be paid, first, to the victims of the criminals receiving the compensation, and, second, the balance should be paid into a victims’ claims rehabilitation account. The difference between our view and that of the Government and the Greens—who have only recently decided to help the Government on this issue—is that the Government wants any balance to go to the criminals. New Zealand First does not want any balance to go to the criminals. New Zealand First wants that balance to go into a victims’ claims rehabilitation account and to be shared by victims generally, to help them with the money outstanding to them. We were told in the Justice and Electoral Committee that victims are currently owed about $51 million in reparation by the criminals in New Zealand society.

Of course there should be redress for prisoners, and the Government should take appropriate action against prison officers and any other persons employed by the Department of Corrections who have created a situation in which prisoners are entitled to make a claim. Remedies such as dismissal from the Department of Corrections and prosecution should be utilised by the Government to ensure that any situations that would give rise to claims by criminals are not repeated. Even as we speak, a case is taking place in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, just down the road, about this matter. That judgment was given by a judge a short time ago, so there is a judgment in effect that states that those criminals are entitled to that money. New Zealand First has therefore put forward an amendment, stating that this Act of Parliament should come into effect from 1 January 2005. We say it should be retrospective, and our amendment states: “and applies to all actions currently before the courts, including any actions commenced before the 1 January 2005 which have not yet been concluded, and further applies to any such actions which are currently the subject of an appeal before any court.” We want to make sure that any possible claim that is still current before the courts, even by way of an appeal to the Court of Appeal, is caught by legislation that makes sure that criminals do not get the money.

But the Government disagrees with us. Labour and the Greens say that those vicious murderers, those people who have beaten children to such an extent that their mothers cannot recognise them, should be entitled to money. We say that this law will encourage criminals to misbehave in prison and make the lives of prison officers an absolute misery, and will encourage more and more of those crimes and that misbehaviour in prisons. We are not dealing with people who, having embezzled some money, go to prison, do their time, and come out. This legislation is concerned with really vicious criminals and thugs, and we in New Zealand First say that they should not get a brass razoo.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): The Minister has made much play of the fact, indeed it is part of the Government’s rationale for this bill, that the Government believes that the Baigent case—Simpson v Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667—requires monetary compensation for prisoners. That is the essence of the Government’s argument. It even stated it in the commentary on the bill: “New Zealand jurisprudence supports the view that the availability of compensation for breaches of domestic human rights law is part of compliance with the covenant.”

Let us look at the facts of the Baigent case, because it is radically different from the circumstances we are faced with in this bill. The only commonality is that the case refers to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and proceedings therein. In Baigent’s case, what actually happened was that police officers obtained a warrant for search. There was some confusion as to the appropriate street address on that warrant, and they went to a person’s place to search for drugs, as the warrant authorised. They found out at the premises they had gone to the wrong premises. That is the bizarre thing, but the officer in charge said to the occupant of the house, Mrs Baigent: “We often get it wrong, but whilst we’re here we’ll have a look around anyway.” Bear in mind that she was a completely innocent citizen, living at home, minding her own business when the police arrived and said they had a warrant. The police more or less said: “We’ve got a warrant, it doesn’t actually talk about you but, nevertheless, we’re here, so we may as well search anyway.” It is hardly surprising, in that particular set of circumstances, that the court would find that a perfectly innocent citizen had had her rights violated, and, given the only conceivable remedy in that case was damages, that damages would be awarded.

The Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, has made much play that National did not pass special legislation to reverse that decision. Why would we? Why would anyone take a right away from a perfectly innocent citizen, sitting at home, minding her own business, being subject to a search that had no legal authorisation? In fact, one would expect there to be a remedy in such a circumstance. What I would like to know from the Government is how it draws from that case the right for a prisoner, a person convicted of an offence, in a prison and subject to the behaviour management regime, to receive compensation. One might ask what is meant by “subject to the behaviour management regime”. It means a regime for the worst prisoners in our jail system. It is the category of prisoners who taunt the guards, get into fights, cause trouble, attack guards, burn materials in their cells. It is the really difficult prisoners. In fact, one of the people involved in the case before the courts at the moment is noted to be literally the worst prisoner in the country.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: The worst?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: He is the worst in terms of his behaviour in the cells. That is why he was subject to the behaviour management regime. It largely keeps such a person in solitary confinement for the protection of other prisoners, the protection of prison guards, and to try to change the person’s behaviour. As has been said today in the Court of Appeal, the regime is quite reasonable. Those prisoners have proper meals, proper exercise, a decent-sized cell. As the Solicitor-General said, it may not be the Hilton but it is, after all, a prison.

Now, finally, the Crown is defending the behaviour management regime but it is passing a statutory code for that kind of person. I say to the Minister, let us be honest and call it a prisoner compensation code; a code that will allow such a person to continue to sue for damages.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act”, and substitute the words “Inmate, Detainee and Person Under Supervision Compensation and Claims Act”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act”, and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Compensation and Claims Act”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005”, and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Pecuniary Interest and Claims Act 2005”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005”, and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Privileges, Rights and Claims Act 2005”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005”, and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Legal Entitlements and Claims Act 2005”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The next amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1, to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims” Claims Act 2005 and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Financial Windfall Act 2005”, is ruled out of order as it is not an objective description of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit the words “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent”, and substitute the words “from 1 January 2005 and applies to all actions currently before the courts, including any actions commenced before the 1 January 2005 which have not yet been concluded, and further applies to any such actions which are currently the subject of an appeal before any court”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit all the words after the words “into force on”, and substitute the words “1 July 2006”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

Procedure

The bill was reported with amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill be now read a third time. The House has listened for several hours now to a raft of ludicrous and false claims from the Opposition about this bill. We have heard claims that it will compensate vicious prisoners, that it will give prisoners new rights, and that it will extinguish the rights of victims, etc. All of those claims are, of course, absolute nonsense, and the members making them know it.

I want to recap on what this bill actually does. In August 2004 a group of Auckland prison inmates were awarded a total of $130,000 after the High Court found aspects of the behaviour management regime that operated at Pāremoremo unlawful. The reason they were able to claim compensation was that the National Government during the 1990s, of which Tony Ryall was a member, did not legislate to overturn the landmark decision made in the Baigent case that monetary compensation was available for breaches of human rights. I repeat that the Baigent case made it clear that monetary compensation was available for breaches of human rights, and the National Government did nothing whatsoever to change that. This bill does not give prisoners the right to claim compensation for breaches of their rights. National had already ensured that they would have that right. They have had it for 10 years.

The bill being passed today by the Labour-Progressive Government, with the support of the Green Party, for the first time establishes guidelines that restrict the circumstances in which courts may award compensation in the most serious cases of prisoner abuse. The prisoners will have to demonstrate that they have tried to use the prison complaints system to have their grievances resolved at the earliest opportunity, before the matter escalates. The court will have to be satisfied that a non-monetary remedy would not be sufficient to address the claim. This bill does not extend prisoners’ rights to compensation—the rights the National Government let them have. It limits those rights.

Of course, the Opposition claims in a fit of outrage—which it apparently did not feel 10 years ago and in its time in Government since then—that we should go further and rule out all possibility of compensation, no matter how grievously a prisoner might be abused. Doing that now would put us clearly in breach of international human rights law. This Government has made it clear from day one that we will not breach our international obligations in addressing this problem. To do so would seriously undermine our international credibility. No other country with which we would like to be compared—the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the European nations—rules out the possibility of monetary compensation as a remedy for the worst breaches of prisoners’ human rights. None of those countries does that.

This bill does not limit or reduce victims’ rights, as is claimed by the Opposition. In fact, it greatly enhances victims’ rights to pursue civil damages claims against an offender. It does this in two ways. Firstly, it suspends the limitation period that applies to all civil claims while an offender is in prison. Offenders in prison cannot earn money, which means that making civil claims for damages against them is a waste of time. Suspending the limitation period means that the victim will have more time after the prisoner is released in which to pursue a claim if, for example, a prisoner comes into a windfall payment from an inheritance or a lottery win, or makes money from a successful business venture, as may be the case with white-collar criminals.

