Corrections Bill

I want to make a couple of brief comments relating to Supplementary Order Paper 213. The issues considered in the Supplementary Order Paper were considered at the Law and Order Committee, and are the result of a number of submissions that were made. The reality is that those matters were not able to be read into the bill, simply because of the tied nature of that committee, so they have come back to the Committee as a Supplementary Order Paper. They have had considerable discussion at the select committee, I understand.

The second issue I want to bring to members’ attention is on page 7 of the Supplementary Order Paper, and it concerns the powers and functions of the chief executive and managers. That matter is part of the discussion that the Progressives and the Greens had with the Government. I want to acknowledge the work of the Green Party and of Nandor Tanczos in coming up with some smart wording about how we could engage both the chief executive and the managers with local communities in ensuring that those communities are involved more in some of the programmes and processes that go on within prisons, and also extending beyond that. If we are to do something about rehabilitation and improving the resettlement and recidivism rates in New Zealand, then it is really important that we have greater community involvement. I think the amendment is a step forward and an improvement in the bill as it came to the House.

Finally, I say there will be a lot of excitement, agitation, concern, outrage, and anger at clauses 185 and 186. Those particular provisions relate to ending the private management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison and placing it back into public hands. That has been a well-intentioned, well-signalled policy plank of this Government for some considerable years. We consider that incarceration—that is, taking away people’s liberty—is a fundamental core function of the State, and that is why we are doing that.

This part of the Corrections Bill will make it illegal for the Government to contract prison management to private enterprise. As we know, since 1999 the company Australasian Correctional Management has run New Zealand’s only privately run prison, the Auckland Central Remand Prison. During that time it has been able to manage the incarceration of individuals for the cost of $43,000 a year per prisoner, compared with an average cost across comparative prisoners of $54,000 a year, and $72,000 a year for high-security prisoners. That information will be disclosed even further by members on this side.

But I want also to highlight—and this is the reason why the Opposition will be expecting a generous amount of time—that, besides our opposition to the cancellation of the private prison contract, there are at least four other areas that we intend to cover. First is the ridiculousness of legislating the integrated offender management programme into legislation. There are different ways of operating prisons. Penal policies do come and go, and the philosophy of the prison system should reflect that of the elected representatives of the day, as conveyed through the Government. It should not be enshrined in legislation. We have moved a number of amendments to remove from this part of the bill those parts that are administrative and purely the realm of those involved in management.

Secondly, we will also be opposing the new rights for prisoners that are enshrined in this legislation. These rights are now in law. The Government’s advisers were unable to tell the Law and Order Committee what new risks to Treasury these new requirements would provide. We simply believe that they are an invitation for prisoners to take the Department of Corrections to court. Under this law, prisoners will be entitled to access further education. They will be entitled to have that access—not as a privilege, but as a right. We think hard-working New Zealanders will be furious if criminals can get better educations than their children can, courtesy of their taxes, and that is possible under this bill.

Thirdly, we want to talk about the fact that this Government is passing legislation that says that the families of the offender can know when the offender is transferred from one prison to the other, but not the victims or their family members. In the case of Mr Mark Lundy, who was moved from Pāremoremo prison to Kaitoke prison, Mr Lundy’s family was informed but the family of the late Mrs Lundy was not informed. That is outrageous. We heard every excuse from the Government’s apologists as to why the law could not provide that those victims who want to know whether the offender is being moved should be informed of that. I have moved an amendment that will facilitate that.

Fourthly, we are going to talk about the role of probation officers. This part of the bill identifies that probation officers will enforce the Government’s parole orders from the Parole Board, and will enforce community sentences. What we do know is that the Government’s officials are not enforcing parole orders. The Government has agreed that a third of people on parole can actually violate their parole. The Government has agreed that that is an acceptable standard. We also know that, with community work, less than half the people are turning up. So we are going to talk about those issues.

We believe that the Government is putting ideology before common sense with the abolition of the private prison contract. It makes sense financially for the Government to contract out this service, because we are getting a better service at a better price. If Government members put all their ideology aside, surely they will see that the responsibility of the Government to the taxpayers is such that they should be continuing with the private contract. Australasian Correctional Management has met and exceeded the contractual performance standards that it was set by the Government. In fact, the Government has even congratulated Australasian Correction Management on its performance. In Parliament today we have had the ridiculous situation where the Minister of Corrections stood up and said that the Government is the only—

I know that we are debating Part 2, but I want to take a minute to congratulate the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Progressive party on passing the addition of clause 6, which deals with restorative justice, to the bill.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Sit down!

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was just yelled at by Dr Mapp. He told me to sit down. Is that in order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. But Dr Mapp should come to order.

