Corrections Bill

I move, That the Corrections Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee. This measure is a major reform of the law governing the operations of the corrections system. Reform is needed for four main reasons. First, the legislation needs to reflect modern conditions and practices. The Penal Institutions Act envisaged prisons as small units under the control of the superintendent, who was charged with the administration of the prisons as well as having the responsibility for the welfare of inmates. That was realistic in 1954, when Mount Eden was the only prison to have over 200 inmates, but prisons are now much larger. For example, Waikeria has over 800 inmates.

Secondly, the law governing the administration of the corrections systems needs to be compatible, in its philosophy as well as in its specific provisions, with the recently enacted Sentencing Act and Parole Act. That legislation includes reference to such key considerations as protecting the community, providing for the interests of victims, and assisting the offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration. By contrast, current corrections legislation is silent on the principles that should guide the administration of sentences and parole orders. Thirdly, the bill is also needed to support the Department of Corrections’ new approach to the assessment and management of offenders, which is aimed at improving community safety. A set of assessment instruments has been developed so that efforts to rehabilitate offenders are better targeted at those who pose a serious risk to the community, and those who are most likely to benefit from interventions. The legal framework should support this system. Finally, the bill is needed because many incremental changes over the years have made the Penal Institutions Act complex and difficult to follow.

This bill has been developed over 3 years, and includes a substantial public consultation exercise. I would like to thank many people involved in that exercise. I also acknowledge the former Minister of Corrections, the Hon Matt Robson, and the current Minister, the Hon Mark Gosche, for their contributions to the bill’s development.

The bill makes some important changes to corrections legislation, and I would like to examine these briefly. For the first time there are legislative statements of the purpose of the corrections system, and the principles that guide the operation of the system. In summary, the purpose is to contribute to the maintenance of a safe and just society by ensuring compliance with sentences and orders, assisting in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, and providing information to the courts and the New Zealand Parole Board.

A number of operating principles are set out. The first two are that the maintenance of public safety is a paramount consideration in decisions about the management of offenders, and that victims’ interests must be considered in such decisions. There is also a strong emphasis on effective rehabilitation and reintegration. The bill makes no provision for privately managed prisons beyond 12 July 2005—the expiry date of the contract with the Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd for the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison. That reflects this Government’s view that the management of prisons is a core activity of the State, including the use of highly coercive powers against individuals, and that it is inappropriate for private sector organisations to exercise such powers.

The remand prison is owned by the Department of Corrections, and, after 2005, will continue to operate much as it does now, but under departmental management. The department’s chief executive will have the legal custody of all prisoners, except any who may be held in police jails. This is administratively simpler than the current arrangements, whereby prisoners are in the legal custody of the prison superintendent. It also reinforces the point that the chief executive is accountable for ensuring the safe, secure, and humane containment of prisoners throughout the country. Consistent with the department’s approach to offender management, the bill also requires individual management plans to be devised for prisoners and for rehabilitative programmes to be provided within the available resources to prisoners who will benefit from such programmes.

A number of provisions currently in regulations are elevated into primary legislation by the bill, including prisoners’ minimum entitlements. These entitlements are extended to cover access to news, library services, and education. In this regard, New Zealand law will better reflect international standards, particularly the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

The bill also expands on the internal complaints system to cover community work centres and probation officers, not just prisons. The role of the inspectors to resolve complaints is similarly expanded to cover offenders who are, or have been, on community-based sentences or orders, and not just prisoners.

The detection of drugs and other unauthorised items will be assisted by this bill, which includes changes to search provisions. An enhanced strip-searching procedure is to be used when there is reason to believe that a prisoner is concealing contraband. The bill also clarifies that staff members are themselves liable to be searched. In one area, search powers will be reduced by this bill. A Court of Appeal ruling in mid-2002 held that corrections officers have the power to strip-search visitors to prisons under section 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This power is not currently being used, and is considered to be excessive. Instead, where a strip search under the Misuse of Drugs Act is necessary, corrections officers will be empowered to detain the visitor for a reasonable period, while the police are called.

Provision is made in the legislation for regulations approving the use of non-lethal weapons. However, this will be done only if the Minister is satisfied that their use is compatible with the humane treatment of prisoners, and the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. This approach safeguards against the introduction of weapons that are unsafe or inhumane. By contrast, current legislation is inconsistent. On the one hand, there is a complete ban on such types of non-lethal weapons—namely, tear gas, and substances designed to disable temporarily. On the other, there is no restriction on the use of other types of non-lethal weapons, such as batons, though in practice batons are used only in very restricted circumstances.

There are substantial revisions to the prison disciplinary offence regime in this bill, including provision for legal representation in certain cases, and internal disciplinary hearings. There is also a significant change regarding the appointment of visiting justices, who hear appeals and the more serious and complex disciplinary cases. The existing provision for the Minister of Corrections to appoint JPs as visiting justices is replaced by a provision for the Minister of Justice to appoint barristers and solicitors to this role. Visiting justices hear appeals that may turn on complex legal issues, and it is therefore appropriate that this role be undertaken by senior lawyers, with relevant skills and experience.

Finally, I signal two areas in which amendments to the bill will be needed to reflect policy that is still under development. The first is to improve the sharing of information. I shortly intend to seek Cabinet approval for a proposal to allow a greater range of information to be shared between the Department of Corrections and Police. This would enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to more effectively manage the risk to the public posed by high-risk offenders, including child-sex offenders who have been released from prison. Consideration has also been given to an information-matching agreement with the New Zealand Immigration Service, which would assist in the identification and management of prisoners who will be deported at the end of their sentence.

The second area in which amendments to the bill will be needed is to reduce the use of cellphones by prisoners to intimidate people, organise escapes, and plan crimes. Officials are looking at the feasibility of jamming cellphone transmission in prisons as a means to prevent such activities.

Overall, I consider this bill will provide a sound legislative framework for the corrections system, well into the 21st century. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

The National Party in Opposition strongly opposes the Corrections Bill. We describe it as “Labour ideology meets bureaucratic envy”. The ideology leg of the double is Margaret Wilson and the other spa-pool liberals in Cabinet, who do not believe that private enterprise should be involved in managing prisons; the bureaucratic-envy leg of the double is that the Government does not want private prisons showing up the inadequacies of the public prison service. The fact is the public prisons are failing in every benchmark that we would expect of a sensible prison service; and when the Parliament finds out about certain matters happening in Hawke’s Bay in the last 24 hours, that will be even more evidence of a prison system that is in complete failure.

The worst feature of this bill is that the Government plans to cancel the private management of prisons in New Zealand, and it simply does not make sense. The Auckland Central Remand Prison, the only private prison we have in New Zealand, is better than the public service on price, quality, assessment, violence, and cultural grounds. I would like to go through those issues to highlight to the Parliament why it is just not common sense to support the abolition of private prisons in New Zealand.