Secondly, if a prisoner is awarded compensation despite the new guidelines strictly limiting such payouts, the compensation will now be held in trust rather than released to the prisoner. Victims of the offender will be contacted, and assisted in making a civil claim for damages against that sum. Making such a claim will not re-victimise the victim. The facts of the offence will not need to be re-proven. Claims will be determined on the papers. The victim will not have to confront the offender, or even fill out the forms. Other persons or organisations may fill out the forms on the victim’s behalf. Not one cent of compensation payment will be turned over to the prisoner until all civil claims from victims, as well as outstanding reparation payments and outstanding legal aid charges, are satisfied.

These are new rights, and this bill extends new assistance to victims. This bill ensures that all the cases causing concern to the public are captured. The Taunoa payment, if it is upheld on appeal, will be subject to the new trust procedure, and victims will be assisted in making claims against it. The 200 new cases that Mr Taunoa’s lawyer has indicated he intends to bring will also be subject to the new guidelines restricting compensation. In the event that any of these cases result in a compensation award despite the new restrictions, those funds will be held in trust.

Of course, the best way to avoid having to make future payouts to prisoners is to prevent the grounds from which such claims first arise. For that reason the Government has agreed to a very constructive suggestion by the Greens that we follow the passage of this bill with legislation to establish a new independent prison complaints body. Such a body will help to ensure that complaints and problems in prisons are dealt with early, before they escalate to the point where grounds for damages claims might arise. Legislation establishing the new body will be passed by the end of 2006.

With a new complaints body in place, the likelihood of future payouts being ordered is expected to fall dramatically. For that reason, the bill contains a sunset clause that will effectively wind down the special claims procedure in a period after the new complaints body is established. The procedure will apply only to claims lodged by prisoners prior to 1 July 2007. A second sunset clause ensures that the guidelines restricting the circumstances in which compensation payments may be made will be reviewed before the same date. The Government has agreed with the Greens that the guidelines will benefit from a future review, in the light of experience, before being amended or renewed.

The Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended that there be an inquiry into support available for victims of serious crimes, and the place of victims in the justice system. The Greens also have expressed a strong desire for such an inquiry. The Government has agreed that such an inquiry will take place. Most New Zealanders find it abhorrent when prisoners are awarded compensation payments for wrongs they have suffered in prison, while prisoners have never paid any compensation at all for the harm they have inflicted on their victims. This bill tackles the problem by greatly restricting prisoners’ ability to claim such payments and greatly enhancing victims’ rights to take their own civil damages cases against the offenders who have wronged them.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill deals effectively with the current cases causing concern and with cases that are foreshadowed. The new independent complaints body will reduce the likelihood of future cases arising. This new law strikes a far better balance in favour of victims than the law as the previous National Government left it, which gave prisoners unfettered access to compensation. It is National’s law that has led to the current round of cases, and it is that law that the Labour-Progressive Government is fixing today, with the support of the Greens. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom): In the world of spin and super-spin, the Associate Minister of Justice has no equal. He has made a number of extravagant and completely wrong statements. We know only too well that this bill would not have got as far as it has—and it may yet falter—but for the assistance of the Greens.

I wonder what Labour members opposite made last night of the comment of the Green MP Mr Locke, who disarmingly said, and I paraphrase: “This is a bad bill, but we will vote for it.” So Labour and Green have coalesced for present purposes, in order to see the passage of this legislation, which National on no basis will support. We have been opposed to this bill, for a number of reasons, right from the very beginning. Although we accept that where the State is a jailer—where it has a responsibility for prisons—it has an obligation to protect prisoners, and ensure their safe and reasonable treatment, but it is quite another thing to provide a statutory regime for prisoners to sue.

In the course of this debate, I have drawn attention to something I think is truly bizarre. Just across the way, in the Court of Appeal, the Government’s lawyers are saying that there should be no right to compensation. It is wrong that there should be compensation. It is sufficient when breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act occur that there should be a declaration. Yet here in Parliament the Minister has said, with repeated fervour, that there should be compensation rights.

We have been treated to statements about our international law obligations that are plainly wrong. The Justice and Electoral Committee was properly apprised of the position but the Minister has, sadly, misunderstood the legal situation. We are party to a number of international treaties. One of those treaties is the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is known in the trade as the “CAT” convention. It was signed by New Zealand on 14 January 1986, and it was ratified by New Zealand on 10 December 1989. We are a party to that treaty arrangement. But we entered a specific reservation, consistent with our international obligations to that treaty, with reference to article 14 of the convention, to provide that we were prepared to provide compensation only at the discretion of the Attorney-General. We entered a reservation to that treaty that there would be occasional cases—hopefully occasional—of abuse where there would be ex gratia payments. This Government has gone way, way beyond that, for no good reason.

There will be a lot of problems with the legislation. Let me explain quickly why that will be so. The regime proposes that where a prisoner sues and gets a chunk of money, the damages will be awarded to the victims of that offender. I would like to take two illustrations to show what sort of problems will arise.

First, there is the situation of living victims. How will the damages be apportioned? I take the case of the serial rapist offender—a male who has raped, say, five women. How will the damages be awarded to each victim? Will they be awarded equally? Will the victim who suffered the most horrendous event receive more money? Will the victim for whom the scarring of the particular event was the most traumatic receive more money? That, as the Minister has said, is all to be decided by a new tribunal, on the papers. How will those judgments be made? The regime is ludicrous. That is the case when there are living victims.

What about the second case, when the victims are unknown or comprise a very large class? How will the damages be apportioned? I take the case of the drug dealer who sold drugs through a middleman to scores of people. How will that class of victim be established? If the class of victim cannot be established, is it appropriate that the offender retain the damages awarded? That is what this regime provides for.

I was interested to see that the Minister was prepared to credit the Green Party with the case that National has determinedly argued for: an independent prison inspector to comprehensively inspect and report on the state of our prisons. That was not a Green proposal. That is actually a National Party proposal. It is referred to in the commentary on the bill. A really good illustration of what can be done is Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales. That was established in 1981. It adopted a World Health Organization model of healthy prisons as a basis for inspections.

We can never completely rule out that claims for monetary compensation will not occur. But where they do occur, I would argue that those claims should be made on an ex gratia basis outside the legal system. In other words, they should be made in accordance with the international treaty obligations that we have taken up.

I also say that where prison abuse does occur, prisoners’ complaints should be dealt with by an effective complaints process, and disciplinary action against the jailers who violated the human rights of the prisoner. That may mean—as has happened in the past—that jailers are dismissed. It may mean that jailers face a disciplinary process that may have monetary consequences for them. What the Government has done is short-sighted, foolish, and driven by panic.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): It is with satisfaction that I rise to support the third reading of this legislation. In doing that I would like to tell two stories. The first is an historic story, which begins with Labour’s inheritance when we came to Government in 1999. There are two particularly relevant parts of that inheritance. Firstly, we inherited human rights law that allowed for monetary compensation to be paid to people whose human rights had been breached. That law was tolerated by the previous National Government throughout the 1990s, including during the time when New Zealand First was in coalition with National. Secondly, Labour’s inheritance was a particularly weak law on victims’ rights. Victims had no statutory rights to have a say in the processes of the law. Labour did two key things. The first was to establish the Victims’ Rights Act, legislation that I seem to remember was actually opposed by National and ACT because they thought it went too far in giving victims statutory rights. That legislation gives victims a voice in the court and in the parole system, and we absolutely accepted at the time that that was the first stage in the development of a victims’ rights’ agenda, which will develop from there.

But a parallel development was the doubling of our prison population over the last 12 years, a process that has happened for a variety of reasons. The doubling of the prison population has led to massive pressures on the prison system. At the end of the day, prisoners are people who are in the care of the State. As we well know, the concept of human rights, at its heart, is about the relationship between Government and the governed. Prison inmates, people living in prison, are completely in the control of the State. They are in one sense the ultimately governed people in our nation, and they are in a situation that will always be open to abuse. That is why we have debates, and why we have institutions concerned with prisoners’ rights. No Western State denies prisoners’ human rights. No Western State fails to pay compensation to make amends for extreme breaches of the rights of prison inmates. In the last few years we have experienced situations where New Zealand’s legal system has found that prison inmates have had their human rights abused, and that those inmates were entitled to compensation. So, firstly, we have stronger victims’ rights law but, secondly, a situation whereby prisoners have had their human rights abused. It was the award of monetary payments for that that really began the key debate on this issue back in September last year.