Very good. Clause—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just heard the speaker congratulate the other parties on passing clause 6. Clause 6 is in Part 1, and we are on Part 2. So would you please ask the member to come back to the part we are debating?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order—and the member is a longstanding member of this House; he has been in the political arena for some time.

💬 Dail Jones: With respect, it is a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a debatable issue.

💬 Dail Jones: If I started speaking on clause 3, you would pull me up, and if I started speaking on clause 6, you would pull me up, and quite rightly. We are dealing with Part 2, beginning with clause 7. We are not dealing with clause 6. So I am absolutely right, Mr Chairman, with the greatest of respect.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please be seated. The member had only just stood. If he had been going a little bit longer, then I would have pointed him to the bill.

My point is that clause 6 becomes operative in Part 2, and I note that most parties in this Parliament have said they are in support of restorative justice. I will be in Whakatāne on Saturday, at a restorative justice graduation ceremony. I will point out to the people there that one of the members of Parliament, a member for the area near Whakatāne, Mr Tony Ryall for the National Party, has voted against implementing restorative justice in our prisons.

Part 2 has some of the most controversial parts of the bill, in the view of the Opposition, but it is not controversial if we look at the record of the Department of Corrections. I note that under successive Governments, going back to the National Government of the 1990s, support for programmes that dealt with the issue of the overrepresentation of Māori in prison has been a central focus of the Department of Corrections. So it is interesting to note the opposition of the National Party to programmes and an approach that focus on working with Māori—and, by extension, with Pacific Islanders—to reduce the rate of reoffending.

Clauses 50 and 51 set out the management plans and the rehabilitative programmes. They are built on the work of programmes that have been successful, such as the Māori focus units, Kia Mārama, Te Piriti, the Straight Thinking programme, the Making Our Drivers Safer programme, the drug therapy programmes, the bicultural therapy programmes, and so the list goes on—including employment programmes. When this bill becomes an Act it will underpin the evidence-based programmes that we know do work. What we do have to work on, clearly, is extending the programmes that work, and getting rid of any practices that do not meet the goal of reducing the rate of reoffending. The Minister has pointed out that with this bill we have a holistic approach, so that we concentrate on not only what occurs inside prison but also reintegrative processes outside of it.

I would also like to commend the fact that, in relation to clause 109, there is now an amendment that includes members of Parliament among those official agencies to whom prisoners can write confidentially. This points to Mr Mark’s oft-noted concern about any ill-governed actions inside the prisons or any illegal actions that are occurring. Because inmates are able to get in touch with members of Parliament, they have access to Parliament and can raise questions when they have concerns. I point that out to Mr Mark because he seems to be tremendously concerned—at least, he has said so in this Parliament—when something goes wrong inside a prison. However, the policy of New Zealand First seems to be that of the Iraqi model, under both Saddam Hussein and the present United States—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will come to order.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are you going to allow that? Today we have seen offence taken because people were referred to as Hungarian immigrants. We now have a former Minister—the Minster responsible for covering up the “goon squad” affair—saying that New Zealand First supports the type of treatment meted out to Iraqi prisoners in a jail. That is not only ridiculous; it is offensive and disgusting.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I did call the member to order. The more I think about the comment, the more I think it probably comes under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”. I ask the member to withdraw.

I withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

Clause 155 deals with the right of members of Parliament to visit prisons. Ensuring that that right remains is an important step. I myself know, both as a former Minister in this area and as a member of Parliament, that it has been an important right of members of Parliament, so that they are informed. I do hope that more members of Parliament take advantage of it and actually visit prisons before they speak in these particular debates.

On the question of the private prison, it should be noted that the policy of the Labour Party, and certainly the policy of Jim Anderton and myself, at both the 1999 election and the 2002 election, made it clear that revocation of the contract for the private prison would occur. That has also been the policy of the Green Party. I think it would behove members of this Parliament who claim to know so much about what happens in the Auckland Central Remand Prison to become informed about the other parts of the corrections system, which actually deal with 99 percent of the inmates of this country, not just the top end of remand prisoners.

I am extremely concerned that the ideological nonsense in this bill will undo the good work of the previous Government in the area of corrections management. Every single Government that has come into office in the last 30 years has claimed it will make improvements in the prison system, yet in every single term of office those promises come to naught—and so it is with this Government.