Right now the private prison in Auckland has 300 inmates, and that costs an average of $43,000 a year per inmate at that prison.

💬 Jill Pettis: How much?

It is $43,000. This compares with equivalent prisoners in the public sector at a cost of $72,000 per prisoner. So it is $43,000 in the private prison and $72,000 in the public prison. The cost of the average prisoner in the public service is $54,000 a year on average. So it is cheaper in the private prison. The private prison requires only about 70 corrections staff for the 300 prisoners. The union code that this Government has negotiated would require 150 prison officers for an equivalent prison population.

On Radio New Zealand last month the Minister of Corrections misled the country when she said these costing comparisons were invalid because the private prison dealt only with prisoners of low security. That was not true. We believe that the Minister has been advised that that was not true. The remand prison deals with some of the most dangerous prisoners that the prison service deals with. In fact, it is high-security prisoners who dominate in the remand prison sentence, and what we are saying is it is $43,000 in the private prison and $72,000 in the public prison. It does not make sense on price.

Let us look at the issue of quality. What we know is that there is a huge requirement on the private prison service to meet a whole lot of benchmarks. Every quarter they must file with the Department of Corrections a benchmark report, a couple of inches thick, of comparative figures on the performance of the prison. What we know is that the private prisons perform better when it comes to assessing an inmate on arrival. They provide higher-quality psychological services. We know that more education and rehabilitation is being delivered per hour per prisoner in the private prisons. We know that Māori are much happier with the performance of the private prison than they are with the public prison service, and I think the Government will be hearing a lot from Māori on this bill. We know there are fewer incidents of self-harm in the private prison, and less violence.

So on all the benchmarks that we would expect of a prison, the private prison service is better than the public prison service, not only on price but also on quality, violence, assessment, and cultural grounds. In fact, the public prison service and its leadership are so regarded by the public prisons that the Government has been trying to recruit the chief executive of the private prison in Auckland to be on the Ngawha prison project management team. It then said that once that prison is built it wants those staff to mentor the manager of the Ngawha prison, then move on to be on the project team of the next public prison.

The Government is trying to poach the people who run the private prison system, to run its own system. The private prison system is so bad that the Government wants the guy who runs the private prison to run some of the public prisons! It is just ideology meets bureaucratic envy. The Government does not want private enterprise involved. It talks about public-private partnerships on the roads. Internationally, public-private partnerships have worked most effectively on the roads and in the prison system. The Government says that it wants those public-private partnerships on the roads, but it is not prepared to have them when it comes to the prison service.

What is more, there is bureaucratic envy. The Department of Corrections fails in comparison with the Australian-run private prison, time and time again. That prison, the Auckland Central Remand Prison, is run by a Māori guy with a strong history in the prison service. He brings a different corporate culture, a different style of running the prison. The public service admires him so much that the Government has been trying to poach him to go and work in the public prison service.

The National Party says this bill is wrong because it stops the opportunity to expand the use of private prisons in New Zealand. National appeals to the other parties to realise that it is just not common sense to do away with what is working, when in fact the Government wants to do away with it only because of ideology and because the failing Department of Corrections is embarrassed by what is going on.

We simply do not believe that the Department of Corrections should be subject to new legislation at this stage. We believe that the Department of Corrections should be subject to an independent commission of inquiry into its own performance. It is a department that paroles killers to live next door to the sisters of their victims. It is a department that failed to advise a young woman who was sexually molested by a member of her family that that molester was actually being paroled to the community in which she lives. It is a department that fails to enforce the sentences that the courts hand down. It is a department that has lost control of its staff. It is a department that is being completely mismanaged. The Department of Corrections is a department that can take a $40 million prison-building project and turn it into a $132 million prison-building project. So the National Party is strongly opposed to the Corrections Bill. We will be waging a strong campaign up and down the country because it simply does not make sense to pursue ideology in this way.

In the other areas of this bill, which my colleagues the Hon Nick Smith and Judith Collins will talk about, it is clear that this bill is overly prescriptive and overly bureaucratic. We oppose the extension of prisoners’ rights. We think they are privileges that should not become litigious in terms of being enshrined by Parliament. We oppose the inclusion of the integrated offender management system in legislation. We think that that will lead to further litigation and cost by prisoners, and we are most strongly opposed to the ideologically driven bureaucratic envy that is halting the use of private prisons in New Zealand. If public-private partnerships are good enough for our nation’s roads, they are good enough for our nation’s prisons.

We know that that Auckland prison has—[Interruption] When Mr Robson was the Minister of Corrections he went to the private prisons and praised them for what they were doing. He told them they were doing great. If they are doing great, why does the Government want to stop the private prisons? It is only to do with ideology. The National Party is strongly opposed to this bill.

United Future supports this bill going to the select committee, but we do have grave concerns, and we will outline them a little later. We commend the Government for undertaking the decisions to upgrade and reform the legal framework of the corrections system. It is advantageous to bring legislation regarding corrections under one bill.

The Penal Institutions Act and the Criminal Justice Act have both had to incur many incremental changes in the last 49 and 18 years respectively. Current legislation is not user-friendly and struggles to allow for an effective management team. It is timely to look at this legislation and make changes that allow for modern policy, security, treatment, management, and administration. New Zealand has changed since the 1950s, when the Penal Institutions Act was enacted to govern the prison system. We now govern a much larger group of inmates. We aim to control the entry of different drugs. The more familiar drug, marijuana, amongst others, has now been joined by methamphetamine, which is easy to smuggle.

In 2001, about 2,800 inmates tested positive for cannabis, and we need to address that and any other drug abuse before our ideas on drug and alcohol treatments can have any real success. We have to draw a line when, for example, children are used to bring drugs and needles into prisons. We need to consider the implications of needles that are shared amongst inmates entering our prisons and leading to blood-borne viruses. We need to act on statistics that show that the number of random drug tests returning positive results rose again in the year 2001-02. We need to be able to stop unauthorised objects, such as mobile phones and weapons, from entering our prisons. But to combat that we will need to have different security measures and new surveillance capabilities. These need to be incorporated into legislation to provide for better tools to combat the problems within our corrections system.

As well as incorporating practical changes into the corrections system, there are also new philosophies that guide our policies. We need to legislate these changes to ensure that custodial, community-based sentences, and rehabilitative interventions are instituted effectively. New ideologies are ineffective if they are not accorded appropriate levels of resources or commitment.

The motivation to align this bill with the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act is also important. Although it is known that United Future has serious reservations about those new Acts, we do still consider it necessary to have legislation working in a complementary fashion and as effectively as possible. But United Future will find it more effective to deal with fewer pieces of legislation when pushing for changes regarding law and order. We think that the provision for a purpose and principle clause in this bill will help align the corrections system to a more modern framework, and we look forward to discussions at the select committee to ensure that this will be achieved.