I will quote from an editorial in the Sunday Star-Times of 5 September 2004, but first I will say that the words are from a lawyer who has done a lot to promote the issue of prisoners’ compensation, Tony Ellis. He said: “What one forgets is that these prisoners have been victims too, and two wrongs don’t make a right. The crimes that the men committed are contemptible and grave, and the men deserve to lose their liberty for them. But the abuses committed by the prison system are also serious. Those who say the men deserve nothing overlook this. What they are saying, in effect, is that in this case, wrongdoing should be winked at.” The Sunday Star-Times editorial then went on to state, and this is important: “If nobody guards the guards, we are headed down the path that leads to Abu Ghraib. Prisons are too often closed worlds where the power of the jailers goes unchecked. Abuses must be punished. If they are not, the state is reduced”—[Interruption] I tell Mr Mapp—“to the level of the criminal who goes scot-free.” The editorial concluded: “Politicians will always play to the gallery on these issues, and the outbursts by Ryall and Goff are drearily predictable. In fact, there may be a middle way here. Few would object if, once the criminals had received their compensation, they were then required to hand a fair chunk of it to their victims. That way, their complaint has been upheld, and the principle of deterrence has been served.”

That is exactly what this legislation actually does. That is the second story we have to tell: the reaction of the Government and Parliament to the reality of the compensation awards last year. The legislation was developed in that context, and it is very tricky legislation because it tries to deal both with the very real and powerful needs of victims, and also with the situation where the vast majority of the public was offended at the level of compensation awarded to prison inmates. As the Minister has described, a solution has been developed whereby victims will have an extra right inserted, in order to be able to claim back compensation through the system.

I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee, which dealt with the legislation, and, oddly enough, I commend both Tony Ellis and the Sensible Sentencing Trust for managing to agree on an awful lot in the advice they gave to our committee. Both said that they did not want, ideally, a situation of compensation going to prison inmates, but also that they did not want there to be an abusive prison system. Unfortunately, the solution that has been constantly called for by the Opposition in Parliament in this debate over the last day is one that can be described as an abusive system. Those members are advocating a system where there is no incentive not to abuse prison inmates. The select committee went through an exhaustive process, which took longer, I think, than the Minister was entirely relaxed with, in trying to develop other options. We looked at the removal or restriction of monetary compensation, but that was clearly a significant breach of international law. We looked at the diversion of the money into a trust, but, again, that was a breach of international law. We looked at deducting legal aid costs, but that would not have actually dealt with the cases currently before the courts. We looked at monetary limits to damages, but, again, that would have been a breach of international law. We looked at a fines system, where someone who already had fines owing would have had to pay those fines off, as well. We were told again that that was a breach of international law. We looked at introducing a concept of victims’ orders as some kind of damages system separate to reparations. We went further with that one than with the others, and I think that it may well be an issue we will go back to when we look at the broader issue of victims’ rights.

At the end of it all, we concluded that the legislation had the right balance, but we used the very necessary power of a select committee to make two key recommendations. Firstly, we recommended the establishment of an independent prison inspectorate.

Dr Wayne Mapp: We said we should establish an independent inspectorate.

TIM BARNETT: That was not the National Party’s idea, but one I think that emerged particularly from the Labour and Green members on the committee, and it is something that is absolutely essential in my view. The establishment of a standards-based, independent prison inspectorate was unanimously supported by the select committee. Secondly, we resolved to establish an inquiry to look at the next stage of the agenda in relation to victims’ rights, having heard searing stories particularly from people whose family members had been murdered. They talked about the impact of that on them, and about their support needs that were not being met. We were quite clear that there is another stage to go on the victims’ rights agenda, and we have agreed to establish an inquiry to look into that.

What was fascinating, when watching the Opposition during the debate, was to see that when Mr Worth was in the Chamber he advocated the establishment of the independent inspectorate, and that as soon as he was not around his colleagues started to screech that that would require yet more money to be spent. There is no consistency at all in the position the Opposition is taking. We heard Wayne Mapp talk about his sister having received compensation in New South Wales. If he wants to adopt that kind of system, then I can assure him another few million dollars will need to be spent on that. Only 10 minutes later, when we were talking about the need to develop better victims’ rights, Sandra Goudie was screeching that that would cost yet more money. There is no consistency in the Opposition’s position; it is absolutely playing to the gallery.

The mark of a great Government in the MMP environment is that it finds workable solutions to problems, and works generously and positively with other parties that have similar values. I thank the Greens for their cooperation on this legislation, which I commend to the House.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I was speaking only 45 minutes ago on the reason why this bill is before the House. I am pleased that the Hon Rick Barker, the Minister in charge of the bill, confirmed what I said about the reasons for the bill coming into the House.

Where New Zealand First disagrees with Labour is quite simple: we believe that all the money obtained by prisoners for breaches of their rights should go into a victims’ claims trust account, and that all of it should be paid to victims. None of it should go to criminals. We do not want to support criminals. Labour wants to support criminals. The Green Party wants to support criminals. Labour and the Greens want to support some of the most vicious criminals that exist in New Zealand today. If I take Mr Barnett’s last few words—that the mark of a great MMP party is that it finds parties of a like mind—and if the like mind is a party that supports Labour wanting to make payments to some of the most vicious criminals in society, which the Greens support, I ask what sort of like mind that is. Some might say it is a very twisted mind—but I am sure the public will decide.

This bill is all about prisoners abusing the prison system. It is all about increasing the abuse of the prison system by prisoners. It is very simple: in prison are the worst people in our society; in prison are the greatest thugs—the most brutal people—in our society. Those people do not have any regard for human rights—that is why they committed some of their crimes. Those poor, darling prisoners will work out for themselves that if they make life very hard for the prison guards, who, ultimately, will retaliate, they will get some compensation because their human rights have been breached. That knowledge will be just about handed to them by the bush lawyers in prison, who will say to them that while they are in there, the best way to make some money is not by being on prison detail, or whatever, but just by making life as difficult as possible for their guards—making the guards attack them, or leave the light on for too long, or leave them locked up for too long, or not hear them when they are crying out for help. They will make money that way.

I have been into just about all our prisons at one stage or another in my capacities as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament. These people are not nice. They will come up with these ideas, and these ideas will be in the prisoners’ handbook that is handed down from one prisoner to another. This Government is asking for trouble. This Government and the Greens want to make sure that more and more of the public purse is spent on, at the end of the day, prisoners, who will take the balance of whatever might be in the trust account.

The worst prisoners in our society will not make any payments to victims. I refer to drug dealers. Drug dealers, whose victims probably number hundreds of thousands by now, have faceless victims. Compensation resulting from any actions that drug dealers take in prison will not be shared with anybody. None of their money will ever go to a single victim, despite the fact that some of their victims have even died as a result of drug overdoses and suchlike. We could say that those people should not have taken drugs and should not have had drug overdoses, or whatever, and that is a point, but the drug dealers will keep all the compensation they get for their actions. The worst type of criminal will get all the money. New Zealand First says that is just not on.

The way in which we can cut down on the misbehaviour of guards and other staff in prisons is to commence court actions against them—to prosecute them. If necessary, if they are convicted, they might end up in prison. That would be their punishment. That would be the redress. We do not want to say to prisoners that they should be entitled to extra money as a result of their stay in prison.

Some of the arguments that have been put forward are on the windfall argument. The Minister may say that if a prisoner has a windfall, he or she has to pay it out, but we are talking about prisoners who have defrauded the Inland Revenue Department, and who are some of the most smart white collar criminals about. They have run the biggest drug businesses, which have been going for a long time, very successfully, in the criminal underworld. Yet the Minister is trying to tell the House that, somehow or other, if those people get a windfall, they will let everybody know and share that windfall with their victims. What a laugh! Those people will know that the first thing to do when they get a windfall is to put the money in a trust account in somebody else’s name, or, even more simple, just in an account in another person’s name. They will never ever say that they have written a great book and made millions of dollars, and will share the money with all their victims. They are just not those sorts of people. So the windfall argument does not hold up, at all.