In 1998, during my period as Minister of Corrections, I was able to sign the contract with Australasian Correctional Management for the Auckland Central Remand Prison, and I want to remind the members opposite who were then in Parliament of what they said the trial would show. Members opposite claimed that there would be record numbers of abuses. Were there? No. In fact, the situation has been quite the opposite. There have been fewer abuses in that correctional facility than in any other prison. Members were told private prisons would be more expensive. Again I ask members opposite to look at the record of the last 5 years, and to note that the private prison has been a less expensive prison service. Members were told that if the Government went for private prisons, there would be complete neglect of any rehabilitation programmes. Yet official reports and monitoring of the Auckland Central Remand Prison show that its rehabilitation has been substantially better. We also know that, in the experience of the Māori community, Australasian Correctional Management, which was privately contracted to run that prison, has provided far better programmes for Māori.

I want to know from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Swain, why, after all the nonsense that was spoken in the 1990s, and after all the predictions that were made by Labour have been categorically proved wrong by experience, the Government wants to bring an end to private prisons. What is it, in real terms, that makes the Minister want to drive out innovation in our prison service? For all the debate about reoffending, why is it that, ideologically, he wants to squash the good work that has been done at that Auckland remand prison?

We National members are proud of our heritage and proud of introducing innovation into that particular prison, and we want to expand it. We object to clauses 185 and 186, which will prevent that from being done. I challenge the Minister in the chair and ask him why he is allowing ideological blinkers to stop him from doing what is right. Why, really, does he want to shut out the innovation that has been provided by private prisons? His answers in the House today were a nonsense. He expressed the idea that only the State should be involved in restraining people’s freedom. What about all the private transport that is provided for prisons? Will the Minister knock that out, as well? If it is an ideological view—

💬 Mark Peck: Good idea.

The member pipes up from opposite. I ask the Minister, if he is to be ideologically consistent—and consistently stupid—why he does not knock out the contracts for those who provide transport for prisoners. He should not pretend that a prison bus or van is not constraining the liberties of those people.

I say to the Minister that it is ideological nonsense, and he will block out the innovation in the sector. This Minister will proudly knock off the good rehabilitation being provided in that prison. It is a tragic step backwards, and I ask members opposite to get on their feet to defend this change. [Interruption] Darren Hughes pipes up. Why does he not make a speech to explain to the Committee why those members want to stop innovation, waste taxpayers’ money, and reduce the number of programmes for reducing reoffending? It really is a tragedy for New Zealand prisons.

I will start by looking at Supplementary Order Paper 213 put up by the Government, and what an astounding document it is. It is no wonder that members are dealing with corrections to the Department of Corrections, or corrections to the Corrections Bill, when they have to put up with this sort of nonsense.

Despite all the rhetoric from Green Party members about wanting to represent the tangata whenua in pursuance of tino rangatiratanga, and giving Māori the right to determine how they will be treated in this nation in a sense of partnership, I was racking my brains today and wondering why the Green Party is supporting this bill. Having had the views of senior Māori leaders given to them through Nandor Tanczos, and despite the opposition of Tariana Turia, a former Associate Minister of Corrections, to this bill, and the objection of Pita Sharples—a man whom Nandor Tanczos tells people he admires and respects—why have the Greens supported it? Why have those members totally ignored all the recommendations from senior Māori leaders, particularly those in the north, to oppose this bill and ensure that the Government does not place the Auckland Central Remand Prison back within the State-run Department of Corrections—or, as I have heard some people say, the “Department of Corruptions”? It is a terrible thing to say, but that is what people in the street are saying. Why have the Greens done it?

I think I have found out why. If one looks at the proposed amendment to clause 8(1) in Supplementary Order Paper 213, for example, the Greens’ influence is to be seen. The proposed amendment provides: “To omit from paragraph (b) the words ‘secure containment’ … and substitute the words ‘safe custody’.” Is that not nice? It is lovely, is it not? It further provides: “To omit from paragraph (f) the words ‘prisoners or offenders’ … and substitute the words ‘persons under control or supervision’.” Is that not lovely? It is cute, is it not? It is so sensitive, so touchy-feely, so cuddly, and so typically Green.

The amendment further provides: “To omit from paragraph (h) the words ‘prisoner or offender’ … and substitute the words ‘person under control or supervision’.” The proposed amendment to clause 9(a) provides: “To omit…the words ‘secure containment’ … and substitute the words ‘safe custody’.” The amendment to clause 10 provides: “To omit the word ‘person’ … and substitute the words ‘staff member of a prison’.” Is that not nice? One cannot have a person, but must have a “staff member of a prison” instead.

This is ridiculous—it just goes on and on. I ask the Minister how many amendments in this huge document are like those substitutions? It is no wonder that we are presented with rubbish like this at the eleventh hour, but it has to go through because it has the things in it that the Green Party holds most dearly to its bosom, and that is politically correct language that seeks not to offend, label, or stigmatise anyone. I am sorry, Minister, but the people out there want to talk about “offenders”. They want to talk about them in the terms and terminology that they know them as—crooks, crims, and offenders. People do not want them referred to as little, touchy-feely persons, because crooks, crims, and offenders is what they are.