United Future is very keen to see effective management of the corrections system. Much of this bill is concerned with the policy, rules, and responsibilities for management, including the chief executive of the Department of Corrections taking legal responsibility for all inmates in New Zealand. It is crucial to have submissions and discussions about how these roles have been delineated in the bill, and to discuss the responsibilities that they have been given.

With repeat offending and recidivism levels so high in New Zealand—up to 87 percent within 5 years—we are interested in the level of individual management, rehabilitation, integrated programmes, and assessment that will be available to inmates. We expect this bill will be contentious. The treatment of people involved in the corrections system, including all levels of staff and the inmates, needs to be considered. We expect deliberation on the rights of inmates, balanced by the need for effective procedures. We look forward to arguments being put forward both for and against the new search, seizure, and detainment powers. We are already aware of staff who will find their inclusion in search and seizure protocols a welcome relief from threats and coercion from inmates. It is not wrong to have search and seizure procedures. Inmates are, after all, in prison for a crime. They are not meant to be enjoying the pleasures of freedom. Their crimes have seen to that. And visitors should accept that they have nothing to fear if they are not acting against the law. But the need is definitely there.

In December 2002 a search of 355 visitors in Christchurch Prison resulted in the seizure of cannabis leaf and oil, amphetamine drug utensils, ammunition, and knives; in Waikeria Prison in December 2002, 700 pseudoephedrine tablets were located in the vehicle of a visitor. However, United Future, at the outset of this bill, has reservations about the proposal to involve police in visitor searches. It seems the Government is overlooking the fact that we are already experiencing staff shortages, particularly in Auckland, and that increasing the duties of police is not really a viable option, not to mention the practicalities of where these visitors will be held, in cells, with their kids—and what practical accommodation will be provided?

United Future has no problem with the intent, purpose, and scope of this bill, excepting in one very important area. Although supporting this bill to select committee, we strongly object to the proposal to end and remove the ability to contract out prison management. We have heard that before, and this will be a very grave stumbling block to our future approval. We believe that private-public management of prisons requires further deliberation.

We also consider that this bill will help support a private-public contracting agreement as it is outlined in detailed, very focused policies, roles, and responsibilities. The private-State mix in the running of our prisons is important in that each can keep the other honest, particularly in terms of innovation, cost efficiency, accountability, transparency, and progress. I hope Labour takes note of those, because if the privacy of prisons is not addressed to the satisfaction of United Future, we cannot support this bill. We would like to stress that if contracting is not adequately addressed in the select committee, support for this bill beyond the first reading will definitely not be assured from United Future. With that one major reservation, United Future supports the bill to the select committee.

New Zealand First will support this bill to the select committee, and will watch it very carefully as it makes its way through there. There are some concerns, though, with regard to the bill. The background to this bill, to do with the corrections system, has changed markedly since the current Act was passed in 1954. Obviously there may need to be some changes to the legislation, but my concerns are that we are currently building three more prisons, and I want to ask Labour members whom those prisons are for. That is my concern. Who will be going into those prisons, and how much will it cost?

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Full of Māori.

Yes, the prisoners are all Māori; it is exactly as the member has just said. That is dead right. I have some concerns about that because 53 percent of Māori males, on a population basis, do house themselves in the prisons. So I have some real concerns about this particular area.

Much of the bill deals with the operations of the prisons. Yes, that is questionable, too. In respect of how some of the prisons are run, my informants tell me that the prisoners have more rights than the officers, so I have some questions to be answered about that.

I also wish to discuss the purpose and principles of the corrections system. Clause 5(1)(c) states that one purpose of the corrections system is to provide “information on offenders to the courts and to the New Zealand Parole Board to assist them in decision-making.” Prior to Christmas, 500 prisoners at risk of re-offending were released. Were we informed about that? No. So there is an example of prisoners who had committed crimes being released—prisoners we would have had to keep our eye on. Some of them have committed crimes since being released, and their names have been noted quite clearly in the newspapers recently.

I want to come back now to the cultural background and language of offenders. My informants tell me that some of the Māori programmes that have been run in some of our prisons are not working for the betterment of the Māori people involved. The laugh is that some of the Māori prisoners attending those classes get paid $2 for attending, and, quite frankly, some of them are going there just to collect the $2. Another thing is that tikanga is being taken into the prisons and a service is being provided in the prison by a marae that sits outside the prison. I believe that tikanga and cultural aspects are a matter of mana, and some of the things being taught should stay outside the prison. I know for a fact, too, that some Māori prisoners are under so much stress, from having different cultural aspects of their kawa forced on them, that some of them have entered mental institutions. I have some personal experience of that, involving my cousin, whom I will not name in this House, obviously. The information is available, if somebody wants to contact me about that.

Clause 6(1)(e) states: “the corrections system must ensure the fair treatment of prisoners, and offenders who are subject to community-based sentences, released on home detention, or released on conditions under the Parole Act 2002 or the Sentencing Act 2002,”. We will be watching that area very carefully as the bill goes through the select committee. I sit on the Law and Order Committee, with other members of the Opposition and the Government.

Another area that interests me is paragraph (g) in clause 6(1), which states: “offenders must, so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances within the resource available, be given access to activities that may contribute to their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community”. I do not think we go far enough in doing that, and I do not think the programmes that are available within the prisons allow prisoners, when they come out, to move to a feeling of confidence and self-worth, or a feeling of their mana. I believe that the polytechs could play a very important role, in that regard. Prisoners could enter into a training programme while in prison, and, if they are released before the programme finishes, they could gain creditable certification by going on to polytech to finish their training programme. That would endow them, as I said before, with the mana, the experience, and the training to enable them to move into programmes.

Clause 6(1)(h) states that “contact between prisoners and their families must be encouraged and supported”. I must say that that area is very close to my heart. I went to a prison recently to visit one of my cousins; it was the first time I had been into a prison to visit someone. I tell members something that really hurt me. I saw a Māori chap who was in prison come out to meet his family. His wife arrived—whether it was his wife or his partner I do not really care; I believe it was a whānau group. The father appeared from the door that prisoners come through for visits, and the two little children who were with the wife, the two little tamariki, raced up to their father and grabbed him round the legs. They held on to him and called out “Dad, Dad, Dad”. Quite frankly it really upset me to see that sort of thing going on. It just seemed to be a way of life for that family to enter the prison to say good morning to Dad. It really upset me to see that happen.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: And rightly so.

I thank the National member for that.