United Future finally decided, thanks to Marc Alexander, that it would not support the bill, which is going through the House only because the Greens have come through and given their support. It is really ironic that of the members of United Future, a party that boasts so many Christians, it was an atheist—or a non-believer—who stood up to be counted. He said that he would not support the legislation, and that he would take the Christians with him. Where were the Christians in United Future? They should have been the ones opposing this bill. But, no, they were the ones supporting it. We have to congratulate the non-Christian in United Future, Marc Alexander, on standing up. It has not been a road to Damascus experience for him—he has always believed in this; he has always been strong on law and order. I sensed when I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee with him that he was very, very upset with this legislation and with United Future’s seeming support for it. So I say congratulations to Marc Alexander, and a black mark to those so-called Christians in United Future who were prepared to support this bill, and who were dragged, kicking and screaming, by Marc Alexander into opposing it—and a great job he has done.

But what credit has Marc Alexander got from United Future as a result of this?

Pita Paraone: Down on the list.

DAIL JONES: He is so far down on the list that, as things stand, he will not be back. But, of course, the Christians are looking after themselves, and they intend to be back even though they were prepared to see, at one stage, vicious criminals making money out of imprisonment.

As far as the Greens are concerned—well, they never do anything without something in return. The Greens say that they are supporting this bill because of this new authority that will be established. They say that there should be an independent prison inspector to examine the situation. Well, that was the unanimous view of the Justice and Electoral Committee from what I can read. Everyone in the select committee seemed to agree with that view, as stated on page 9 of the report. It was not a new idea. Everyone agreed on it. For the Greens to say suddenly “That was our idea.”, well—

Nandor Tanczos: We just delivered it!

DAIL JONES: The Greens have not delivered anything, because it is supposed to be done next year. Will the Greens be here even to know about it, if it ever happens? So what a stupid argument from the Greens!

One must make the point that it was the National Party that was more specific in its minority view, on page 10 of the report. It stated that there was a clear case for an independent prison inspector. When one looks at the Greens’ minority view one sees there is barely a mention of it. The Green member’s view states: “While he supports the committee’s recommendations for an independent prison inspectorate serious concerns remain about the current ability of the Department of Corrections to impartially and adequately investigate claims of abuse by staff.” Well, he was not really terribly enthusiastic about it at the time.

What is the real reason the Greens are supporting this? I believe they have done a secret deal with Labour; that Labour has done a deal with the Greens spokesman—and we know who that is; it is Nandor Tanczos, and we know what Nandor Tanczos stands for, and that is legalised marijuana—that if the Greens come back in the next term as members of a minority Labour Government, marijuana will be legalised. That is what I see as being the situation. That is what one would get with a Green Party and Labour Party Government. [Interruption] It is no use Mr Mallard shouting his head off; we know that that would be the deal. Because what other deal would Nandor Tanczos want? After all, everyone has agreed with the need for an independent prison authority. That is nothing new. We all agree on it. The extra icing on the cake—the extra little bit of marijuana in Nandor Tanczos’ birthday cake—is a deal with Labour to legalise marijuana.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): The interesting thing about sitting through the submissions from the victims was how few of them—in fact, I do not think any of them did—spoke in terms as strongly as has been expressed in Parliament today about prisoners; those who had hurt them. In fact, nearly all of them said they wanted prisoners to be protected from abuse or harm in prison. They wanted prisoners to have a means of remedy when they, in turn, were hurt. They did not want to see prisoners suffering abuse. But at the same time, the victims made it absolutely clear—not that they had needs that ought to be met, or as Mr Barnett has just implied, would be met, by more Government money—they simply wanted to see that justice was not undermined.

In that sense, the fury that we are hearing from the Opposition members today who are opposed to this bill, is entirely justified. It is not overstated. Because what the victims were saying to us was: “Step back from the technicalities, step back from the lawyers’ opinions, step back from the 136-page judgment of Justice Young, and just look at it as we see it. Who is ending up with society’s help out of this? We are left to deal with the injury inflicted by these beasts on us to cope as best we can—paying our own parking fines to get to court, and having to buy the suits to bury our dead. Meanwhile the State is taking this tender care of prisoners.”

That is what they were concerned about. They were simply saying: “Look at how it looks to us, with what we already think to be derisory, inadequate penalties.” The parole system tells prisoners that the punishment—the price—means nothing as long as they can pretend not to be a danger to the community when they are one-third of the way through the sentence. Then on top of that, when those people have the lights left on too long, or are not given a clean laundry bag, or they have a window left open in winter, when it should have been closed—

Jill Pettis: Oh, don’t be ridiculous.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mrs Pettis says “ridiculous”. Has she read Justice Young’s judgment? Has she seen the list of complaints that resulted in each of those complainants getting $500 a week—$2,500 a month for the time they were on their behaviour modification regime? Many of them would not have been able to earn that in honest toil. That would have been the best money, tax-free, they had ever made—for being in prison! What was upsetting the victims was that they were facing a select committee that knew that what was being proposed was wrong. They could tell from our body language—and I say “our” because it included the Labour members, who did a good job on this—that we, too, agreed that there was something deeply wrong with this. They expected the outcome to be respect for their position. That is why the Sensible Sentencing Trust came back when it saw what the select committee had done, or what the Government—the Minister—had forced on the select committee, and what Mr Goff’s officials had bulldozed through with the help of the Greens and Labour. That is why they said: “victim bashing; political arrogance; Government hypocrisy”. This was a bill that Mr Goff said was there to help victims, and that is how the most active representatives of victims judged it.

Garth McVicar said that the select committee process was an utter sham, and the most blatant example of our democratic system being trashed that he had ever witnessed. That is because those representatives took it seriously. They thought there was a chance of getting this bill to reflect what victims really want: a system that does not insult them. They were not there to be vindictive; they simply did not want to see the cruel irony of prisoners being paid for trivial abuse while the law in New Zealand states that real crime victims can get nothing. That is the problem. The accident compensation scheme states that generally, even if the other party had the money, one cannot sue for the kinds of injuries inflicted by crime. Yet this Government now claims, absolutely falsely, that we are obliged by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the members of which are appointed by some of the most disgusting, vile, and cruel dictators on this earth. Mr Mugabe has a nominee on the United Nations Human Rights Committee, as does the Sudan—a country that is arresting people who are reporting mass rape—and this Government says we kowtow, in this country, to the United Nations Human Rights Committee!

Is it any wonder that Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust thinks that this Government is an utter disgrace? Representatives came here, in good faith, and tried earnestly with Tony Ellis—who, of course, they were suspicious of; he is the representative who is claiming over $3.5 million from the Government in compensation for 200 criminals—they sat down to try to sort out something that would suit the interests of all New Zealanders, having prisons that kept prisoners safe, and something whereby victims would be protected from the further outrage that this legislation now countenances. In the end, the shutters came down. After all the work that one can see in the select committee’s report, no substantial changes were made.

What are we talking about? The Government has grudgingly released, under question, that in 2000 the then Attorney-General authorised the payment of around $325,000 to four Mongrel Mob members. Other payments that have never been identified bring the total up to $566,000 over 6 years. Then we got to 2004. Justice Young told the Government in April 2004 that he had decided to uphold the claims of Taunoa and his mates. In August 2004 the Human Rights Review Tribunal awarded to MacMillan $1,200 for injury to his feelings, loss of dignity, and humiliation, because the father of one of his victims had seen a letter that he had not seen. Do members recall the Christchurch case? MacMillan, scumbag of the worst sort, committed some of the most disgusting crimes that could be committed. The father of a teenage girl had written a letter describing what he believed MacMillan had done to his daughter, and this scum was awarded damages by the Human Rights Review Tribunal for injury to his feelings!

Victims do not get awarded any damages for injury to their feelings. It is just not there. So we are told by the United Nations Human Rights Committee that we have to continue paying $1,200 for injury to feelings, loss of dignity, and humiliation, to some of the worst criminals in this country, and the Government will not stand up to it. It simply will not do anything. It has come to the House with a bill that Mr Goff trumpeted three times: first, over the outrage with the MacMillan award; secondly, when the Young decision came in September; and, thirdly, in October when he still did not have his bill ready. Finally, when his bill was released it was a damp squib.