That is the problem with this bill. The whole rehabilitative programme, which is legislated into being under Part 2, is a load of nonsense and a crock. Where does one go to find that out? One goes to the Department of Corrections’ annual reports for 2000-01 and 2001-02 to read what is said about rehabilitation quotients and the success of the department’s rehabilitation plans. I say to Nandor Tanczos that the department’s successes in rehabilitation are so pathetic that it fails to discuss them. In last year’s annual report, it states: “The figures are statistically insignificant.” That is what the department’s comments are about its own rehabilitation programmes.

If one puts Kia Māramara off to one side, which is the only one with statistics of significance, and every other programme—

💬 Nandor Tanczos: Oh, so you can do that?

The member is saying that on the back of one programme, all the rest are valid. That is rubbish!

There is so much in this Part 2 that demands debate, but I choose two short pieces before getting on to the amendment I have put forward, and for which I hope there will be support across the House. Before I do, I want to draw attention to the amendments to clause 12 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper dumped on us today, which requires: “(ca) establishing and maintaining processes to—(i) identify the communities significantly affected by policies and practices at the prison;”. I think that means Māori and Polynesian communities. It could be the criminal gangs, of course, but prison management has to establish and maintain processes. It then has to “(ii) provide opportunities for those identified communities to give their views on those policies and practices; and”—wait for it—“(iii) ensure those views are taken into account.”

We will now have to take into account the views of communities that have yet to be found, but when communities that have actually rallied around a prison—and it is an astonishing achievement by a prison management to get that—and sent their representatives to Parliament to say: “We have been consulted. We have had an opportunity for input. We have seen our views taken into account. We believe that we at last have a prison management that genuinely respects us.”, what did Minister Swain do? He said it was all irrelevant.

💬 Judith Collins: Is it?

Oh, yes. He said: “It is irrelevant because we know that custodial services are solely a matter for us, the Crown, to deal with.”, so we have a provision that is deeply cynical. I imagine it was probably stipulated in order to salve the conscience of the Greens. They have said: “OK. We will scoff at the communities at the moment, but we’ll promise them that in future it will be better. We’ll ignore the chance for something to be confirmed that has been effective, and we will simply promise ‘pie in the sky when you die’.” I say to Mr Tanczos that if that is the amendment promoted by the Green Party, its members should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

I want to turn now to the amendment in my Supplementary Order Paper that deals with clause 19. There is a safeguard that has been known for generations in prisons as the only effective safeguard against the abuse of power—that is, visiting justices. They are people with independent status and dignity as judges. They visit prisons and inquire into complaints with the authority that comes from having outside status. What is this Government doing? It is providing that someone bearing the label “visiting justice” can be any toady with a law degree. He or she does not need to be someone with judicial experience, or anyone with a record of judging between competing claims, or of looking authority in the eye and saying: “I’m sorry. The law rules here, not the boss.” The term “visiting justice” is now to extend to anyone the Minister appoints—as long as he or she has a law degree. Well, I know plenty of people with law degrees who do not deserve that status.

What we had was a system that was a genuine safeguard against abuse, and we are replacing it with a huge mess of ridiculous words. What we have in this bill now is a great ream of red tape—procedures, back-covering, requirements for written reports, and written statements to prisoners, and involvement of families—but we are tossing out the main safeguard against abuse in prisons, that is, that there will be judges who will visit, respond to complaints, and investigate them. Instead, the Minister is providing—here it is; wait for it—that there must be “a balance” between these new tame toadies and JPs.

The Minister’s safeguard is acceptable to the Greens, otherwise it would not be here. It is the product of Labour’s negotiation with the Greens. The Greens have been satisfied that it does not matter that we are getting rid of judges; instead, we will have a balance between JPs and tame toadies. What a safeguard! What way is that to ensure that in future prisoners who are being bullied, beaten, or whose legitimate complaints are being ignored will have an independent person to go to?

💬 Ron Mark: This would suit the “goon squad”.

It would. It probably came from the magic pen of “Kiss and Cuddles Robson”. It really did. It looks like the sort of prison reform one has when—

Although I am a newcomer to this legislation, whilst perusing the contents of Part 2 my eye was drawn to a couple of clauses in that part, pointed out to me by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall, that are worth examining just a little further. It seems to me that the purpose of this legislation should be to provide broad guidelines as to overall governance issues in respect of prisons, as opposed to finicky, management, administrative-type issues. So with that sort of background in mind, I found my eye was immediately drawn to clause 71, “Bedding”. If a prison is to have a view on bedding—and presumably it would have one—why on earth is Parliament placing into law on the statute book references to bedding? For the benefit of the listening public, who will not believe what I am about to read, this is what clause 71(2) states—

💬 Ron Mark: This is Nandor’s amendment.