I want to talk about clause 69, which deals with prisoners’ minimal entitlements. I know prisoners have to have some entitlements, but at the end of the day those people are better looked after than our returned servicemen and women, who, at one stage, did not have any accommodation and were just about kicked out of their building in Levin. Our old people do not have the entitlements that prisoners have.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, don’t be so simplistic.

Oh, the member for Whanganui can go on, too.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: At least someone elected her.

That is fine; I do not have a problem with that. I have the same opportunity as her, while I am here, to state my view.

Clause 69 also mentions physical exercise. This is what prisoners get: physical exercise, bed and bedding, food and drink, and access to private visitors. That is fine. I do not have a problem with that. I do not have a problem with allowing access to their family, not at all. They also get access to legal advisers.

💬 Judith Collins: Elderly people should have access to legal advice.

Exactly. Our old people should have access to legal advisers if they cannot afford one. Prisoners have an entitlement to receive medical treatment. Why cannot old people have free medical care if the Government gives it to these people? Certainly the elderly may need that. Other minimum entitlements are to send and receive mail, and to make outgoing telephone calls. What a wonderful place prison is to be! I do not have a problem with information and education, either. I believe that is what those people need in order to be rehabilitated into the community. [Interruption] Something is buzzing over there. I must be doing something, as a new member.

In relation to drug searches, my informant informs me that children under the age for being searched are being used as couriers to take drugs into prisons. It is a real concern that little children and babies are being used as couriers to take drugs into prisons.

💬 Jill Pettis: What populist crap!

Is that right? If Jill Pettis wants to organise a meeting with me I will welcome a visit from her, and I will inform her of whom that person is and where those drugs are going.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I really think that the remark made by the member was grossly out of order, and that she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to stand and withdraw and apologise.

💬 Jill Pettis: I withdraw and apologise.

The member’s body language tells me a lot. Thank you. New Zealand First does support this bill going to a select committee. Obviously, with Mr Ryall on that committee, he and other members will be watching the matter very carefully.

I am surprised that on a subject like that of this bill there are not more members here in the Chamber. The reason I am surprised is that I have found that every one of the 120 members of this House is an absolute expert on prisons. Yet, as the former Minister responsible for prisons, I found that there were very few members who had actually visited prisons, and for some of those who had, it was a very fleeting visit rather than an in-depth one.

The corrections system in New Zealand can take a lot of criticism. There were a lot of things to change. It was only 10 years ago, at te Mangaroa Prison in Hawke’s Bay, that savage beatings were handed out to inmates—inmates whom I would quickly say had no sympathy from the New Zealand population, because they had carried out some terrible crimes. But the beatings were carried out by staff. That happened about 10 years ago. There was never a thorough investigation of what happened there, and it took a long time to clean that prison up. Recently, as I am sure Mr Mark will bring to our attention, at Christchurch Prison a group was set up to enforce security. It was popularly known as the goon squad. That was an inappropriate use of security in a prison, and the group was disbanded. There are many, many examples that could be brought up in the prison system of matters where change is needed.

But the most important aspect of the bill is that it attempts—in fact, I think it more than attempts; I think it succeeds—to reflect the positive changes that have been made in the New Zealand corrections system, to my knowledge making it one of the leading corrections departments in the world. It has taken some time to get through to members of this House and to the public that the changes being carried out are aimed at reducing reoffending. That means that inside a prison the first task is to know whom we are dealing with, how we can make changes, and how we can make those changes be of a long-term nature. It is very clear that we need standards in our prisons. One of the difficulties with private prisons, and there has been some discussion on that, is that in a prison system one can get a number of different standards. So the part of the bill that ends the contracting-out of prisons to allow for private prisons is not a shutting down. That measure will ensure that we have a similar standard throughout our prisons. The challenge is to make that standard a very high one.

It has been pointed out that in my time as a Minister I praised the private prison that exists at Mount Eden. I did praise it. I was very impressed with the programmes that it ran, and with the professionalism of those involved. I said that to the staff, and I said it publicly. At the same time, I said it would be the Government’s policy that private prisons would come to an end when that contract ended, and I gave my reasons for that decision. I gave the reason that the most important aspect of a prison system is to reflect the fact that taking somebody’s liberty is a duty of the State. It is a very, very onerous step to take away the liberty of the citizens of any country, and therefore when we do that we need to make sure that all the safeguards are there. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Labour-Progressive Coalition Government, that safeguard is guaranteed by ensuring that the State is the custodian of prisoners. But I praised the prison at Mount Eden because the corrections system needs to look for the highest standards. The majority of those working in the private remand prison at Mount Eden were trained in public prison systems throughout the world, and in New Zealand and Australia in particular, and they have given a good shake-up to many of the methods that can, and should, be used.

But parallel to that process has been the shake-up that has been going on throughout the corrections system in New Zealand. This bill reflects the fact that in 1954 we had 200 inmates at Mount Eden Prison and, I think, at a maximum, 800 prisoners throughout the country. We now have 6,000 people in corrections institutions and about another 20,000 people on probation, in periodic detention, etc. So there is a large number of people within the corrections system. The bill now encompasses those changes and the changes that have been made in order to allow our prisons to get at the core of offending.

One thing that the bill also does is to reflect the new method in prisons of integrated offender management. Integrated offender management is a triumph of the resolve of those people in the corrections system who are determined not just to handle people in prison as those who should just be warehoused but to be able to undertake the changes necessary to return them, as humanly as possible, safely to the community. If members read the bill carefully, they will see that public safety is a paramount principle within the bill. As well as that, in the final analysis public safety, which is the aim of the prison system, can be ensured only if inside a prison system we have both the resources to carry out the programmes that are necessary and also the structure to make sure that those programmes are in the best interests of the community and the inmates, and, therefore, ultimately of victims.

Victims are another important aspect of this bill. It takes into account the interests of victims, and that is a growing part of New Zealand’s justice system—making sure that we incorporate what happens to people who are the victims of offending. In the Sentencing Act and in the Parole Act, the aspects of both the victim and the need to change the offender are central parts of what we are doing.

If there is one amendment that I consider we should make to this bill, it would be to strengthen the provisions to ensure that we take account of restorative justice practices and processes. Restorative justice is a growing phenomenon in New Zealand, with communities taking big steps towards being involved in the processes where there has been offending, and towards making sure that communities are part of the solution to offending, and our New Zealand prisons are not left behind in that.

In the Hawke’s Bay prison we have the Sycamore Project, which I am sure a number of members have visited. It brings victims and offenders together—not necessarily the same victim for the particular offender, but offenders face up to what they do to victims. It is a project that has had the enthusiasm of dedicated people, both in terms of those who are corrections staff and those who are part of community organisations. I believe this bill should reflect that process and enable us to go forward.

