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

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) Link to this

I move, That the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In effect, this bill extends the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for 2 more years, following the current expiration date of 30 June 2010. The bill ensures that the current restrictions on prisoners’ claims are retained, and that prisoners are awarded compensation only if no other remedy is appropriate. It also ensures that the victims of those prisoners awarded compensation continue to have priority to claim against that compensation. In addition, the bill clarifies a potential ambiguity in one of the Act’s provisions. The bill makes it absolutely clear that the victims’ claims process applies to compensation payable for claims made by prisoners before 1 July 2012.

I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its consideration of the bill in the short amount of time available. The committee received six submissions on the bill and has recommended that it proceed without amendment. That is not surprising, as this bill simply maintains the status quo for a further 2 years and ensures that the application of the victims’ claim process is clear. The effect is a transition period that gives prisoners, particularly those with historic grievances, 2 more years to make their claims before a second bill, which the Minister of Justice intends to introduce before the end of this year, takes effect. That legislation will mean that if compensation is awarded to a prisoner, then anything remaining after the prisoner’s victims have sought redress will be redirected to the broader victims’ services appropriation. The victims’ services appropriation is currently holding the revenue generated by the Government’s offender levy initiative and the funding from the disestablished Criminal Justice Advisory Board and the Sentencing Council. That money is already being put to good use by funding five new or enhanced entitlements for victims of serious crime.

From 1 July 2010 three more initiatives will be rolled out. A new court support service for victims of sexual violence will be introduced, as well as an enhanced homicide support service. More comprehensive information resources for victims of crime will also be available from July. This will provide a guide to the criminal justice system and explain the support that victims and their families can get.

The bill before us and the new legislation to come will not prevent prisoners from seeking to uphold their rights through the courts; nor should it. Agencies responsible for wrongdoing will still be held to account and required to pay compensation where a sufficiently serious breach of a prisoner’s rights has occurred. That is appropriate, because prisoner mistreatment should not be tolerated. However, I make no apology for ensuring that where compensation is necessary, victims of that prisoner have every opportunity to benefit from that compensation and seek redress for the harms committed against them. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

The Labour Opposition will be supporting the extension set out in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. It is a technical amendment. Why are we supporting it? Quite clearly, we are supporting it because we in 2005 put in place the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act whilst in Government. This is Labour Government legislation that the current Government is seeking to extend for 2 years, from 1 July until 30 June 2012. So on the basis of an extension of the legislation that the previous Labour Government passed, of course we would support this legislation.

This bill is designed to assist victims. The aim, of course, is to extend those restrictions in awarding compensation to prisoners for a further 2 years, as I have said, so that the victims’ claims process also applies to compensation awarded in, or to be paid pursuant to, an out-of-court final settlement in respect of a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July 2010 but before 1 July 2012. So, in essence, this amending legislation bridges a gap. Labour agrees with this. We wrote this legislation—that is, the primary Act—and we agree with its extension, but I would make a couple of points in passing.

This Government has made many lofty claims in respect of assisting victims. I suspect that we, putting aside our political prejudices, all support that ethos of supporting victims who have been subject to either heinous crime at the horrific, tragic end of the scale or even so-called minor crime, smaller incidences, at the other end of the scale. But I make this point. If this Government was serious about assisting victims, this legislation would be followed by legislation that does away with what is happening with accident compensation whereby sexual abuse victims are no longer able to get the support they need thanks to the changes made to our accident compensation system by this National Government. This issue is germane to this legislation, because we are talking about victims of crime. That member over there might have a bit of a peck, as she is wont to do, but this is the truth, and I challenge this Government. If this Government is serious about assisting victims, I ask every member of the Government about the men and women who have been subjected to horrific crime, through sexual abuse and other sexual crime, and who formerly, under the previous Government, could get the assistance they needed. There is no dispute, in my view, about the crimes committed against those people. They will live with the horrific nature of those crimes for the rest of their lives. They need counselling, perhaps psychological assistance, perhaps medical assistance, and other support.