Is that right? It is a Government bill. Members should listen to this: “A prisoner’s bedding must be laundered as often as is necessary to maintain cleanliness.” Now, when did this Parliament become such a sad reflection of a lawmaking body that it includes that type of nonsense in legislation? But it becomes worse than that. Clause 71(3) states: “All bedding must be laundered before it is reissued to another prisoner.” Well, one would think that that was pretty self-explanatory; one would think that most prisons would undertake that type of basic activity. Why on earth is legislation being drafted with that type of utter nonsense included in it?

But worse than that, not only is there a clause on bedding but there is also a clause on diet. Clause 72(2) states: “As far as practicable in the circumstances, in providing food and drink to prisoners, allowances must be made for the various religious, spiritual, and cultural needs of the prisoners.” That is fair enough. There may well be spiritual and religious needs for certain dietary offerings to be given to different prisoners, but why on earth is legislation required to enact that type of policy? This legislation is not about 101 ways to run a good prison; that is not what it is about. This legislation is tearing away a very successful management arrangement in one prison, and providing that the public sector will be the only group allowed to run prisons. I and the other members on the Opposition side of the Chamber do not believe for one moment that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Swain, believes that. I do not believe for one second that Paul Swain thinks that that is a good idea, or that he can seriously sit there and hold the view that clauses about bedding and diets will make our public prison system better for the people inside it—who, by the way, actually gave up a fair few of their rights at the time they went out and committed their crimes.

But even worse than that, not only are prisoners’ bedding and dietary needs taken care of in legislation but clause 52, which addresses the transfer of prisoners, does not for one moment refer to the rights of their victims. It does not refer to the rights of victims to be informed when those transfers are going ahead, and in no way are victims referred to with regard to the ongoing management of prisoners.

First of all, tēnā koe ki te rangatira kei runga ra. My acknowledgments go to Dom Karauria, who is in the gallery and is the subject of much of our discussion this evening. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): A member is about to say something, and I did hear that. That is right; the member cannot refer to members in the gallery. Speaker’s ruling 44/5 deals with that, so the member should come to order, please.

My apologies, Mr Chairperson. I did not realise that the rules of the House forbade us from showing some courtesy.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has done the same thing again, and he should think about it. He is supposed to be debating to you and to fellow members of Parliament, and he should not involve strangers. He should not make adverse comments about your ruling.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am sorry, but the Hon Richard Prebble is absolutely right. The member will come to the point and continue his speech.

I think that Mr Karauria, who has been the subject of much discussion this evening, is an example of good leadership in prisons. Like any good leader, he does not put himself forward, but holds up the team that he works with. He acknowledges the role of te iwi whānui and the staff in the progress that the remand prison has made. That makes it clear to us that it is not the shareholders of the company who determine whether a prison is good; it is about the relationships that the general manager has with the community. It behoves us in this Chamber to learn from that. Rather than trying to maintain a single institution, we should look at how we can reform the public service so it can work correctly.

I would like to make the comment that Mr Ron Mark was totally off the mark when he suggested that what he thought were Green amendments were included in Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain. Members will find that the things he pointed out had nothing to do with the Greens. I am sure Mr Mark will be relieved to know that. I would like to tell members exactly what some of our amendments were. Before I do so, I also point out that the Greens have never said that we represent tangata whenua. I do not believe we can do that, but we do seek to uphold an honourable relationship with Māori. I think that other members of the Chamber should be thinking about that, as well.

💬 Ron Mark: What’s this?

I do not know. If Mr Mark believes everything he reads in the papers, he has a lot to learn.

I would like to address the question of the relationship between a prison and the community. I think that relationship is crucial to whether the institution works to rehabilitate offenders. I have already mentioned the amendment to clause 6(1)(c), which deals with taking the cultural background, ethnic identity, and language of offenders into account, not just in the individual sense of planning and management, but also in developing rehabilitative programmes and other interventions. We are talking about a systematic view of those issues. But it is important that those things are backed up with some specific functions. I am very proud that the Greens have managed to negotiate some amendments in that regard. As Mr Franks pointed out, the first is to add clause 8(1)(ja), which states that the chief executive has the responsibility to ensure: “… that processes are established and maintained to—(i) identify the communities significantly affected by policies and practices in the corrections system; and (ii) provide opportunities for those identified communities to give their views on those policies and practices; and (iii) ensure that those views are taken into account.” At a national level, that is the role of the chief executive. That is also backed up by a specific requirement at the local level as well, whereby it is also within the functions and powers of the general manager of every individual prison to establish and maintain processes to identify those communities, to provide opportunities for them to give their views, and to ensure that those views are taken into account. It is important that specific responsibilities are attached to those obligations.

