Corrections Bill

I move, That the Corrections Bill be now read a second time. This measure is a major reform of the law governing the operation of the corrections system. It will replace the Penal Institutions Act and parts of the Criminal Justice Act, and require the replacement of the Penal Institutions Regulations 2000. This reform is needed so that the legislation reflects modern conditions and approaches to the management of offenders. It is compatible with the Government’s criminal justice reforms—the Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, and the Victims’ Rights Act—particularly in emphasising the central importance of public safety, and it is clear and easy to implement. The Corrections Bill is the outcome of a lengthy policy development process involving a substantial public consultation exercise, including consultation with Māori. While the bill carries forward much of the current legislation, it also incorporates a number of policy changes.

For the first time there is a legislative statement on the purpose and guiding principles of the corrections system, clearly indicating that improving public safety is of paramount importance. The bill implements long-established Government policy by ending private contracting for the management of prisons. The Department of Corrections will be required to devise individual management plans for prisoners, and, within the resources available, to provide programmes for the rehabilitation of prisoners and their reintegration into society. The bill ensures that prisoners’ minimum entitlements are consistent with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners—for example, by providing for access to news, library services, and education. I am pleased to say that the bill provides for a fair complaints resolution system, and expands the role of inspectors to cover offenders on community-based sentences and orders, as well as prisoners. The ability to detect drugs and other unauthorised items will be improved, notably by the provision of a more effective searching procedure to be used where it is reasonably believed that a prisoner is concealing contraband. Finally, the bill improves the prison disciplinary offence regime by including provisions for legal representation in certain areas, having a single set of clearly specified offences instead of the current two-tier system, and providing for the appointment of legally qualified visiting justices.

The bill was referred to the Law and Order Committee last April. A total of 41 submissions from a wide variety of people and organisations was considered. However, the committee was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill should be passed, and therefore reported it back to the House without amendment. I would like to thank the committee for its careful consideration of the legislation. The most contentious matter in the bill, and the apparent reason that the committee was unable to reach agreement on its passage, is the ending of private prison contracting. I would reiterate that the Government’s position on that matter is based on an important principle. The management of prisons involves the exercise of some of the State’s most highly coercive powers against individuals. There needs to be a direct accountability for the exercise of such powers, and that can best be achieved through a Government department directly accountable to a responsible Minister.

The Law and Order Committee considered some additional policy proposals, which were approved by Cabinet for inclusion in the bill. In order to improve public safety, it is proposed to enhance provisions for information sharing between the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police. For example, information will be shared on released offenders considered to be of the highest risk in relation to public safety. An information-matching programme between the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Immigration Service is also necessary, to assist in exercising the powers conferred by the Immigration Act. Cabinet agreed that intentionally obstructing, injuring, or interfering with a prison drug-detection dog should be an offence. Finally, it was recognised that temporary prisons may need to be established in the event of a civil emergency. In addition, the committee was not persuaded that Justices of the Peace should be disqualified from appointment as visiting justices, and formed the view that there should continue to be provision for the appointment of appropriately qualified Justices of the Peace to that role. It is my intention at the Committee stage to move a Supplementary Order Paper that will include those matters. It will also contain a substantial number of technical amendments that are needed to improve the quality and clarity of the legislation and to make some minor policy changes.

Following the report back of the bill by the Law and Order Committee, I have given further consideration to the content of the bill, including having helpful discussions with both the Progressives and the Green Party. I want to take particular note of the work of Matt Robson, former Minister of Corrections, and the discussions we have had around some of these matters, and also of Nandor Tanczos, who is the Greens’ spokesperson on corrections. I found the discussions we had as we progressed through that process extremely constructive and helpful. As a result of the process, I have identified some additional amendments that are desirable, and those amendments will also be included in the Supplementary Order Paper.

The bill should include a reference to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. To enhance the transparency of the corrections system, it is appropriate that the annual report of the Department of Corrections include a report on the activities of inspectors of corrections. I propose that there be provision for the chief executive and prison managers to obtain advice from affected communities in relation to the development of corrections services, policies, and practices. A decision to segregate a prisoner for security reasons or to protect the safety of others involves significant additional restrictions. It is therefore appropriate that such decisions be reviewed at least monthly rather than every 3 months, and that any extension beyond 3 months be approved by a visiting justice. Similarly, detention in a police jail rather than in a prison can mean a loss of certain minimum entitlements, and it is therefore appropriate that the chief executive may order only one 14-day extension of the period of detention in a police jail, and that any further extensions be authorised by a visiting justice.