Another part of the prison system that is crucial to making sure that the goal of avoiding reoffending is reached is recognition of what we do with the large number of Māori in prison. Mr Perry spoke about that. I would be the first to say that at this stage what we are doing is still inadequate. But recognition should be given to the steps that have been taken to make sure that when Māori come into prison we ensure that the best programmes possible, in terms of recognising who they are and how they can change, are put into place. This bill has updated provisions that will make sure that the legislation reflects the prison system as it is today, and not as it was in 1954, and that will underpin the forward movement for the Māori programmes.

The Māori focus units in New Zealand, by the dedication of those who have serviced them—both the corrections staff and the Māori from the community—are a shining light in our prison system. They have got to the core of offending. Before, programmes had integrated offender management—which I have praised, and which should be enhanced by this bill. The Māori focus units have taken the concept that we take a person from where he or she is, by looking at the person’s background and the inherent values that person is entitled to have, and strengthening and working on those. It is nothing less than a simple recognition that offending by Māori is offending against Māori, as well.

This bill is not the end of what we need to do in terms of our prison statistics, which are far from satisfactory. But it is a big step along the way. The bill will give our corrections staff—I say here quite publicly, they are the unsung heroes of New Zealand’s fight against offending, in the main—a tool that will allow them to put in place the best practices that we should have in a modern New Zealand prison system.

The Green Party is supporting this bill through the first reading, to the select committee. We are supporting it with mixed feelings. We think it does do a number of useful things. It consolidates, clarifies, and updates the legislation, in particular in relation to integrated offender management, which the Hon Matt Robson has referred to in the previous speech. But we believe that it also does have some aspects that need careful scrutiny, and we are looking forward to finding a way to participate at the select committee. The Greens do not have a member on the Law and Order Committee, but we will be looking to participate on that committee in going through the careful scrutiny of this bill that is required.

I have been looking at the Bills Digest on the bill. I saw it discusses the purposes and principles of the bill, and the purpose of the corrections system. It sets out a number of purposes, including ensuring that the community-based and custodial sentences that are imposed are administered in a safe, secure, humane, and effective manner. I do not think any of us could disagree with any of those objectives. It also mentions assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders and reintegrating them into the community, so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances. That does bring me to think about the Roper report, which was written some time ago now, and about some of the very useful recommendations in that report, in particular in relation to habilitation centres.

I have raised with justice officials at the Justice and Electoral Committee a number of times the issue of why there is such little support for habilitation centres in this country. I have been told that there are only a few actual habilitation centres, but that many of the principles of habilitation are being applied in all kinds of ways. I do not find that answer satisfactory. I do not see the kind of support for released inmates that I would expect to be provided through habilitation centres in place for many inmates. When I think of the few habilitation centres that do exist I am thinking, for example, of Te Ihi Tu Trust in Taranaki, which has done some very good work with released inmates, or inmates at the completion of their sentences, showing very good results in reducing offending among them. But, as with many of those kinds of community organisations, it constantly struggles for money and support. We should be looking at how we can provide more support to some of those organisations that do such valuable work in the community.

I am also aware of the representations from many community organisations to me, as justice spokesperson for the Greens, that refer to the lack of support for released inmates and inmates who are coming out of prison. There are some emergency benefits available, but often they are difficult to obtain, and inmates are basically left to their own devices, in many circumstances, after they are released from prison. If we are serious about wanting to stop reoffending, we have to carefully address that. The reintegration of former inmates into the community is extremely important, and for people who may have been institutionalised by spending possibly years in prison, it is crucial that we look at ways to ensure they are able to exist peacefully, non-violently, and lawfully in the community.

The digest goes on to refer to other principles of the bill. The maintenance of public safety is the paramount consideration, and that is as it should be. Also, the victims’ interests must be considered, and another principle is to reduce the risk of reoffending by taking into account the cultural background, ethnic identity, and language of offenders in decisions related to their management. That is all common-sense stuff. Offender’s families are to be engaged in decision making; that seems common sense to me. Another principle is that there should be fair treatment of prisoners and offenders.

The digest then goes on mention that sentences and orders must not be administered more restrictively than is reasonably necessary. I am not sure what the bill has to say about the incarceration of people with disabilities, in particular, but I can talk from my experience as an advocate for at least one wheelchair-bound person who has been imprisoned about the quite abysmal treatment of that person. That was not through any callousness towards or disregard of that person by prison staff, but simply through the lack of facilities for people with serious disabilities. One of the things we do need to look at in this bill is what it states about people with disabilities, and how can we ensure that people with disabilities do not have their basic rights abused simply because of the lack of facilities available for them in prison.

The digest states that offenders are to be given access to activities in the community that may contribute to their rehabilitation and reintegration, and it also, finally, in the clause about principles, states that contact between prisoners and their families must be encouraged and supported. That is again an extremely important aspect of the prison system. If I look at what has happened over the last few years—much as I respect the Hon Matt Robson’s work over many years on prison reform and some of those issues—I see that some of the things that happened under his ministerial leadership were, in my opinion, sadly lacking. In particular, in the regulations governing prison visits we now have a system that is regulation bound, extremely bureaucratic, time consuming, and takes an inordinate amount of forward planning, which is often not appropriate in the circumstances. It is now impossible for a person to just say he or she will go and visit a cousin or sibling in prison, to see how he or she are going. Now people have to go through an extended period of letter writing, correspondence, and approval before they can go to visit someone in prison. While that may be justified on safety and suchlike grounds, the effect in practical terms is to restrict access by families to inmates, and by inmates to families.

Some people in this House may not care about that, because they think those people are all thugs and scum, and we should just deal to them in whichever way we please. But if we are serious about stopping offending, about rehabilitation and reintegration, and about a concern for victims, our main concern must be to prevent more victims being victimised. The encouragement of contact between prisoners and their families is crucial in that. The select committee should look at how it can bring some pressure to bear on the regulations governing visits to prisoners, in order to make it easier and more streamlined, and to try to facilitate that contact, which is so important in rehabilitation.

One of the areas of the bill that does concern the Greens quite a lot is some of the new coercive powers: the use of force and restraints, and some of those related matters. Clause 83 authorises the use of force in certain circumstances, and provides for the authorisation and use of non-lethal weapons by people in certain circumstances. We need to be very careful when providing new powers that enable the use of force against inmates. Obviously, there are times when it may be necessary to restrain people physically, but we should be very careful about how we regulate those powers, and how we put limitations around them. That is a caution and something that the Green Party will want to examine in some detail. There are some new clauses around the search provisions, and it is interesting to note the concern of prison officers that they themselves may be subject to strip-searching. We should look at that, as well.