Why did it not simply end judges’ powers to make these awards? What is left of New Zealand sovereignty with these so-called human-rights abuses? Financial compensation for them was never voted on by this Parliament. It was expressly excluded from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and it was invented by the judges in 1994. There was absolutely no constitutional reason why this Parliament could not simply have said either that the Baigent decision was overreaching and should not stand, or at least in respect of prisoners it should not stand. Instead, what did we get from a Government that promised that victims and their families would get compensation, that they would have Government assistance to claw back windfalls, or inheritances, or even Lotto or the proceeds of a book sale? We got what the prisoners and the lawyers described as illusion.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): Members of the public can be excused for being confused about the content of the bill, because it is clear that a number of members of this House are themselves confused, judging by their contributions to the debate. The interesting thing is that many of the things that members who are opposing the bill are calling for are the very things that the Green Party has secured through our support for the bill.

Wayne Mapp, for example, talked about the need for an independent prison inspectorate. That is something that the Green Party has supported—in fact, the whole Justice and Electoral Committee supported it. The Greens have been supporting it for quite a deal longer. We tried to get it during the passing of the Corrections Bill, and failed. I have raised the matter with the Prime Minister during question time in this House, but perhaps members like Dail Jones were asleep when that was going on. Clearly, the National Party did not come up with the idea. That party may support it, but it has done nothing about it. It is exactly what the Greens have secured—a written commitment to establish an independent prison complaints authority by the end of 2006.

Mr Mapp talked about the victim compensation scheme in Australia. Actually, last week the Justice and Electoral Committee was in Australia and visited victim support services. The Greens are very supportive of the victim compensation scheme available in Australia. The idea that some victims can get accident compensation on the same basis as people who had an accident at work is offensive to the victims of crime. That is why we think there needs to be a review, and, specifically, we have a written commitment to look at support available for victims and the role of victims in the criminal justice system. I agree with Mr Franks that the rights of victims are not being met under the current system, and the Greens are pleased that we have been able to negotiate something that will advance the rights of victims.

Peter Brown suggested that the bill would lead to a situation where two inmates who fight in prison would both sue the Department of Corrections under accident compensation. Firstly, the member seems to have forgotten that accident compensation is specifically designed to stop people suing, and, in fact, it is not a regime that relies on suit; and, secondly, the member is so far away from the reality of what the bill actually does that one has to wonder who he gets his advice from.

But then, of course, one remembers that it is Mr Dail Jones. That member had so little to say about the bill, he knew so little about the bill, that he had to spend most of his speech talking about cannabis, because that is all he could think about. Also, the select committee staff, as far as I understand, no longer take that member’s nameplate to the Justice and Electoral Committee because he does not bother to turn up any more.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is out of order to refer to the absence of a member, whether it is in the House or at a select committee. Members have other duties, as well.

NANDOR TANCZOS: My apologies.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As members of the Law and Order Committee will know, I am trying to attend that committee on the Criminal Procedure Bill, which has a lot of legal information in it, rather than going to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Jones. That was not a point of order, and I had already referred to that matter.

NANDOR TANCZOS: What the bill does in essence is three simple things. Firstly, it provides guidelines for judges when determining whether to provide financial compensation for people who have been abused while in the State’s custody, and it makes it harder to get. Secondly, if compensation is made, it freezes the compensation while the victims of that person are informed, and provision is made for them to sue for that money. Thirdly, it suspends and extends the statute of limitations relating to victims of crime. It is very, very simple.

The Greens did not originally support the bill, because we were not convinced either that it was the best way to deal with the situation or that it did not have the potential to breach international conventions. In fact, we were given very strong evidence in the Justice and Electoral Committee that the bill did potentially breach international conventions, although officials also gave us advice that in their view it did not, and clearly it is a borderline case. However, the Green Party was persuaded to support the bill for four very good reasons.

Firstly, if the Government had to rely on United Future for support, the amendment that United Future required would have removed all rights of redress for breaches of people’s human rights while in the State’s custody. That is a clear, flagrant, unashamed breach of international conventions, and, as I have said before, the Green Party is a party that believes that New Zealand does need to adhere to its international conventions and agreements, and to the word we have given the international community. Such an amendment would have left the door wide open to continued abuse in the prison system. I note that Mr Marc Alexander is confused on this issue, because sometimes he says that abuse should not happen in the prison system and sometimes he says that prisoners deserve whatever they get. Clearly, his commitment to stopping abuse in the prisons is not as solid as his position on other things.

Secondly, the Greens are supporting the bill because we negotiated a sunset clause to limit the bill to claims made before mid-2007, and that applies to all parts of the bill except the bit relating to the statute of limitations provisions, which we do support, as I indicated in my first reading speech.

Thirdly, we got a written commitment to an inquiry into support for victims and the role of victims in the criminal justice system, as I have already mentioned. We heard clearly in the Justice and Electoral Committee that victims’ rights are not met by this bill, and the Greens hope to see a victim compensation scheme, similar to the one in Australia, introduced in the House. I have already talked about that. We believe that the rights of victims do need to be advanced in this country. I make the point also that we have spoken about this consistently and continuously since we came into Parliament as an independent Green Party, and have consistently made the point that the rights of victims will never be properly met while we rely on a primarily adversarial court system.

Fourthly, we got a written commitment to establish an independent prison complaints authority by the end of next year, and its function will be both to investigate complaints and to do institutional inspections. We believe that it needs to have both those functions to work properly. We believe that the best protection from compensation claims and the political difficulties that arise out of them is prompt and effective investigation of complaints within the prison system, so those complaints do not then go on to become significant problems that need significant redress.

The last thing I would like to touch on is the issue of retrospectivity, which has been an issue of some interest in the media this morning, and has been the subject of comment by Mr Tony Ellis—a lawyer who, like Mr Franks, I deeply respect for his very strong, clear, and consistent commitment to defending some of the most marginalised people and advancing the causes of human rights in this country. The bill, as I understand it, applies to claims where the final determination has been made after the enactment of the bill. Clearly, that is why the Government is seeking to pass the bill this week—because of the cases before the Court of Appeal. Appeals that require leave are not included in the definition of a final determination, so it does not include appeals to the Supreme Court. So my understanding is that the bill is not retrospective, in the sense that it does not go backwards in time. What it does is provide a broad enough net that it captures cases still current. In that sense it will actually affect the cases before the Court of Appeal this week. I think it is useful to make that point clear.

So the Greens do remain concerned about the bill. We remain concerned that it is a bill passed in haste to address a specific court case. But we believe that in the current circumstances we have negotiated the best possible outcome—one that balances the rights of victims with the need to protect against abuse within the correctional system, and maintains our commitment to international conventions.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): We ended 2002 by passing the Victims Rights Bill, and that heralded so much promise. There have been a few baby steps along the way since that time. Sadly, this bill goes backwards. This bill turns round to victims, having given them some hope in the previous legislation, and states that Parliament is going to put offenders first and revisit their victimisation all over again through this bill. The sad thing is that everybody, from all parties, on the Justice and Electoral Committee really tried hard to do something that would benefit victims ahead of the interests of offenders. In the end, that seemed to be put in the too-hard basket. The Labour Government was caught between its supposed obligations to international accords and its desire to do something to prevent inmates from collecting compensation.

What the Government has ended up with is perhaps the worst of all possible worlds, because, cynically, what the bill proposes to do, at least in principle, is to allow prisoners to get compensation and then try to make it difficult for them to keep it by forcing victims to engage with them legally in order to strip them of the money they get. The problem is that in order to support the supposed international accords on human rights, the bill actually breaches the human rights of victims in the process. In other words, on balance, when we look at the rights of offenders as against the rights of victims, we see that the bill errs on the side of offenders. That is a tragedy; it is the step backwards that I mentioned.

A number of members have spoken about the fact that we need to fix up the prison system, and I think everybody agrees with that. But, interestingly, the best prison in the country, the one with the least infractions, the one that did not have the behaviour management regime programme, and the one that did not have the “goon squad”, was the Auckland Central Remand Prison. Not only was it the best prison in the country, and the only one that has been internationally recognised for its standards, but it was also privately managed. If we get the Government anywhere near corrections, we end up in trouble. The privately managed prison, apart from being by far and away the best prison in the country, also, paradoxically, saved taxpayers $27,000 per year per inmate. So it actually saved money for everybody, including the pockets of victims, who now have to stump up to have the prison revert to State control and who, of course, will see more infractions because the State cannot be trusted to run its prison system as well as a tendered-out operation.