I consider the Corrections Bill to be an essential element in the Government’s package of criminal justice reforms, and that it will make a significant contribution to the improvement of public safety. Accordingly, I seek the House’s support for its second reading.

If the House ever needed an example of a Government department that is completely out of control, then the Department of Corrections is it. The department is bordering on the dysfunctional, and is a complete and utter mess. The reason why the Government is now addressing this issue is that it wants to get it off the agenda before anything more befalls that hapless Minister in charge of the disaster of a Government department called the Department of Corrections. And this Government wants to give the Department of Corrections another prison to run! It cannot even run the prisons it has now, and it wants to run another prison. That is absolutely hopeless.

We heard from this Minister today an announcement that the gravy train we saw with regard to Māori consultation on the Spring Hill prison at Meremere will continue, because we now find that under pressure from the Progressives, the Greens, and the Labour Party, the Department of Corrections is to consult with communities on how to run local prisons. Well, we know what consultation with the Department of Corrections means. It is an absolute gravy train, and this Government has now decided to get a new set of tracks for it. That gravy train will be arriving at a prison near someone, and other parts of the community will be able to enjoy the $1.3 million largesse that we saw spent in the Waikato. This party will be opposing that completely.

This Government, in its misguided manner, has said that the only reason it wants to abolish the private prison is that prisons have coercive powers against individuals, and it is inappropriate for the private sector to wield such power. As Professor Charles Logan, a noted expert, wrote: “Keepers do not take away anyone’s freedom; catchers and convicters and sentencers do.” There is an important difference between the power to deny liberty and the job of carrying out such orders. The power to punish someone belongs to the people, embodied in the Crown, and it is subject to the rule of law. The rule of law applies to both the public and private sectors, and, in short, that means the State is free to choose who carries out its custodial responsibilities and obligations. It does not have to be the State—the Government—that does those things. It is not the keepers who take away people’s freedom. In fact, it is the law that does that, and the law is not being changed in that regard.

The National Party in Opposition also strongly opposes this legislation because it will cost taxpayers heaps in legal costs. It opens up incredible levels of uncertainty, and that will lead to litigation. Already, some prisoners who had a hard time in the isolation block at Paremoremo have now had a ruling that will, no doubt, entitle them to compensation from the Department of Corrections. But that will get worse under this legislation. Let me give members a couple of examples of that. This bill requires the department to take into account the cultural background, ethnic identity, and language of offenders in managing their sentences. Now, what does that mean? It will be an invitation to the courts to decide what happens in the running of the prison service—as we have seen today. What is the impact of the chief executive having to cater for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners? I ask the Minister what that means. The Minister does not know what that means, which means that it will be decided in the courts—and that will be very costly.

This bill also brings new rights to prisoners that they have never had before. Those rights will be costly. Prisoners will be entitled—not permitted, but entitled—to access tertiary education that will help in their rehabilitation. The bill tries to limit the cost of that with some new wording about prison managers and poor literacy skills, but the fact is that there will be considerable risk because of the uncertainty associated with that area. It is an invitation to the courts to rule that prisoners are entitled to expensive education at the taxpayer’s expense. Ordinary hard-working New Zealanders will be furious if they pay their taxes so that criminals can get a better education than those New Zealanders’ children can. And that is one of the uncertainties being proposed in this legislation.

The National Party in Opposition says that the fact that the Government was unable to get this bill passed through the Law and Order Committee should be a lesson to it. The bill is premised on a liberal philosophy that will backfire on the Government. The bill seeks to import a philosophy that is not supported by the majority of New Zealanders. Do most New Zealanders actually want the prison service to be run by taking account of people’s cultural background, ethnic identity, and language in managing prison sentences? What does that mean? [Interruption] Government members can chirp, but they do not know what that means. And what does it mean that the chief executive has to cater for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners? What does that mean? This Government has absolutely no idea.