Finally, I shall touch on two things very quickly, before my time is up. Firstly, we should be looking at the education that is available to inmates. That has been severely curtailed under the previous term of the Labour Government—in particular, the access of outside tutors to prisons. They are important in providing a fresh perspective to inmates, and we need people going into the prisons who are not prison staff. If we look at the kinds of practices of the goon squad that the Hon Matt Robson has already referred to, we see that many of those things will come to light only when we have outsiders going in—whistle-blowers who can go into the prison system and see what is going on. Our opposition to any attempts to restrict outside people going into prisons and having relationships with inmates is important. Secondly, we also need to look at the culture of the Department of Corrections. I have been to many prisons. There are some very good officers who see their role as protecting the community and aiding rehabilitation. There are also some officers who have a brutality of attitude that cannot be accepted in our Department of Corrections.

It would be a travesty for this bill to be seen as a prisoners’ rights bill. That is the way it has been portrayed by my friends in the Opposition. We have heard it already from Mr Tony Ryall and Mr Edwin Perry. There cannot be defined roles for prison officers unless we know what they are there for. For 10 years under that Government, there was anarchy in our prisons as prison officers bumbled their way around endeavouring to apply sentences properly. I speak as someone who has acted for over 20 officers before judges and juries, the Employment Court, and the Employment Tribunal. They have been doing their best, but without any help, and without the nasty cynicism of Judith Collins, who tries to find her way around the prison system. The only prison door she would have been through, would have been a peephole.

💬 Judith Collins: You big liar!

I have to say—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member sit down. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Judith Collins: I must say that I do—.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, The member does not need any other comment. She should just withdraw and apologise.

💬 Judith Collins: I withdraw and apologise.

This bill sets out the rights of prison officers as they go about bringing about reform in our community. It is not good enough to close one’s legislative mind to what is happening in those prisons; we have to address the problems there. This bill addresses those problems, and empowers prison officers to do their job properly and complete their responsibility to our community.

That speech showed just how out of touch the Government is with the expectations that the people of New Zealand have of our corrections services. This afternoon I join with my colleague Tony Ryall—one of the most effective spokespersons on justice I have seen in my 12 years in this Parliament—who brings some realism to the key issues of law and order we deal with in this House. In particular, I want to focus on the Government’s obsession with statist solutions to correctional challenges.

It is good to have John Tamihere in Parliament. What he said about the statist policies of this Government is absolutely right, and no more reinforced than in the mad provisions of this bill—clauses 185 and 186—that will prohibit private management of prisons in New Zealand. John Tamihere said that the State does not have all the answers, and National knew that. That is why in 1997 National provided in our correctional laws—specifically, the Penal Institutions Act—for the private management of prisons. What did Labour members predict? Labour members should go back to Hansard to look at the stupid things they said about what private prisons would do. They made all sorts of obscene claims. As a previous Minister of Corrections, I am proud that I signed the contract to allow Australasian correctional management to introduce the private management of the Auckland remand prison.

Have any claims made by Labour in 1997 come to fruition?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Not one.

Not one. In every single performance measure, the Auckland remand prison has outperformed our public prisons. Labour wants to shut it down, and I want to know why.

💬 Stephen Franks: It is too embarrassing.

My colleague is probably right. He is right in saying that Labour is so embarrassed by the success of private prisons.

One thing that concerns me and my constituents is the cost of running our prison service. Do members know that the private prison system is providing a remand facility at $29,000 per inmate a year less than the public service? That is $5.7 million a year being saved by what National did in providing private contracts. Why are members opposite opposed to saving $5.7 million a year?

💬 Russell Fairbrother: You cannot compare remand prisons to sentence prisons.

Let us check that out. Mr know-it-all Fairbrother says that one cannot compare prisons. Margaret Wilson tried that line, and misled the people of New Zealand. She said that the figure of $72,000 per inmate in the public prison service was an unfair comparison with $43,000. Let us be serious. Where do we know of a comparable public facility? The Christchurch remand prison is identical. It was built by National. It is a brand new building run by the public prison service, and it costs $29,000 per inmate more for public prisons to run it than it does to run the Auckland facility. If that is not comparable, then I ask Mr Fairbrother to explain why. [Interruption] I remind members opposite of all the good things we could do with $5.7 million a year, such as the number of people who could be put into a prevention programme like Family Start, the number of extra teachers, and a reduction in the number of mental health patients. Under this Government, they are being thrown into police cells and prison, because this Government’s ideological perversities are so opposed to private success stories. It is just unexplainable, and it is a disgrace. I challenge John Tamihere to oppose this bill, because it is statist nonsense. It is that simplistic view that if it is not run by the public service then it is not good.

Then we had the contribution from Mr Matt Robson. He said—and I give him credit—that as Minister of Corrections, he had been to the Auckland remand centre and it was doing a good job. On that, Mr Robson, we agree. He said the reason was that all the staff had been trained in the public prison service.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Rubbish!

Well, I have the staff figures here, and there are 69 correctional officers at the Auckland remand centre. Do members know what portion of them have previously worked in the public prison service? It is less than 10 percent. Ninety percent of them have never worked in the public prison service. Is it not a remarkable success story that a facility run by a private service with independently trained officers is able to so outperform the public one?

Let us look at the ways in which the private prison service is outperforming the public sector. Let us look at the number of incidents. All of us in this Parliament would want to run a prison service in which suicides and self-harm are minimised. Is it not interesting that the record of the private prison service is substantially better than the public prison service? Let us look at the training programmes that have operated in terms of the Māori relationship, which is obviously important for a prison in Auckland. I can tell Mr John Tamihere that the Māori community in Auckland says that the privately run prison is a success story.

Let us look at the number of programmes that are run in terms of education and cultural activity. In all those things, the private prison service is outperforming the public prison service. Why shut it down? Why let ideology get in the way of what works? When we debated that matter in 1997, there was a theoretical debate. People said it might work in Australia, but it would not work in New Zealand. Well, it is working in New Zealand, and this ideologically stupid Government wants to shut down success, increase the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer, and reduce the performance of our prison service. I say that that is a disgrace—[Interruption] I ask Mr Fairbrother why the Auckland remand prison has been able to operate successfully with 69 prison officers—

💬 Russell Fairbrother: It is a remand prison.

That is right, it is a remand prison. When it is taken over by the public prison service, how many staff do the union rules say it must have? Not 69, but 150! What is the sense in that? That is simply about Labour playing to itstrade union - lackey mates, rather than doing what is in the interests of the taxpayers and our prison services. It is a disgrace.

The further point of concern that I have about this bill is that there are loads of clauses on all of the rights our inmates must have, and so little about the victims. We have three clauses about all the food and dietary provisions we have to make for our prisoners.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Read it out.

Well, it does make interesting reading: “Every prisoner must be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and drink based on food and nutritional guidelines”…that will comply with “the various religious, spiritual, and cultural needs of the prisoners.” My goodness me! It seems to me that this Government is more interested in the rights of inmates than the rights of other citizens in this country of ours. Members on this side of the House say that is wrong.