Penalties should be extracted from corrections staff who violate the law. Most corrections staff are hard-working, good people who want to ensure that the job is done properly, but, unfortunately, a few rotten apples ruin it for everybody else. The staff who do violate the law ought to be punished, but the penalty must be seen as a punishment against them and the corrections system they work for, and not as a reward for the criminal. There is the dilemma for the Government. It cannot see beyond its own nose and realise that there is a difference between the two, but it should have created legislation along exactly those lines. If the Government really wants to stop prison infringements and abuses, then it should punish those responsible. It should charge them, and not just reward the crims. As far as human rights are concerned, inmates’ human rights must be balanced against victims’ rights and the human rights of other inmates and guards. Clearly, some of the so-called infringements that were brought to the public’s attention, and that are the reason why we are here in the House, have come about because we have not got that balance right.

Much has been made of our international obligations. That seems to be a problem of having a Minister who wears two hats. On the one hand Phil Goff is trying to advance the cause of justice in this country, and on the other hand he is held firm by the international obligations he thinks he is supposed to uphold. The real question, though, is: what is the sovereign body of this country? It has to be Parliament. It cannot be up to the people who sit at the United Nations to determine how we choose to live our lives and how we choose to dispense our sense of justice. The people who sit at the United Nations are not the ones who help to heal the victims of this country. They are not here. They are not here to see people like Taunoa, who continually victimised guards, other inmates, and his victims themselves—which is why he ended up in prison in the first place. The people at the United Nations are not here, yet we have to abide by the UN accords. That is a travesty. It puts our faith and our sense of justice into the hands of the people who have the least to do with it, and that is fundamentally flawed and wrong.

What we really have to look at here is who really gets compensated by this legislation. The damage done to victims by being forced to go after the compensation, if only to deny it to the offender, will be considerable. They will be damaged. The people who have to go to the parole board time and time again, to try to keep offenders in prison for longer because we have a weak approach to parole, have their lives ruined in the process. What we say, we do not do. We give a person 15 years, but the person does 5. That is pathetic. It is against the interests of victims. This legislation is another part of that process.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has come out with a statement that I think is worthy of being recited. I want to take a minute to say that Stephen Franks from the ACT party has already talked about the huge contribution of Garth McVicar and his wife and the team at the Sensible Sentencing Trust in raising awareness—in raising the issues that matter to this country. I—and I think I speak for most members in this House—commend them for doing so. I hope that they continue to do so, because unless they do this Government and future Governments will not listen. A comment from the Sensible Sentencing Trust reads: “In the worst example of victims’ rights abuse in modern-day history, the Government and the Greens have chosen to ignore victims’ pleas and ridiculed democracy with the introduction of the most draconian piece of legislation this country has seen for a long time. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill was the Government’s pathetic attempt to pacify the public outrage at compensation being awarded to prisoners for some factious abuse of their human rights. What this legislation means is that prisoners will continue clogging up our courts and continue being paid thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money. Watch the legal and gravy-train lawyers milk every dollar possible out of this legislation.” Then it asks a very pertinent question. “Once again, criminal rights take precedence over victims’ rights. Whose side is the Government really on: victims, or criminals? This legislation proves that it is on the side of the criminal.”

I will end on this one note. This battle for victims may be lost, but the voice of victims will not be silenced. Their blood can never be spilt in vain on the footsteps of our criminal justice system, because they are the heart of it. At some point in the future the biggest voting bloc in this country will be victims, and then we will see some change. It is a pity that we have to have so many victims in order to effect it. Ninety-two percent of people in 1999, with Norm Withers’ referendum, made a loud and clear voice for people who love justice everywhere in this country. This Government has failed them, and it will continue to fail them until it addresses the real core issues. This legislation is a crock. It turns its tail on victims’ rights, and destroys the promise that started so wonderfully with the victims’ rights legislation of 2002. This is the saddest day of my time in Parliament.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): At a time when New Zealand has the leading figures for unemployment throughout the world, and a crime rate that is going down to a level that has not been seen for over 20 years, it is extraordinary to listen to a speech such as that. The reality is that there is not one single answer to crime in this country. But I tell members that we as a Government have built, or are about to build, an extra set of prisons that I do not think this country should have to spend its money on. We have also made sure that a significant number of New Zealanders now have a reason to get out of bed in the morning—they have a job. For Mr Alexander not to understand that means that he lives in a completely different world from me.

I live in south Auckland. I was born there, I grew up there, and I still live there. People sometimes point to that community and ask who would want to come from that place and who would want to live there. I am proud to say that I come from that place. I was proud to read in the local newspaper recently of a dairy owner in Māngere who said that, in the past, he had to keep his eye on young guys who came into his shop in the morning; that they would usually nick something when they came in, because they had nothing else to do. Now they are coming in to buy their lunch, because they are off to work. That is the real answer—not this crap about victims, about every New Zealander being a victim. What a bizarre thought—that all New Zealanders are victims! That is absolute nonsense.

Brian Connell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the past you have ruled that type of language out of order. I am wondering why you have not on this occasion.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It has been tested now. The member has withdrawn and apologised.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: For Mr Alexander to claim that every New Zealander is a victim is extraordinary. It is just not true. This bill seeks to deal with a situation where a person has been imprisoned, and the system has not treated that person as it should—in the normal, humane way that any decent human being would expect to be treated, or would expect a member of his or her family to be treated, if he or she were in prison anywhere in the world. If we fall foul of those standards, those people should have some legal redress. This bill seeks to ensure that the victims whom that person in prison offended against now have the opportunity to say: “I’m not prepared to let that person get the money while I stand here and get nothing.”, and we have made it very simple for them to do so.

Most New Zealanders would understand this bill to be sensible legislation. But that lot down there who spend their lives obsessing about the problems, rather than the solutions, are ignoring the fundamental fact that we in this country do not want to go down to the lowest common denominator and ignore human rights, no matter who sets them—and we set our own human rights legislation in this land. I want to be part of a Parliament that says we have standards that apply even to people we imprison, people whose rights and liberty we take away, and we should live by them. That is what we as a Government want to do, and that is what we are doing with this bill.

I am happy to support the bill. But I remind people out there that the real answer is not to pass law after law that deals with the punishment side of things. This Government has a very strong record on that, by the way. We have had to build prisons, and increase the numbers of police staff, prison officers, probation service staff, and social workers, because we are cleaning up after 15 years of neglect, 15 years of new-right politics in this country that ignored the human values that this Government stands for. That is why we need this legislation.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): What an extraordinary speech that was! It was absolutely contemptuous of victims of crime in New Zealand.

Darren Hughes: The member wasn’t listening.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I was listening. We witnessed the new love affair between Labour and the Green Party—the party that loves the dope. I guess United Future has been spurned by Labour. After one little rebellion by United Future, it has been spurned in a most contemptuous way. It has been absolutely amazing.

Today the Government is codifying into the law, into statute, the right of prisoners to sue for compensation. The reality is that it is putting that into statute law. Previously, that right, to the extent that it existed at all, rested on a High Court decision only. What has the Government done? It has taken that decision of the High Court and put it into the supreme law of this land—the laws of this Parliament. The Minister for Courts, the Associate Minister of Justice, has completely misinterpreted Baigent’s case. That case concerned an entirely innocent citizen whose home was invaded by the police. The police recognised their error at the time they did that. They said: “Oh, we’re here now, so we might as well execute the search warrant even though it’s not for you.” It was on that basis that that innocent family sued, and it got compensation. Who on earth could be surprised by that? Was it extraordinary that National did not repeal that decision, in those circumstances? Obviously, we would not do that. Who would possibly think an innocent citizen should not have some remedy? Instead, what this Government has done is accept a High Court decision, enshrine it into the law of this Parliament under urgency, and ride roughshod over the rights of victims. It is lamentable.

The Deputy Prime Minister was in the House earlier. He was part of a Government that in 1989 put a specific reservation into the relevant international convention that stated that prisoners would not be able to sue for compensation. Apparently, that means nothing. Talk about respect for international law! Clearly, the Government does not even understand its own previous practices.