Two weeks ago the Department of Corrections moved the double murderer Mark Lundy from Paremoremo prison down to Kaitoke prison after he had served only 2 years at the Paremoremo maximum security prison. Did the department bother to advise the family of the late Mrs Christine Lundy? No, it did not. In the select committee the National Party, together with the Opposition parties, raised the issue of why this bill does not require the Department of Corrections to advise victims or their families when prisoners are transferred. What did the Government say? The Government refused to support that, and the Greens refused to support that. They were convinced that it was too administratively difficult to tell families that.

💬 Hon Matt Robson: Impossible, actually!

Does Mr Robson know that the family of Mr Lundy was informed of the transfer? If the family of Mr Lundy was informed, then why was it impossible for the family of Mrs Lundy to be informed? I would have thought that Government members would support victims being notified of the long-term or permanent movement of their offenders to another prison, but the Government and the Greens decided that that was too difficult. They decided that victims should not be entitled to be informed of the movement of their offenders. I think that is outrageous. Victims have an entitlement to know that. I agree with the family of the late Mrs Lundy that they should have been informed of Mr Lundy’s transfer.

In the Committee stage of this bill we will move an amendment, which will be supported, no doubt, by other Opposition parties in this House, to require the Department of Corrections to advise those victims of offenders who want to be advised of the permanent movement of their offenders. They have a right to know that. Surely, women who have been subjected to violence by offenders would want to know about that. I expect our woman Prime Minister should support their right to know that.

This bill has been a long time in the making. The last bill that dealt with our prisons was in 1954. Successive Ministers of Corrections have worked on this bill, and I would like to pay tribute to, first of all, Nick Smith, who was there at the genesis of this bill. It went through to Clem Simich, modestly myself—I had a hand in it—Mark Gosche, and now it is being completed by Minister Paul Swain. I would like to thank Paul Swain for bringing this bill to fruition. I remember when he was the Minister for Land Information. That position was handed on to another Minister. Since then he has grown tremendously in the role of being a Minister and is now very competent in handling this position. I have been pleased to watch him grow in this particular role.

As usual, with a bill on corrections, it will attract the puerile, the infantile, and those who want to make a profit in political terms out of the misery that many people endure from criminal offending. The bill itself deals with the issues of how we can best administer the prisons, and how we can move forward on the basis of our present knowledge. I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of public servants who work in the corrections system who not only fulfil a custodial function, but also a mentoring function, and use their knowledge to reduce criminal offending.

There are people like Dave Mackie, Ces Lashlie, who was head of the Christchurch Women’s Prison; men like Lautafi Purcell, Des Ripi, Mita Mohi, Harris Shortland, Ollie Olsen, Jim Moriarty outside the prison system, and many, many more, whose names are not known to us but who exemplify the commitment not only of public servants, not only the community people who come into the prison, but the feeling of the community that something can be done and something must be done inside our prison service.

The prison itself is only one part of dealing with criminal offending and it is actually the crudest way to deal with criminal offending. Everybody in this House at one time or another has talked about his or her support for early intervention. That would be a good start in approaching this bill—not only to look at those aspects of the bill that deal with the person who is in prison, but to use the experience and the knowledge of how they got into prison, and what brings them back into prison, so that we can transfer that into our work in early intervention.

I would recommend to members to become more informed on this issue. It will not hurt even those members who think they have it all sewn up with a punishment model, like Mr Franks, to actually read About Time, which is a report written by the Department of Corrections, building on the knowledge of the department itself, experts outside the department, and international experience on when is the best way to intervene.

I would also recommend that those who are looking at this bill read the work of the Home Instruction Programme for Pre-school Youngsters, which Leslie Max directs, in a booklet called We Talk in Our Family Now, which deals with intervening with young families, and how to help the parents. There is an extremely interesting story in that booklet, the story of Gordon. That story is about the path to prisons. Gordon says, on page 68 of this book, which is available in the Parliamentary Library, and it would particularly benefit members on the opposite benches to do some reading on this subject: “My own family wasn’t a nice place for me. I don’t like talking about it.” He goes on to say that at 14 years of age he was excluded from school. He celebrated by drinking and did not stop until he was 40. In that time he committed crimes, he beat people, he beat his family, and he was beaten himself.