We know that under the previous Government those victims of sexual abuse and sexual crime were getting the assistance they need. Under this Government many of them, most of them, are not getting that. I challenge the ACT Party, because we know of the affiliation between the ACT Party and the Sensible Sentencing Trust through Mr Garrett. He was intimately involved with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I challenge the ACT Party. I ask Mr Boscawen to get up in this debate and challenge the Government that he and his colleagues prop up every day. If that party is serious about assisting and supporting all victims of crime, I ask Mr Boscawen, through you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, whether he will get up and challenge this Government and demand that it change its policy so that victims of heinous sexual crime can get the assistance they need through accident compensation.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

It is always gratifying to hear one’s words come back to one. I believe that I was the person in the first reading of this debate who told my friend who has just resumed his seat that, yes, the victims of sexual abuse and child abuse need to be supported and it has to come out of the taxpayers’ pocket. We do not care what bucket it comes from. That is a firm priority.

But the point I want to make in respect of this bill is that it seeks to put victims at the heart of the justice system. I believe that victims are at the heart of the justice system, but what we need to recognise as a community and as a civilised society is that some of the victims at the centre of the justice system are there as complainants, as victims of crime, and as witnesses, and other victims of crime are in the court system as offenders. When we talk about abuse, and when we talk particularly about sexual abuse and violence, those victims can go on to become offenders. It is very, very easy for some of our lobbying groups within this country to regard everyone as a victim, up to a certain stage, and as soon as their victimisation is shown in their own offending behaviour, automatically all sympathy is chopped off. They become labelled as offenders, and that is it. They are due absolutely no regard whatsoever, and that is wrong. It is uncivilised to treat people in that way.

This bill recognises that if people who are in prison and who have grievances against the prison system—whereas those grievances may well be upheld and may be compensated in some way—owe outstanding debt to society or to their own victims directly as the result of their own behaviour, then they will not be able to access any financial compensation, but they will still get regard in other ways in terms of redressing the wrongs that have been made against them.

I am pleased to see that we have support from the other side of the House. I acknowledge that it was Labour when in Government that started the work on this bill. We look forward to the upcoming legislation that will replace it. But before I sit down I reiterate that if we are going to call ourselves a civilised society, we need to recognise that the vast majority of people in our prison cells at the moment have been offended against in heinous ways, and their resulting behaviour is to be expected. We need to show some understanding of that and treat them accordingly, in the way they deserve to be treated.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this

I am pleased to follow the erudite challenge set out by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. His challenge puts the responsibility of victims’ rights squarely in the hands of the Government, which does need to do more.

Labour’s record of standing up for victims’ rights is clearly set out by our commitment and by our actions in the past to address the interests of victims. I will outline that for the record. We introduced and passed the Sentencing Act in 2002, which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used more frequently. The same Act also recognised the potential of restorative justice processes to make offenders more accountable to victims. It enabled courts to take both financial and non-financial offers of amends by an offender into account.

Labour introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002, which extended a number of rights to victims, such as the right to information and the ability to have an input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements. That in itself had a transformative effect on addressing the rights of victims. In terms of the practical examples that have come through my office, I have seen that it has made a big difference.

In 2003 the Ministry of Justice launched a campaign to trace those owed money. It introduced an 0800 number, and it also established new collection centres to further bolster the collection and disbursement of reparations. In 2005 we passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, as Clayton Cosgrove has mentioned. It ensured that the victims of inmates who were awarded compensation could claim against the inmates’ compensation.

Labour introduced the Pay or Stay initiative in September 2006. It enabled the Ministry of Justice to stop those people who had unpaid fines or reparations from travelling overseas if they attempted to leave New Zealand.

The changes we introduced in the Evidence Act in 2006 provided for the needs of vulnerable witnesses and victims by making provision for witnesses to give evidence in alternative ways, such as giving evidence from behind a screen via closed-circuit TV or pre-recorded video. Victims of sexual offences, for example, have utilised this particular mechanism.

When we amended the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, we included a provision to ensure that victims of youth crime could attend Youth Court hearings. We also put in place provisions to ensure that these victims were kept informed of proceedings. In 2008 a Victims Charter was developed to build awareness of the standards of service that victims could expect from Government departments. We know that the Accident Compensation Corporation, in particular, was one Government department where a number of concerns were raised with regard to the handling of sensitive cases. An 0800 victim helpline was also introduced in that same year, as was a website for victims and a boost in funding for Victim Support, which offers much-needed services in many communities. All these types of initiatives built a profile of ensuring that the rights of victims continued to be addressed.

We also announced that we would provide additional services in 2008 through the Family Court, such as the introduction of an independent victim advocate or support person to provide support and assistance to victims of domestic violence. I know that in many of the communities I support, this important service is heavily utilised to ensure that those suffering from domestic violence are supported.