I mention one last thing. In order to reinforce that, clause 182(1)(aa) in the Supplementary Order Paper then requires the chief executive to “include a report on the way in which the chief executive has carried out his or her functions under section 8(1)(ja) and the way in which prison managers have undertaken their functions under section 12(ca) …”, and to present it to Parliament. Other matters are to be included in that report, as well. We have tried to make sure that there are specific responsibilities, so that rather than just provide some nice words about treaty obligations, which are a good thing, we actually get down to some specifics. The communities that we are talking about are not just the Māori and Pacific Island communities. Although some people would like us to believe that they are the only people in prison, there are people from other communities there, as well. One thing we can say for sure is that if we are to rehabilitate offenders, we need to make sure that we speak to them in a way that they understand, both in terms of their language and culture.

I listened to a contribution from one of the National members about clause 71.

💬 Simon Power: That was me.

Oh, right. The member said that we are to pass a law relating to bedding. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Swain, whether it is the intention of the Government to pass a law that states all the mattresses in prisons must be laundered before being reissued to other prisoners. I often stay in hotels, and I am unaware that even five-star hotels launder the mattresses between guests. I have had a complaint that our prisons are five-star hotels—this measure will make them seven-star, or 10-star, or something of that nature. [Interruption] In case the member thinks I am making a frivolous point, I say I am not. I am making a very serious point.

When I listened to the comments about bedding, I thought that bedding would include mattresses. I went to the current edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary to try to find out how “bedding” is interpreted. I looked to see if there was an interpretation in the bill—there does not appear to be one. This issue will be litigated, because prisoners litigate everything.

💬 Dail Jones: They have nothing else to do.

They have nothing else to do. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines bedding as a mattress and bedclothes, so we are to pass a bill today with a provision that mattresses and bedclothes be laundered before they are reissued to other prisoners. I say to the Minister that I do not think that is what he intended. It shows the absurdity of the approach taken in this bill, and of us as a Parliament trying to legislate to such a degree as this. I say to the Minister in the chair—because it is his bill—that if that is what he intends, then no doubt he will not make an amendment. If he does make an amendment, I would expect the clause to state that it refers just to bedclothes. I think “bedclothes” is the word the Minister was actually looking for.

This issue shows the ridiculousness of this bill, and of the type of approach taken in it. The Government freely admits that it has an excellent private prison, but says it is ideologically opposed to having an excellent prison. Then it says it can pass a bill that states prisons will somehow be improved by laundering the mattresses every time there is a change of prisoner.

💬 Ron Mark: By law.

By law. This issue will be litigated. Someone will say that the issue was raised in Parliament, so the provision is exactly what was intended, and the politicians knew what they were doing. Someone will ask whether, if the Minister did not mean to include mattresses, he bothered to read the bill.

This issue, pointed out by a National member of Parliament, is an absurdity. When I listened to Simon Power I could not believe it, but I had a look and saw that clause 71(3) states that all bedding must be laundered before it is reissued to another prisoner. That is something that even hotels in New Zealand do not do. The Government says that it has a get-tough approach with regard to prisons. Perhaps it does, but on whom does it get tough? It is certainly not tough on the prisoners. The Government is pretty tough on the taxpayers, on the people who are victims of crime, and on the laundry people, but it is not tough on the prisoners. I say to this Minister—

💬 Ron Mark: What about the prisoners who work in the laundry? They will be working their backsides off.

I do not think they will. I think there is probably a UN convention that prisoners cannot do any work. No, some outside people will be coming in to do the laundry. But they will not be outside contractors. They will all be members of the Public Service Association, and they will not launder more than a certain number of mattresses a day. Then we will have reports in the newspaper stating that judges cannot send anyone to jail because the prisons cannot launder the mattresses fast enough for the new prisoners who are coming in.

This issue seems to have taken on a life of its own. I, too, will make the point that clause 71(1) says: “Every prisoner must be provided with a separate bed,”. Well, do they share the beds today? What sort of bed do they have now, if, in the future, they must have a separate bed? Is it to be a double bed, queen-sized, or king-sized? There is no definition of the size of the bed. It really is getting nonsensical.