But it was not until the Home Instruction Programme for Pre-school Youngsters intervened in his life, and in the life of his children, that he changed his behaviour, and is now a model for his own children, who will not end up in prison. This cost was a very small amount of money to stop his children going to the place he was—in prison. It is $3,000 or $4,000 per year for this programme as against the $50,000 that we spend when we wait for people to get into the corrections system.

But get into the corrections system they do, and that is why this bill is so important. It builds upon the good practices that have already been instituted in the corrections system. For example, the integrated offender management system is helping us to tailor programmes for individuals who come into prison—not just to contain them, but to find the cause of their offending, the skills they lack, and what means we have to intervene in their lives. For example, do we need to get somebody off drugs, do we need to deal with that person’s mental problems, or violence, or lack of employment skills, and so forth?

In my reading of this bill I was struck by the fact that we have moved on in New Zealand beyond many other correction systems in the world. The bill is taking account of the fact that inmates are in prison for an amount of time. But the prison has to deal with how people got into prison and how we can stop them coming back. So it is extremely important that the philosophy in the bill takes an approach that is holistic, and ensures that it is not just a custodial sentence, but is also a sentence where we aim at reintegrating people into their society, and as much as possible making sure that they do not come back.

In terms of consultation, which was brought up, interestingly enough, by Mr Ryall, I would like to say this. When I became the Minister of Corrections I continued the consultation in the north that the former National Ministers had carried out. The cost at that time was something up to half a million dollars for two prisons, one at Ngawha, and one just outside of Whangarei. The Whangarei prison was stopped after consultation. What did the consultation show? The consultation, which was largely with the Pākehā community—Māori were largely excluded from it—said that the community did not want that prison there. National had a look at this and saw that it would lose that seat if it built the prison there. So the prison was moved to an area that was thought would be easier, and that was in an area with a high Māori population, and a population that would not threaten, it seemed, the National vote.

I would certainly like to pay tribute to John Carter, who has been a supporter of that prison and the process to go through to build it. The point I am making is that National did carry out consultation and it knows that it cost money. In the Waikato, in relation to learning from the northern experience, the consultation began earlier. I challenge those on the other side who try to make profit about this and talked about corruption, to say it outside the House, because I will sue them. I was the Minister who did much of the consultation. I went to the hui and the meetings to set up the consultation. I know that $1.3 million is a drop in the bucket for what has already been spent on the prison.

Tainui should be congratulated on taking an intelligent approach to learn about the prison and for not being bulldozed by those people who said that there was no such thing as consultation and that there was no future with a prison. Tainui took an intelligent approach. In particular, Mr Haydn Solomon, who worked for the Department of Corrections, was one of the best workers I ever met inside the department, in terms of his analysis and commitment. He has been an outstanding person in the consultation process in the Waikato.

Lastly, I would like to say this about privatisation. When Labour and the then Alliance—the party I came into Parliament with in 1996—learnt of the privatisation of the prison we told the then minority National Government in regard to the Auckland Central Remand Prison that that contract would be cancelled. Labour, the Progressives, and the Greens have stuck to that policy. There was forewarning to the private prison, the Auckland Central Remand Prison. The problem with the privatisation that is extolled by National is that it has nothing to do with quality of prisons. It was all to do with opening up the public sector to privatisation for profit. The Mount Eden Prison was the stalking horse for the rest of the system. The Labour Party, the Progressives, and the Greens want a system that is coherent, coordinated, and will reduce reoffending. For that we need a public prison system throughout the whole country.

One can always tell dyed-in-the-wool socialists who spend more time in university than on the streets getting their hands dirty, because they stand up with the “pompicity” of people whom they normally call Tories—

💬 Dianne Yates: “Pomposity”.

Same difference. That is the difference between academics and people on the ground. The pomposity they criticise is from people who come out of places like Christ’s College or St Andrews. They are the very people who swan around art galleries—while telling working class people they work for them—swan around the symphonies, go to the opera, and then call Opposition members infantile because we do not agree with their stupid, nonsensical, socialist philosophies that would not add one jot of credibility to a department that is in absolute chaos—namely, the Department of Corrections.