Labour also asked the Law Commission to look at how to set up proper victim compensation schemes. I understand that that work is still continuing.

We know that this particular bill is an extension of the gains that Labour made, and we are happy to support it. It is considering a minor technical change.

We want to ensure that the big picture in terms of how National addresses victims’ rights will have to supersede the record that has already been established by Labour. It is just not good enough, in terms of the accident compensation issues raised by Clayton Cosgrove, not to provide an avenue for those who have suffered sexual abuse, and for them not to have a remedy for reparation or to have their needs addressed. I know from the particular cases I have dealt with that the ongoing support provided by mental health and counselling services are very much needed services. It is absolutely reprehensible that this type of support might not continue to be available.

I did not intend to take a long call on this reading of the bill. As we have said, this is a minor technical change, but let the case state that Labour’s record of advocating for victims’ rights stands in its own right.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Kia ora koutou. When the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill was first proposed prior to 2005, the Greens opposed it, essentially on the basis of its effect on human rights—that is, its reduction of human rights—because it was likely to be ineffectual, as has now proven to be the case, and because most of the effects would be negative. It had very few positive elements or redeeming features. We were, at the time, persuaded to support the bill through its final stages, on the understanding that it would be quickly followed by a major reassessment and a major overhaul, with significant attention being paid to the whole issue of victims’ rights. Clearly, everybody in this House is supportive of finding ways and means of compensating the victims of crime—of getting redress for them—as well as punishing and rehabilitating those people who cause problems and who create victims. However, we cannot, in all conscience, support this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, at its second reading, which would mean the continuation of what is essentially a flawed, and indeed, a failed Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act.

The Act has two features. It intends to restrict the circumstances in which courts can award compensation to persons under the control of the State, whether in prison or through some other means, and it intends to provide a simplified process for allowing victims to make claims on compensation awarded to prisoners. In fact, that has been more symbolic than real: there have been remarkably few successful instances where victims have had any benefit from this legislation in the 5 or more years since it has been enacted.

The Act denies prisoners the possibility of redress for wrongs done by the State. Why would one continue with legislation that has failed? The victims, in this case, can benefit only if a prisoner or an inmate—somebody under the control of the State—has a windfall, or if the State abuses the human rights of that prisoner. That is about the only mechanism through which a victim can get any redress. Is it not perverse to create a situation where imposing on the human rights of one person is the avenue to rewarding another for wrong done to that other person? It is simply a peculiar and perverse model, and it would be better to simply remove it from the books and go looking for a proper solution. Part of the solution could be to establish a fully independent prison complaints authority. Such authorities are known to work successfully and are quite commonplace in other jurisdictions and in other countries. Absent such an authority, we need to be very sure that there is a very robust set of circumstances where prisoners can rightfully be awarded some compensation if their human rights are abused while they are in the control of the State in prison. If there are no checks on abuses in prisons, then inevitably prisons become more dangerous places—they become more dehumanising environments. The flow-on effect of this is that prisoners become more brutalised, more dehumanised, and therefore more dangerous to society when they are released. It increases the likelihood of recidivism.

There is no value in the Act. It has not worked for victims, and it has certainly not worked for prisoners; it can work only through a very perverse link of abuse, recompense, and secondary recompense to victims. The recent move to such unhelpful strategies as double-bunking to deal with the increased prison numbers is increasing tension in prisons. It is increasing the likelihood of tension and stress, and the violence that inevitable follows from that in our prisons. We know that there are better ways to deal with crime. We can reduce recidivism. We know that there are strategies that work, strategies such as the faith unit at Rimutaka Prison, which has had an extraordinarily good success rate at reducing recidivism. The rate of recidivism is down to perhaps less than 10 percent for inmates who have been through that programme, compared with something like 50 percent otherwise. We know that mechanisms are available to us today that could be applied within existing budgets by moving budgets away from concrete, steel, and wire towards serving the needs of the community by reducing the likelihood of recidivism and by healing prisoners. They are damaged people in the same way that their victims are damaged. We know that there are better strategies than continuing the failed strategies of the past.

If the Government wants to get serious about crime, about reducing the prison population, and about reducing the knock-on and flow-on effects and the social, environmental, and economic costs of crime, then we know there are strategies and mechanisms available to us. Inhumane treatment of prisoners is effectively protected under this bill, because it takes away the likelihood of prisoners claiming compensation or objecting to the fact that their human rights have been taken away from them. We will continue to oppose the Act. It does not work; it was flawed at its enactment. It has proven itself ineffectual, and it would be a much better situation simply to start with a clean slate and look for a set of solutions that will deliver good outcomes. Kia ora.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tatou katoa. I start off by stating up front that I am opposed to the victimisation of any people, whether they are inside or outside of prison.