And these dear prisoners must have “sufficient bedding for warmth, health, and reasonable comfort.” That is sweet. We do not want them to feel cold, unhealthy, or uncomfortable while they are in prison. It would be a great shame if they were treated in the same way as they treated their victims—even marginally so. Then, of course, what must they eat? Mr Power has mentioned the diet. Clause 72 (1) states: “Every prisoner must be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and drink …”. That must have been a Green Party amendment, surely. Is it organic food?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: No GM.

No GM food, and, surely, it must be organically grown or it would not be wholesome. I can see prisoners saying: “This food is not wholesome. It’s not organic. It is possibly GE.” The food must also be nutritional according to “guidelines for the time being issued by the Ministry of Health,”. Well, if I were a prisoner, I would be checking out what guidelines had been issued by the Ministry of Health. If the food did not comply—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: They will let them out.

Yes. Clause 72(3) states: “A medical officer may prescribe a particular diet for a particular prisoner.” That is nice, too. I can see all the prisoners lining up to explain that they are on a fish diet, and will have only the best fish. They will say they can cope with orange roughy only. This legislation is nonsensical. These provisions were in regulations, and that is where they should stay. Parliament should not have been bothered with them. What is this Government getting up to by wasting Parliament’s time with such ridiculous legislation, which now—because it is legislation—can be changed only by an Act of Parliament? In the past, changes could have been done by regulation. These provisions will be litigated by prisoners.

My main concern is this: what do the Labour Party’s Māori members of Parliament think about the views of, say, Tariana Turia on the retention of the private prison in Auckland? She has come out in support of retention of the private prison in Auckland, and I presume that there are many other Labour members of Parliament, of various extractions, who support the continuation of that prison. Why must the Labour Party be so ideologically hidebound on the issue? New Zealand First members went there ourselves and had a look at it last year, in about July. Eight MPs, including the leader of New Zealand First, went to the Auckland Central Remand Prison and had a look at the new facility for ourselves.

💬 Simon Power: Who didn’t go?

Someone may have been away, but there were eight there, which is almost three-quarters of our caucus. I wonder whether three-quarters of other parties’ caucuses went.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: So how were your party members?

Well, I can tell members of the House that it was quite shocking for some of our members of Parliament. I think it is shocking for any member of Parliament to go to a prison and see young men being locked up in the prime of their lives. It is quite a shock. I have been to many prisons over many years, as a lawyer visiting prisoners, and as a member of Parliament, and one gets a bit immune to it after a while. But the New Zealand First MPs who had not been to a prison before were absolutely shocked at what they saw—young men in the prime of their lives wasting their time away in a prison. We also went to Pāremoremo prison and had a look at three prison blocks there. I will not go further into who was there, but that was quite shocking also.

The point is that if Tariana Turia can, now that she is no longer a member of Parliament, say that she supports the continuation of the private prison and will raise it in her by-election, if there is one—

What a weak Minister we have in the chair tonight! Paul Swain started off with fire and brimstone. He laid down the challenge that he wanted sharp debate, he wanted members to come at him, but he has not done a thing since—he has wilted like a violet. What he has done is sneak a Supplementary Order Paper—47 pages thick—in through the back door without giving anyone a chance to read it. He is a hopeless Minister who does not believe one iota of what is being perpetrated here today. When I railed about the cursory reference to victims in a bill that is 158 pages long, he said they had the Victims’ Rights Act. What a cop-out! What a Clayton’s bill this is! If he continues to have his head in the sand like this, then he deserves the polling result that his Government has.

The Law and Order Committee’s Government members who worked on this legislation have not taken one call. Do members know why? Because they do not believe in this legislation any more than the Opposition members do—not one iota.

In terms of fair treatment of prisoners, clause 84 relates to the provoking of prisoners. What a nonsense that is! The Minister has steadfastly sat in that chair and maintained the management that released the “goon squad” on South Island prisoners. He has done nothing about it. He is having a Clayton’s review, but there is nothing to that Clayton’s review as the decision is already predetermined. He is the Minister who, for example, has allowed a “goon squad” member who prevailed on one of the squad’s members to put his penis on a bar, to be the sexual harassment officer. The same Minister has allowed the manager who allowed that to happen to be the ethics manager of the Department of Corrections. And the Minister wants us to have confidence in him and this bill!

I will have a crack at clause 71, “Bedding”, also. Other members have done it. In particular I want to look at clause 71(1): “Every prisoner must be provided with a separate bed,”. Of course, the small print should say “unless you are a female prisoner officer”! That is the bit that was not added, and I have not heard this Minister get up and take a call on that.