There was another way. I spoke of my sister who received compensation for a violent assault in New South Wales. She received it from a proper victims’ fund. I am pleased to hear that members across this Parliament recognise that that is a good system. The Government has had a whole year, since the decision of the High Court, to do something about it. This bill took months to be introduced—in December last year. We are now in June, and it is being reported back after submissions. The Government could have established a victims’ code. What we should be dealing with today in this House, if we have to pass legislation under urgency, is legislation entitled the “Victims’ Compensation Bill”, not a bill that gives statutory, codified rules for prisoners’ compensation. Those were the real options. Now the Government says: “Ah, well, we could do that. We could hold an inquiry.” It is, after all, something it thinks it might be able to do. Well, it has had a whole year to do it.

I want to make this point in relation to the cost of victims’ compensation. Clearly, some money is involved. Australia is able to do it. It is really an issue of choice. We could spend $250 million on a wānanga, for instance, and get whatever value we think we might get out of that $250 million—a quarter of a billion dollars—or we could spend some money on victims. Those are the kinds of real choices that confront Governments. This Government has had a whole year to wrestle with this issue. Has it done anything about it? What work has Mr Alexander been undertaking with the Government to achieve that particular outcome? That was one of the choices before it.

I am disappointed that, in a sense, we are debating the wrong bill. We should be debating the “Victims’ Compensation Bill”. If we had been doing so, National would be happy to support such a bill. Instead, we are debating a statutory code of compensation for prisoners. The Government says: “Oh well, of course, if a prisoner sues and gets some compensation, the victim can then get some money.” But that is completely round the wrong way. It puts the victims in the incredibly difficult position of hoping that the rights of a prisoner are infringed, so that the prisoner will then sue the Crown and the victim will get some money. Frankly, that is just absurd.

The Government has had a whole year to deal with this problem—and I recognise that it did have a problem. Why do we not have a “Victims’ Compensation Bill” coupled with—and I think this matter has the consent of every party in the House—a bill that establishes an independent inspectorate of prisons? We could have been doing that today, but we are not. Every party in this Parliament has spoken in support of an independent inspectorate of prisons. It was put in the select committee report by members months and months ago. What has happened? Nothing. All that has happened is some sort of inquiry. Well, Governments are elected to do things, and that is one of the things this Government could have done. This is a sad day, because it is a day of lost opportunities—lost opportunities for victims, who could have been getting a new code of compensation today. Mr Garth McVicar would have issued a press release in support of the Government if that kind of bill was being debated today. A bill giving victims a statutory code of compensation—and it exists in Australia—would have been supported today.

Hon Mark Gosche: That’s another one he’s going to pay for out of tax cuts.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is exactly the point Mr Gosche completely misses. He would rather see $250 million of funding go to a wānanga and be absolutely wasted. We, in contrast, would sooner be supporting victims. It is all about choices. The Government makes the wrong choices. That is the real problem here. Fundamentally, the Labour Government has its headspace in the wrong place.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: The public knows that.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: As my colleague says, the public knows that. So National is opposing this bill today, because it is the wrong choice. It is not a requirement of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that we pass this legislation. It is not a requirement of international law that we pass this legislation. This bill is an insult to victims, who deserve a proper code of compensation. It is fundamentally based on a wrong premise, and for that reason we are voting against it. We are proud of that, because we will do justice for victims when we are in Government.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): National is voting against this bill today because an election is looming. Members should be under no misapprehension as to whether it is about the poor victim or whether it is about what National wants to do to appease the public. National’s motive for voting against this bill is purely and simply that by 24 September we must have an election. National is typically tough while in Opposition, but a lamb while in Government. We on the Government side of the House, and the Greens, who are supporting this bill today, know that we will never out-hang National. We will never be a “public floggings, public hangings, roll up to the revolution and bring along your knitting needles, ladies” type of Government. That is not part of our personal philosophy. But quietly, surely, and positively, this Government has done a huge amount to assist the victims of all manner of crimes. We are proud of the legislative changes we have been able to make to give victims’ rights a high priority.

Those of us who are realists and who talk to real people of all socio-economic classes know that there is no way any Western, developed country can ever say that there will never ever be crime again. We abhor crime. Thinking people abhor crime. Thinking people also find it abhorrent when prisoners are awarded compensation payments for wrongs that they may have suffered in prison, but we also believe in the old adage that prevention is better than cure. It is much better to have systems in place to prevent abuse from occurring in those institutions in the first place. That is a priority. It does not scream out at people from the front pages of the papers, but it works. It works to have systems and measures in place, and to have appropriate staffing levels and well-trained staff. That is far more effective than salivating and drooling at the mouth about punishment and about how we will “fix those people”.

National has been all over the show on this bill, and that has been particularly evident in its actions in the House today. Those of us on the Government side of the House who are here at the moment have been in the House for most of the day, and we have observed the body language and the behaviour of the Opposition members. Those members have been about as organised as—we will not draw an analogy. They were highly disorganised. A lot of that stems from the fact that the National Party has no leadership at all on this issue. That goes right back to September last year. On 14 September Don Brash said that National wanted to “prevent convicted criminals from collecting significant taxpayer compensation”, but on the next day he said that National wanted legislation “removing the entitlement of prisoners to compensation” altogether. That conflicting attitude—one view one day, another view the next—is very prevalent in the way the National Party has handled the debate at all stages of this bill. There is no leadership on this issue, and those kinds of attitudes do not bode well for the social future of this country.

In conclusion, I just want to say that if a prisoner is awarded compensation despite the new guidelines that strictly limit payouts, victims will not have to front up to the perpetrator of the crime that was committed against them. Victims will be contacted, and they will be assisted in making a civil claim for damages against the sum that has been awarded to the prisoner. Victims will not even have to fill out the forms themselves. They can have an advocate, a counsellor, or a support person do that for them. This bill is about supporting victims and reducing or eliminating any trauma that they may be suffering, because goodness knows they have suffered enough already. This legislation strikes a far better balance in favour of victims than the law that National left in place. I will not mention Mr Alexander’s behaviour, because I do not think that behaviour is true of other United Future members. His behaviour today has just been odd—that is the most generous word I can use. But as I observed what has gone on from the salivating few members on the National benches, I saw a sign of guilt because National had had 9 long years to do something about this issue and did nothing. Actions speak louder than words, and this Government, with the support of the Greens, has taken positive action to support victims.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for disturbing the flow of the debate, but during my speech I suggested that Peter Brown had misunderstood the bill because he had been poorly advised by Mr Jones. Mr Jones has informed me that Peter Brown specifically said that he had not been advised by Mr Jones. I have not checked Hansard, but I take the member’s word for it. I simply want to apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I have to say that this PC nonsense that has come out of the Government speakers today demonstrates that this Government has completely and utterly lost the plot. I will take great delight in getting on a platform and debating this bill with Government members anywhere, any time, right around the country. It is an absolute no-brainer. The country simply does not want this legislation. The people of New Zealand want to see justice done, and they simply do not want it dealt with in this guise. They do not want lowlifes getting compensation because their feelings were hurt when they were languishing somewhere in prison.

Let us be absolutely clear: some of those prisoners are amongst some of the worst in the prison regime right at the moment. The people of New Zealand do not want this sort of society. They actually want common sense to apply. Sam Te Hei murdered a young woman in the most brutal manner imaginable, yet he got compensation. What could I tell the mother of the victim—

Edwin Perry: Mrs Hawkins.

BRIAN CONNELL: I thank the member for the name. What could I tell Mrs Hawkins when she asked me what her daughter’s rights were? “What about the human rights of my little girl?”, she beseeched me. So that members are clear, I tell them that this animal beat this girl so badly that her own mother could not recognise her. Yet this Government wants criminals such as Te Hei to get compensation because the lights were left on once too often in their prison cell.

What do I tell the son of the Sanson hotel owner who had his throat slit from ear to ear by a vicious thug? “What about his human rights?”, he asked me. It is a difficult thing when one comes to the reality of it all—when one has to sit across the table from the victims of crime, and they ask those sorts of questions. The same thug blamed the son for the murder, and the son incurred $5,000 in legal fees just to clear his name. The police did not think he was guilty, but he simply had to clear his name, as anyone else would have done. Did he get compensation? I will let that question hang there.