Who is partially responsible for the mess we are dealing with today? It is the member Matt Robson himself, as a past Minister. If that member is to have any credibility at all in the debate on corrections, I have one question for him. Why did he not do something about the “goon squad” when it was brought to his attention in 2002? I bet that I do not get an answer. Why did he not do anything about the abuse of inmates, abuse of the law, and what people alleged to be absolute corruption going on inside his prisons? Why did he not do anything about the Sheree Harris and June Skinner case? Those two women in the Department of Corrections were persecuted out of their jobs by men. They went to the Employment Court.

This is the wonderful public corrections system that Nandor Tanczos is defending. Those two women did not get one jot of support from that Minister, and what happened? It cost the taxpayer $400,000-plus with the Department of Corrections fighting an injustice that it committed on two women prison officers, and it lost. The women won. When I took that case to the Minister he was hiding under his table, backing up his incompetent and—people say—corrupt department. He has nothing of value to add to this debate, because he did nothing.

There are parts in this bill that New Zealand First endorses; and that probably explains what he just said. That is probably Clem Simich’s work from the time when he was Minister. But there is a lot in this bill that leaves New Zealand First in total opposition to it. If the Government is going to put more dogs in prisons, we agree. If it is going to pass laws that protect dog handlers, we agree. If it is going to tighten up on the abuses meted out to inmates then I need only to look right at Nandor Tanczos, because he needs to explain to the great Māori community that he purports to represent why he is doing nothing about the death of Mr David Rere Haimona, which happened in a State prison not the Auckland Central Remand Prison. It did not happen in a private prison. It happened in a public prison, in a State-run prison, and to sit here and tell me that this man will support this legislation, and see the one bright shining star in our corrections service go under, because “The State must have control.”—I am going to ask him what has he done to support the Haimona family as a result of what the “goon squad” did to that man.

Evidence has been produced, and people have testified, that they killed him. That is what they say: “They killed him.” I am waiting with interest to see the result of the inquiry, because it will all come out in there. But Mr Tanczos does not care. He just wants to see the State running it. What does he want to see? Does he want to see more inmates like the one in Dunedin, who was paid out $40,000 after smashing up the local barber, breaking his face, and failing to pay reparation? He got $40,000 because our highly competent State-run Department of Corrections let him out a week later than his parole date. That is what Mr Nandor Tanczos supports.

Do we want to see more inmates—like the ones we have read about in the newspapers today—suing the department? Well, we have a doozy in this bill. Clauses 49 to 51 open up the doorway to lawsuits based on the fact that inmates will be able to argue in a court of law that the integrated offender management system that was put together for them, or not put together in the way they asked it to be, because of one or another reason, failed to prevent them from reoffending.

Mr Jarden has a case, has he not? We know he abused and sexually molested children. We know he was out again on parole. He went on home detention and he did it again! Three more cases! A member opposite says: “Oh!”, as though the abuse of three little girls means nothing. Well, over here it does. If the member did not say that, I am sorry, but that is the way it came across in the House. She seemed bored with my whole speech. Members opposite should say that to the victims of Mr Jarden. Is that the type of Department of Corrections that Nandor Tanczos and the Green Party support? Because, boy, I am looking forward to the election—and it is coming soon. I am looking forward to standing up on the hustings and arguing this issue. Because there is no justifiable reason for the Department of Corrections to do what it did.

At the end of the day there are victims. We will have people like Mr Isherwood, the guy who just recently was convicted, let out, and within 2 weeks he had drug-raped a girl again. He could argue that the integrated offender management system failed him. I question whether he had a plan. I am now finding, in talking to people, that this management system that members opposite laud and applaud is not even working now. So many inmates are being transferred from one prison to another that no one has a tab on whether a plan has been put together. So these people are quite capable of going through the system, not having a plan, coming out, reoffending, and blaming the failure of the prison service to adhere to its statutory obligation of providing the inmate with a plan to prevent the person from reoffending.

There has been a lot of criticism about the consultative process up at Spring Hill prison. Is it not interesting, and so amazing, that the one group of people who spoke so highly of the Auckland Central Remand Prison—the prison service we are going to see the demise of—was the one group of people who have since put out a press release saying they were never consulted as to whether that prison was doing the right thing, as to whether it was a good, competent prison service?

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.