On the global website called Restorative Justice Onlinethere is an article that is entitled “Can prisoners also be victims? Promoting injustice through legislation.” The article is written by Kim Workman, the very person who began the faith-based units in prisons that we have just heard spoken about by the Green Party. He was the head of prisons at the time of the Mangaroa assaults, a period of time that Workman described as one of the most shameful incidents in the history of New Zealand’s prison system. He proceeds to discuss the situation that unfolded at Mangaroa Prison in January 1993, when three young inmates were systematically beaten and tortured by prison officers. The article is gruelling in its detail, recalling the way in which the officers held the young men naked in outside exercise yards and used hit squads to repeatedly beat them over a 3-day period. We need to be thankful that none of those three were one of our own sons. The prisoners were initially denied access to health professionals for the injuries that they had sustained, including bruising and cracked bones. Those 3 days from hell might have ended there. Fortunately, they did not. An inquiry was initiated, and it led to the dismissal of 12 prison staff, but it was a long time coming.

Over a decade later the 2004 United Nations Committee Against Torture reported the significant level of concern it had about the findings of the Ombudsman regarding investigations of alleged assaults on inmates, the reluctance to confront such allegations promptly, and the quality, impartiality, and credibility of investigations. Now, 17 years later, with the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill we are still dealing with the after-effects of that initial assault at Mangaroa Prison and the subsequent introduction of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Act 2005, which we heard the Hon Nanaia Mahuta speak about.

Let us go back to those three young men in 1993. Those men continued to wait for an appropriate response to such a vicious assault for 7 long years. During that time, some of the prison officers who had committed the criminal acts were re-employed within the prison system. Eventually, the Crown accepted liability and paid compensation to those inmates for the injuries that they had suffered. The public reaction was intense, intimidating, and aggressive. The Minister of Justice at that time, the Hon Phil Goff, cast aspersions on the original incident by referring to it as an alleged assault, and to the victims as a pack of scumbags. Suddenly the gates of hatred were unleashed. There were calls for the maximum use of custody and the maximum deprivation of liberty. The three prisoners who had been victims of the assault were described only in terms of their own offences. Members of the public claimed that because of their classification as offenders, prisoners were no longer entitled to be treated with respect or decency. Letters to the editor urged the Government to make sure that prisoners not have the same rights as any other citizens who are victims of State brutality and violence. In essence, there are two categories of New Zealanders: prisoners and everyone else. The overriding philosophy of that era was that prisoners should not have the same human rights as others in this country. They should certainly not be compensated, because in many respects, so the public record went, they should be considered less than human.

Like Mr Workman, I consider the Mangaroa incident and the horrific backlash that followed when due compensation was awarded as one of the most shameful incidents in the history of New Zealand prisons. The 2005 Act further entrenched that shame, this bill prolongs it, and all the indications are that a further, even more punitive bill is waiting in the wings.

But there is still one fundamental question waiting to be addressed: what are we doing to address the abusive nature of a system that is supposedly meant to demonstrate justice? In responding to this bill, the New Zealand Law Society endorsed the views of the Ministry of Justice that the best way of preventing future claims arising from breaches of prisoners’ human rights is to ensure that incidents leading to such claims are kept to an absolute minimum. I could not agree more. Justice is not about handing out punishments and inflicting numerous abuses upon a perpetrator for the rest of their living days. I am becoming increasingly worried about the relentless hostility of the public and political attitudes towards those who inhabit our prisons. Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand told the Justice and Electoral Committee that “Denial of basic human dignity and revenge does not make for good legislation.” This view was endorsed by the Human Rights Commission, who warned the select committee that “concern about the victims of crime should not override the importance of ensuring that prison conditions respect minimum human rights standards.”

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture in 2010 urged States to respect the right of victims to an effective remedy and reparation. The report recommended that each State party should ensure that the victim of an act of torture must be able to obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. The special rapporteur did not take the step of making an exception for those who are in prison to render them ineligible.