I can now tell Mrs Hawkins and the son of the Sanson hotel owner that the Government now says that they can sue those vicious criminals for compensation. That is right. To get any justice now by way of compensation, the victims must now incur a financial cost, by way of legal expenses, to engage with the very criminals who caused them so much harm in the past. They are now expected to sit across the table from these vicious thugs and engage with them, once again. Their pain and hurt go on and on.

That is why I will enjoy getting on a public platform and saying that this is a Government that prefers that type of justice, rather than ensuring that these criminals get nothing. The victims’ nightmare will continue on and on. Instead of saying that vicious criminals and rapists will not get compensation—which would have been the right thing to do—the Government has now legislated a convoluted process whereby criminals can profit and victims can go fly a kite.

By way of mitigation, the Associate Minister of Justice told the House that the legislation extends the period of limitations for victims, so that if, for example, one of these vicious thugs decided to write a book, it is successful, and he or she gets a windfall, the victims could sue. That really beggars belief. Can members imagine the high interest in a book entitled Ten Brutal Ways to Kill and Rape Innocent Women? That would be a real winner, would it not? Victims of crime will be lining up to sue those types of individuals! Not only can the criminals probably not read and write, but even if they were smart enough to write a book, does the Minister think they would not create some form of trust or company structure to defeat their victims who might want to bring a claim against them?

This bill presupposes that criminals will have a regard for the law, in the first place. Money from vicious criminals? As the Tui advertisement says: Yeah, right!. We are not unreasonable people. All members of the Opposition have argued that prisoners should not be mistreated in prison, but we say that we should fix the problem and not just treat the symptom. If prison officials are acting unlawfully, they should be dealt to. But let us be clear: most of the infractions that these prison officers have supposedly committed have been minor. For example, a window was left open for an extra half-hour in winter, lights were left on for just a little bit too long, or someone did not get to read a letter that had nothing to do with that person in the first place—it was private correspondence, anyway. That is the sort of thing we are talking about.

In terms of our prison models, we had a perfectly good working model in the private prison in Auckland. No prisoner complaints came out of that prison, but the ideology of the Labour Government put the prison back into State management. More precisely, the Government put it back into the Public Service Association’s management. That is right. In order to keep jobs for its union mates, it closed down a perfectly good, working model. Prisoner abuse was not happening under that private prison model; it was happening—

Marc Alexander: The Greens supported that.

BRIAN CONNELL: Oh no, the Greens would not support that, because they came to the House last night and said this bill was bad law. They said this bill was bad, so surely they would not have voted for that closure. No, they would not do that; I am sure the member has got that wrong.

Prisoner abuse was not happening under the private prison system; it was happening under the State system. Now we have a Clayton’s bill that supposedly enables victims to get justice from vicious criminals. In the final analysis—[Interruption] Jill Pettis is screeching like a hyena, as is her wont—the sophisticated member from Whanganui. She might think that this is a light moment, but I do not. This is a very serious issue, and she would do very well to keep her smart alec mouth closed, and listen and learn. In the final analysis, victims do not want compensation from these thugs. They actually do not want anything to do with them, at all. They have already lived the nightmare once; they do not want to live it again. Is it unreasonable that victims do not want anything to do with those criminals? Would reasonable people want that contact? So why does this Government not want to help victims? It is simply a disgrace.

The Associate Minister claims that we are bound by a UN convention. Other members have responded to his claim, so I will not go into it again, other than to say I think it is a load of bollocks. I simply ask him and the members of the Labour Government: what about the conventions that one does not murder and one does not rape. Why cannot those conventions be more important to Labour members? I conclude by saying that if the Associate Minister cared more for fellow Kiwis and less for UN conventions, then New Zealand would be a better place for it.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): There is nothing like law and order legislation for bringing out the worst in some Opposition members of Parliament. Over the last day and a half we have seen it, in a mixture of total exaggeration, melodramatic theatrics, and complete misrepresentation of what the Government is trying to propose here. I am not shocked by that, because it happens every single time, and—surprise, surprise—it is the same members of Parliament from the same Opposition parties who seem to do it all the time. I see Mr Franks volunteering. I was not going to mention him, because anyone who has ever followed anything he has had to say will know that the member from the “Freedom Party”, as he likes it to be known, wants to make sure that things are tough for absolutely everybody.

Let us be very clear what this bill does. We had a law on the books under the previous National Government—I do not want to be political about it, but the National Party in office brought in the legislation—that resulted in the Baigent case, where the prisoner got to keep 100 percent of all the cash that was paid out. That is fine; that is the state of play as it was. That law was effective for most of the 1990s, when National was in office. I see Dr Wayne Mapp over there, who was a member of that Government. He went into that National Government and said nothing to reflect the absolutely huge moral outrage we have heard about for the last day and a half. But that is Wayne Mapp, the member for North Shore; he says one thing when in Opposition and does absolutely nothing about it when in Government.

So Labour inherited that situation, but we asked what would happen in a case of someone who has offended against a victim, but who has been rightly punished by society. The person has been to a court and received a punishment, but the judge has not been able to order the person to pay any reparation, because the person has no money. Of course, if offenders do have money, as part of the sentence they are ordered to pay some money to victims. Often, as we know, people who commit violent crimes do not have much money, so the judge cannot make them hand any over.

We come to the offender who has done a wrong and terrible thing against a victim. Nobody in any political party supports that, but members can read out every crime they have ever heard of and make it sound as if only their party is upset about them. We are all upset about violent crime. Let us get the nonsense out of this debate in that regard. Labour was upset about it to the extent that we have improved the sentencing laws, and we are putting people away for longer.

But once offenders are in prison, if the State then turns around and mistreats people in the very ways we have said that offenders did wrong, which put them in jail in the first place—that is, we say as a society: “Please don’t commit violent crime. If you do, we will lock you up.”, and then the State says: “Once we’ve got you incarcerated, we’ll treat you violently and badly, and that will somehow make sure you don’t reoffend. We all disapprove of the reoffending rate.”—then the State, of course, has to be held accountable for the way officers of the State are treating people.

Now, that is not to say that all of a sudden we are not on the side of the victim. But we are saying that we should be spending all our resources in trying to stop the people who have been put away from reoffending once they get out. Members have got up for the last day and a half in this House and said we should treat those people terribly, because here are terrible cases they have heard about and we should make people even worse, once they leave prison. That is what they are saying: lock them up, throw away the key, treat people badly. That does not work. Two-thirds of people are reoffending—we have to do better than that.

If a case comes to court and it is proven that the State mistreated people in prison, and if those people are awarded money, the Government is saying that the money should not stay with the offender. The first people who should have the call on that ought to be the victims—the people who at sentencing missed out because the prisoners we are talking about had no cash at the time. Where prisoners have had a windfall gain, this legislation actually gives victims the opportunity to benefit from it. This is pro-victim legislation.

Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member to have an extension of time. He plainly has too much to get through.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. The member has no right to ask for an extension for someone else. The person seeks it on his or her own accord.

DARREN HUGHES: That reinforces the very point about the way Opposition members behave on law and order issues. In that regard, it brings out the juvenile in even the most ageing middle-aged men on that side of the House.

The Opposition was worried that victims would have to “relive their crime” in order to get the money. Not having read the bill, they did not realise that a District Court judge, sitting as a victims’ special claims tribunal, will be able to decide the case using papers. The victim does not have to prove again that the crime occurred. As the member for Whanganui said, the victims can use an advocate in order to make sure that he or she gets access to the money.

Once again we have gone through a process in the House whereby we have totally distorted the issue, because we all like to pretend that we are the toughest, roughest, meanest, and baddest on dealing with law and order issues, rather than looked at what this bill does. It is a process bill that tries to make sure that people who have done wrong do not get to benefit from doing that wrong, and that people who have been victims, having missed out in the first place, then get the chance to get some of that money if it is paid out in that way.

I support the bill for that reason, not for the ridiculously exaggerated reasons that Dr Mapp, Brian Connell, Stephen Franks, Dail Jones, and Ron Mark—all the usual cast of characters—have gone through. It is a process bill—but then, National would oppose that, having talked its way out of process and missed a question time. What a hopeless, lazy, useless Opposition!

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Māori Party 1.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 4.03 p.m. (Thursday)