I have to make one further point in respect of some of the other rights, such as telephones. We will give inmates the right to use telephones. Is it not intriguing that the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, challenged me, as Minister of Corrections, to make the legal changes to allow phone-tapping? In 3 and a bit years of a Labour Government, they have not done a thing about it. Inmates are continuing to commit crimes behind prison walls, and Labour does not seem to care. It is not good enough.

One thinks that whenever the volume gets turned up on the Opposition benches, as per the recent performances, then things truly are happening up on the third floor in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. As we read in the media, no doubt the numbers are running. I sense that the loud voices down here are concealing the huge disquiet upstairs.

In the brief time I have, I will just repeat what this bill is about. The purpose of the bill is to provide a new legal framework for the corrections system. The current legislation, the Penal Institutions Act, was passed in 1954. I was 2 years old when that bill was enacted, and I think it is probably time for a review and a bringing up to date. This is an outdated piece of legislation—it must be if it is from 1954, nearly 50 years ago—and it no longer suits the needs and sizes of prisons in 2003.

The other important point, which is my contribution to this debate, is that the law governing the administration of the corrections system needs to be compatible with the recently enacted Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, and Victims’ Rights Act. On the basis that this bill will go to the Law and Order Committee, it will give us great pleasure to deal with it in a sane and rational manner without some of the histrionics we have just heard. I look forward to this bill being referred to the committee.

Like the speaker who has just resumed his seat, I would like to talk about something that was happening in 1954. I wonder whether it might induce a little bit of humility. In 1954 we were three-quarters of the way through 40 years in which the average murder rate in this country was two per year. It may be that they were doing something right back then, and that this nonsense appeal to change the law because it is old is something that Labour ought to think about. I want to read something that has had more support from New Zealanders than any other document in this country.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A continual barracking, I understand, is not consistent with Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is right, and the member will notice that I actually did call “Order!”.

I am sorry; I did not notice. Just on 4 years ago, 2 million New Zealanders signified their consent to a single-sentence document. I do not think any other document has ever had that level of support. It read: “Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them, and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?”. This Corrections Bill is the final trashing of Norm Withers’ referendum with its 92 percent support. This Corrections Bill says explicitly that hard labour cannot even be contemplated. This bill says expressly that that part of the referendum must be ignored.

This bill has also been said to form the final part of a trilogy with the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Those Acts and this bill together say that the only punishment of imprisonment is the deprivation of liberty. This expressly reflects the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners that the Government has signed up to. They include, among other things, that the conditions may be no more restrictive than is necessary to keep people in custody. In other words, depriving people of privileges and telling them that it would be a good idea not to be in prison, because it is nastier and less pleasant than being outside, is not to be lawful any longer. This bill makes no reference anywhere to punishment. It is not a permitted purpose of imprisonment, or of a prison officer’s supervision, that prison denounce, deter, or punish. None of those words appear anywhere in this bill. This bill is the triumph of the politically correct justice Ministers, who have done nothing on the justice portfolio for 3½ years.

Let us go through some of the detail. The Hon Matt Robson referred to victims’ interests. The bill states that prisons must have regard to victims’ interests. The Government has been very careful never to define those, or even to answer questions in this debate as to what victims’ interests might be. This bill says that each offender—and there are 5,000 of them—must be given an individual plan that meets his or her needs. The plan does not meet the needs of the community, or the needs of the sentence, or the needs that the judge thought were being satisfied when he or she sent the individual to prison to punish, to deter, and to denounce. There is nothing in this bill about meeting those needs—only the needs of the individual prisoner. This bill is utterly cynical.

One unusual feature is that it does not have the normal treaty provisions. What is going on over there? I think this is the first bill we have seen for some time that does not draw open discrimination on the grounds of race, which is fortunate, because the rules that the Government signed up to say there can be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, or political or other opinion, in a prison. However, that is not the practice. As we know, the practice in our prisons is in some way to elevate tikanga Māori into a magical potion. In a way, it is patronising and insulting.

An upstanding member of the community who has been deeply involved in prison matters for many years called me in distress just a month or so ago. He had been to the opening of the new wing at the Rimutaka Prison. Around 1½ hours of the opening ceremony were spoken in Māori, and around a quarter of an hour in English, but he was not offended by that. He could see that most of the people there were Māori, and the intention was, obviously, to be respectful. He said he does not mind New Zealanders adopting welcoming, and other, Māori ceremonies, because they are more colourful than Pākehā ceremonies. What he was offended by was the fact that no one took any time to explain what that prison was trying to do, or what those facilities were setting out to do. Even worse, he said that one of the kaumātua said to him afterwards that it was comforting to be able to come and see that their mokopuna were going to feel comfortable in prison. What a response! What an objective—to set up a system that so identifies Māori culture with prison that, consciously and subconsciously, it normalises prison! What an idea—that we simply expect Māori to be in prison to such an extent that tikanga Māori becomes a motif for every prison opening!

Exactly the same thing happened when new units were opened down in Rolleston. When I heard Mr Perry’s speech I was really comforted to hear that it was as offensive to him as it is to me to see a culture being so closely associated with criminality.

What else do we find in this bill? Bodily samples cannot be taken from prisoners. One can take fingerprints, but one is not allowed to take DNA. No, that would be far too modern. It might enable criminals to be caught, and we do not want that, because then the criminals would just have to be put back inside. It would appear that prisoners cannot be stopped from having computers. The bill expressly bans other electronic equipment, but it cannot ban computers.

Then there is the matter of appeals over security classification. One of the things that the UN rules state is that there should be segregation of prisoners to ensure that they do not, in effect, cross-infect each other. The imprisonment rules state that those prisoners who, by reason of their criminal records or bad character, are likely to exercise a bad influence should be separated from others. In this bill segregation is subject to such tight restrictions that I do not think a prison can actually take that rule into account. The bill also states that transfers cannot be used for punishment. Segregation cannot be used to break up gangs. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that reflects the common sense of the old non-association order. There is nothing in this bill that says that security classifications should be made in order to improve the prospect of rehabilitation. Instead, security classifications are just that—to ensure against the possibility of escaping. I take it that that is because prisons are paying such a woeful degree of obedience to the rule that says prison cannot be made any more uncomfortable than is strictly necessary for the deprival of liberty.

Prison is a community. Prisons have become places where the offenders in this community—that is, the 2,000 to 5,000 families whom the police tell us commit 80 percent of the crime—can go and feel at home. This bill confirms that the prison officers are simply hosts. When members read through the disciplinary procedures they will see that they give the lie to it.