What is the reason that we are taking such a harsh line here in Aotearoa? One of the signs of a mature and inclusive society would be the adoption of a less punitive criminal justice system. But if we were to read between the lines of this bill and all the discourse around it, we would pick up a message that going to prison is no longer sufficient punishment on its own. Clearly, a climate is developing amongst some parties in this House in favour of shifting the emphasis away from rehabilitation and humane treatment of prisoners to a lifelong sentence in which State brutality is permissible.

There are victims beyond the victims, who deserve to have a voice. There are always the children and family members waiting on the outside. They also suffer if their loved ones are subjected to any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

If we are upfront as members, as I am sure we all are, we can accept that all political parties from time to time are somewhat simplistic and reductive in the way they deal with crime, from, really, all manner of viewpoints and persuasions. We can sometimes take the view that all prisoners are bad, and all serious punishment is good. Members on the other side can sometimes say that any more punishment is bad and that we should not be doing anything. I think we have to guard against that. The sad reality is that no party in this House and no set of laws—even the best set of laws—will see a New Zealand without victims and without crime. There will always be serious harm caused to victims and suffering for years and years to come, whatever the Government response. That is the reality of crime, and it goes back, effectively, to Adam and Eve.

I have to say that I think, nevertheless, this is a very good bill. We are doing a strong thing, and I will come to that later. I will also say, with reference to thoughtful speeches by David Clendon and the Hon Tariana Turia, that I accept that prisoners can be victims, and I accept that certainly in serious abusive cases there is a need for the vindication of their rights, sometimes with significant compensation. But I also say that it is my understanding of this bill—which was introduced by Labour, and is now supported by the Government, which wants to extend it—that it does not take away prisoners’ human rights. If I can put it crassly—at a basic moral level, I think this is right—the legislation creates a debt collection mechanism for victims, who have been knowingly wronged, often grievously so, by offenders who were later imprisoned, to receive compensation from their offenders. The bill in no way, shape, or from states that prisoners should not have their rights vindicated nor receive compensation. But where victims of their crimes have been put to cost, and they have not received what is their due from prisoners, the original 2005 Act, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, goes some way at least to righting that wrong.

Effectively, what we are doing tonight is extending the expiry date in the Act out to 2012. We are allowing the restrictions on the circumstances in which courts can award compensation to prisoners to continue, and we are providing a simplified process for victims of prisoners to make claims against prisoners’ compensation before the prisoners fritter it away, to put it frankly. I am pleased to say that we are going further than that with another bill later this year.

I do not think that the members in this House can do everything required to right all wrongs, to ensure that there are no victims, or to ensure that victims never suffer, but I think that through this bill and quite a number of other bills that Parliament has passed this term, we are certainly going a good way towards getting better justice for victims in this country.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill extends the restrictions on the awarding of compensation brought in by the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 for a further 2 years, from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012. Labour’s position is that, basically, we passed the Act that this bill is seeking to extend, and as this bill is only making a technical change to the date of the Act as an interim measure then of course we will be supporting this bill. This bill will ensure that victims will continue to get access to prisoners’ compensation. This temporary measure is to make sure that victims’ access to prisoners’ compensation does not lapse between the expiry of the Act and the commencement of the new bill that the Government intends to introduce later this year—so we hear. The aim of this bill is to amend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, and, because it is just a minor and technical change, we support it. The current Act states that the awarding of compensation to victims expires on 1 July, and that the victims’ claims process applies only to compensation in respect of claims made before that date. This bill will extend that application to June 2012.

An interesting thing that has come up about this relates to the protection of victims’ rights. I will touch on some of the things that Labour did whilst in Government to ensure that victims’ rights were protected. We took that matter seriously, and I think that is proven by our track record with regard to the legislation put into place by the previous Labour Government. We introduced and passed the Sentencing Act in 2002, which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in this sentence being used more frequently. The Sentencing Act also recognised the potential of restorative justice processes to make offenders more accountable to victims, and it enabled courts to take both financial and non-financial offers of amends by an offender into account. Labour introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002, which extended a number of rights to victims, such as rights to information and the ability to have input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements. In 2003 the Ministry of Justice launched a campaign to trace those who were owed money, and it spent $385,000 on advertising an 0800 number for people to call. The establishment of new collection centres further bolstered the collection and disbursement of reparation. In the 2003 Budget, $9 million was allocated for that purpose. Labour passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act in 2005, which ensured that the victims of inmates who had been awarded compensation could claim against that compensation. The previous Labour Government has a proven track record with regard to taking the rights of victims seriously.