Adjudicators have to have a hearing on whether prisoners are to be given a lawyer to defend them, when they are involved in a disciplinary procedure. What are the outcomes of disciplinary procedures? Seven days’ withdrawal of privileges. I can find no definition whatsoever of privileges. Another fierce penalty that can be awarded is 7 days’ cancellation of earnings, which may not exceed $100. It is only earnings that may be cancelled; prisons cannot access other amounts in prisoners’ accounts. Prisons carefully provide for the setting up of accounts, but they cannot access anything else in them for the purpose of paying fines. The fine for an alcohol or drug offence appears to be, potentially, cancellation of 7 days’ earnings. What about those who are not bothering to earn? There is nothing here to force prisoners to work. There is nothing about that. As far as I can tell, they can be fined only if they have earnings.

The provisions do not allow segregation or restriction, and they make all those bows to the welfare of the offender. The victims, the courts, and the judges are forgotten.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, and recommend that the House send it to the Law and Order Committee forthwith, where I know it will get rational consideration, in contrast to the prejudice we have just heard expressed about this issue.

We oppose this bill for many reasons. Unlike the Labour member Mr Fairbrother, who spoke previously, we are not a bunch of wimpy white liberals who sit around in our spa pools, drinking Chardonnay, thinking about the happiness of the dear Māori in prison. We do not look upon Māori as prisoners; we look upon Māori as New Zealanders.

💬 Edwin Perry: Hear, hear!

I thank my friend in New Zealand First. We do not sit around saying we are going to say one thing to people about prisoners, and that is: “Let’s lock them up for longer.”, then, when we get into power we will sit around and pass legislation about their diet and their religious and spiritual needs. Look at the sorts of provisions this bill provides. I ask all members to have a look at clause 79(1), which states: “The chief executive must ensure that in every corrections prison, so far as is reasonable and practicable, appropriate provision is made for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners.” What if the prisoner is a Satanist—and that is not a silly question, is it, Mr Cosgrove? Mr Cosgrove and I both know that there is a bunch of them down in Christchurch. You know that there is a whole stack of them—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot use the word “you”, as it brings the Chair into the debate.

I am sure that that member knows there is a whole bunch of Satanists down in Christchurch in a White Power gang. That is how one knows one is in Christchurch: the gangs are not Black Power, but White Power. That particular right will now be enshrined in law. The bill says to prison management and prison officers—who ought to know what they are doing, even if they do not always—“Please don’t make decisions or policies, because we are going to legislate every single thing that you can or cannot do.” In clause 72(2) the bill states: “As far as practicable in the circumstances, in providing food and drink to prisoners, allowance must be made for the various religious, spiritual, and cultural needs of the prisoners.” What is the prison manager supposed to do if he or she gets a whole bunch of people who say they want a particular sort of meal because of their religion? If they need halal meals, will the manager have to go and get different sorts of meat and grains? What about a vegan’s needs? That is absolute twaddle. That is what the Government is putting in this bill. It is wimpy, white liberal nonsense, and none of the people who must be consulted have been consulted. [Interruption]

Unlike that Labour Party member, I have actually visited prisons. I have visited Mount Eden Prison and seen the appalling situation there. I have been to the Paremoremo medium security prison and the Paremoremo maximum security prison, and I have even visited someone in D Block. I can tell members that those prisons do not rehabilitate inmates. We in the National Party are not foolish enough to think that prisons at the moment ever rehabilitate. What they do is keep people in a place where, it is hoped, they will be out of harm’s way and away from the general public. Prison is in fact a punishment. I know that to the Labour Party that is a whole new attitude, but prisons should be places of punishment. They should not be holiday camps to improve the diet and physical well-being of prisoners, or to cater to their spiritual needs.

Having said that, I acknowledge that some people who go to prison are not absolutely evil, and that some of them can be rehabilitated. But I can tell members that they will never be rehabilitated in Paremoremo’s maximum security or medium security prisons, or at Mount Eden Prison, because the culture in those prisons is not about rehabilitation.

However, the private prison in Auckland, the Auckland Central Remand Prison, is a prison that is working. It has a culture in which the spiritual needs of prisoners are taken care of, but that is not done by making a big song and dance about it and putting it in legislation. It has a culture where prisoners are treated as individuals. They are given education programmes and are helped as much as possible. Better than that, as well as the prison’s culture being good, it is cheaper and it is not driven by the Public Service Association. It is not about getting more money into the Labour Party coffers through its union membership; it is all about doing the right thing. If that prison can stop someone from going to prison again, then, in every single case, that is a victory. But the reality is that our current prison system is not working. Legislating for prisoners’ diets, and putting the onus on prison operators to provide those sorts of things, will not fix it.

How much consultation has there been with Māori? In respect of getting rid of the private prison in Auckland there has been absolutely none—diddly-squat. I understand that plenty of Māori are now lobbying the Māori caucus in the Labour Party, and saying they do not want their people to go to prison, or to go back to prison, but if some of them do go to prison, then they want them to come out better people than when they went in. The Te Puni Kōkiri people—the closing the gaps people—in their report on 3 October 2002 were very, very critical of the corrections service, except for one thing: they really liked the private prison. They said that the private prison was actually doing some good.

It does not matter if we send people away for 20 years or 30 years; one day they get to come out. That is the scary thing, because if all we have done by locking people away for all those years is make them into worse criminals—into people who are more inclined to say: “I want, I want, I’ll take it.”, which is what this bill is all about—then we will unleash on the poor unsuspecting community another criminal, another rapist, another murderer. That is what happens.

So this bill, much-lauded by members of the Labour Party—the wimpy, white liberal set, the people who wander around, jump into their spa pools, and drink their Chardonnays, the people who are completely out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Like Clayton Cosgrove.

Like Clayton Cosgrove. What do these people say? They say: “We want to spend more on the prisons, but we want to get less.” They want more money for less. That is what this Government wants. It wants 150 staff employed at the Auckland remand centre. It wants 150 Public Service Association members employed there. That is what this Government is all about. It does not want the 69 correctional officers currently working there, because, gee, they might be a bit good. This Minister and his ministry are very concerned now to pick the brains of the general manager of the Auckland Central Remand Centre and his staff, and to get those people to help them out with their own thing. That remand service already does health screening for chlamydia, hepatitis, and diabetes, and our public service, for all its money, does nothing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the Corrections Bill be now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion will say “Aye”, of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Noes have it? A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard you very clearly call for the Ayes and the Noes, and there were absolutely no Ayes at all.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Rubbish!

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There were not. That is a statement of fact, I tell Mr Benson-Pope. There were no Ayes—only Noes. How can you call for a party vote when nobody voted in favour?

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I called very loudly indeed. Obviously, the member has an issue with his hearing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I looked there, and I am satisfied that a vote was called for. [Interruption] All members in this House are honourable members; their word is unreservedly accepted. If members are not satisfied with that, the Hansard can always be checked.