I will now touch on the lofty promises made by the National Government post the 2008 election with regard to the rhetoric that it has put out about the protection of victims’ rights—because it has been rhetoric. The Government has had a whole line on being tough on crime and protecting the rights of victims. It has purported to represent victims at some sort of level that has never been reached before, but unfortunately I think that its track record over the last 18 months shows that that is not the case. We need to look not only at what that Government has done in law and order but also at what it has done across the board. One area where it has failed to protect the rights of victims and failed to provide the necessary services required by victims to help them move on and progress in their lives is accident compensation. I think that this is relevant, because when we hear the rhetoric going around about protecting victims and then we see that this other stuff is happening in relation to accident compensation, we have to question whether that Government is fulfilling its promises to the New Zealand public. I am talking about sexual abuse victims who are no longer able to get the support that they need under the accident compensation scheme, thanks to the changes that National has made. That is something that all of us on this side of the House have seen with regard to the constituents whom we are out there supporting, advocating for, and representing in this House. We have seen how the changes in policy that that Government has put into place with regard to accident compensation have failed those particular victims.

I can think of one story I heard when I was in Waitakere recently—maybe a month ago—when I was meeting with different groups that provide counselling services for sexual abuse victims. This case was brought to my attention when I was meeting with those counsellors. It was in respect of a woman who had been sexually assaulted. It was a while ago, but she was still suffering from that sexual assault. She had been receiving counselling that had been funded by the Accident Compensation Corporation, and the counsellors were concerned that she would lose that funding. This particular victim and her family was very aware of this. The counsellor told me on that day that the woman’s son even rang the counsellor and said that she could not stop providing those counselling services to his mother. He did not think that his mother could do it without the counselling, and he thought that she was at risk of committing suicide if she did not receive the service.

On the same day that the counsellor was telling me the story, someone else walked into the room and let her know that the corporation had declined to fund that woman’s counselling. We sat there and I asked the counsellor what she would do. She said that her group would continue to provide the service without the funding. There would be no support from the Government and no support from the Accident Compensation Corporation. The counsellors would keep giving the woman the counselling, but they could not sustain that for a long period of time. That is only one example of a person who is a victim and who has been affected by the changes in accident compensation that that Government has put into place. Her right to counselling, to recover, to move on, and to get the care that she needs, has been taken away by a change in policy from members on that side of the House. Going back to what I was saying before, we are concerned that what that Government says is purely rhetoric about the protection of the rights of victims.

In that instance, it was definitely not something that that Government saw as being a priority. Instead, it has left that woman at risk, having to look after herself, and in potential danger. Talking about that issue a little more, over the last couple of years the number of approved claims for counselling were between 200 and 300 each month. The number of approved claims for the whole of New Zealand in January this year was 11 and there were only six in February. So members on that side of the House cannot say that the policy changes they have put into place with regard to accident compensation have not had an effect at all. It is obvious that the care provided to these victims has shrunk to almost nothing. That is only one example of where that Government has failed to protect the rights of victims.

There are many others. We could talk about the “three strikes” bill and about how some of the submitters on that bill told us very clearly that it would only see victims re-victimised. They would be at risk of having to go through longer court proceedings because of appeals and other things. Those were the things that came through very strongly in the submissions. The last thing that I will touch on is preventing more victims of crime. That is something that this Government over there has failed to do also. The latest crime statistics showed that the number of crime victims are growing, not decreasing, under National. As the Government’s response, the Minister of Police has cut police numbers in a number of areas. We have seen in Waitakere that crime has gone up and violence has gone up, yet recent information shows that the Waitematā district will lose 10 police officers. So that will not help with regards to the number of victims we see. We support this bill, but we question the Government with regards to its ability and its track record to protect the rights of victims. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

I am privileged to participate in the second reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. The bill extends the restriction on the awarding of compensation for a further 2 years, starting from 1 July 2010 and going to 30 June 2012. The second amendment is that the victims’ claims process applies to compensation awarded, or to be paid pursuant to an out-of-court final settlement, in relation to a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July 2010 but before 1 July 2012. The Government wants to eliminate the all-too-frequent horror stories where victims are forced to relive traumatic events simply because the system has been deficient or has let them down. Invariably, the offenders are getting a better deal than their victims. Since this Government took office it has been working hard to improve the law and order situation in New Zealand. It has also given victims’ rights top priority. I commend the bill to the House.