What really gets my goat about what is being proposed here is the decision to end private management of prisons. It is based neither on performance nor on efficiency criteria. It is purely driven by Matt Robson and his union mates, and this Minister is too weak to stand up and say: “That is wrong. We will not do anything about this.” Had the Government looked at any criterion at all, it would have discovered that the Auckland Central Remand Prison delivers a higher standard—

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

The Green member who purports to be the champion of rehabilitation of prisoners is the very same member who, representing his party, is, in conjunction with this Government, bringing down private management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison. That is a travesty and that member should know better.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: It’s a remand prison.

I apologise; the member is right for the first time today, so I congratulate him! But the fact remains that he knows that he is letting those people down.

Taito Phillip Field was on the Law and Order Committee for a while. He knows—and his head went down when I started to mention this—that what is transpiring under this bill is wrong. Private management of prisons is the best model this country has seen. The problem is that private management has shown up the inefficiencies of the Department of Corrections, and it does not like it. What has happened is that Matt Robson and his union buddies have got to the Minister and said: “If you don’t do this, then we will withdraw our political support for you.” As a consequence, the Minister and his weak-kneed Government are rolling over.

In Parliament now and again we get absolutely fabulous contributions. One of the great contributions we have had—

💬 Brian Connell: This is not one of those.

Maybe not, but I think the member should judge it at the end. One great contribution we had before the dinner break was from the Hon Richard Prebble who, in an impassioned request, pointed out that, unlike hotels, we were requiring people to launder the mattress. I thought he raised—in a witty and humourous way, as is his wont—that that was perhaps somewhat extreme. After considerable pressure and thinking about it, the Government has caved in. I point out to members that my amendment to clause 71, which is the clause the member talked about, adds a further subclause (4), which states: “In this section—bed includes a mattress; bedding does not include a mattress”. [Interruption] I think this will be his finest hour. It is a very sensible thing. I enjoyed the member’s contribution—it was witty and to the point, and, if he finally decides to go, is the kind of contribution that we will miss very much in this House.

There have been some very good contributions, and I have to tell the Minister that a couple of contributions from the National Party have left me quite stunned. It really does appear of late that the National Party itself has had a bit of a road to Damascus experience. It is good, is it not, to hear the party that had the Government benches for 9 years—and 18 months along with New Zealand First—finally talking about punishment.

If I recall correctly, the word “punishment” featured regularly in the New Zealand First manifesto for the last two elections. It is very encouraging to hear the National Party now referring to the need to punish. Stealing National Party policy is not something New Zealand First is renowned for. In fact, I suggest it is quite the opposite. One can always tell when one has got National Party members excited—they cannot stop chirping away like a bunch of parakeets on the sideline.

What I want to talk about now are clauses 49, 50, and 51, which contain an issue I have brought to the attention of the House before. I tabled in the House a legal opinion from Chapman Tripp. I warned the Minister and the Government in question time—and it was a further extension of the arguments put up by the National spokesperson and the Hon Richard Prebble—that there is a danger in trying to legislate the detail of what are operational matters. It is an operational matter whether barrack block A changes its bedding with barrack block B, or barrack block C; whether they wash their undies at a certain time of the week, or whether there are procedures and plans for rehabilitating inmates. The moment we legislate for that—the moment we make it a statutory obligation of the Department of Corrections to rehabilitate those people—we bring about a risk to the Crown. I have argued that, and I note that the Government still says it is not a problem. However, it has moved to make a number of changes to clauses 49 and 50 in its Supplementary Order Paper.

My point is that—and I have made it before—the moment the State says that the Department of Corrections is responsible for putting in place a sentence plan designed to rehabilitate the inmate, the moment a person’s time in prison is templated to say that he or she will do an anger management course, or this or that sort of course, all aimed at turning that person around, is the moment we set ourselves up for failure. We all know that 80 percent of inmates who have been paroled have reoffended 5 years later. [Interruption] It is around 79 percent after 5 years.

The problem here is that it is quite conceivable—in fact, very probable, according to Chapman Tripp—that those inmates will then be in court blaming the Government. They will be saying: “I asked for this course and I didn’t get it. I wanted to do a course at polytech to get skills, and I was denied. It was that denial over 4, 5, or 10 years that led me into a situation where I couldn’t get a job, and I had to revert to my former profession of burgling homes and stealing cars to survive. Had the Department of Corrections given me the course I wanted, I would not have been in that situation.”

I seriously challenge the Government. There is no need for those clauses, and it should take them out. There is a method by which the Department of Corrections, according to its own plans and policies and under its standard operating procedures, can make certain courses available. They do not need to be legislated into being.

I again remind the Minister and the Government that there is enough literature around internationally that states—in fact, the department’s own annual reports themselves state—that rehabilitation in most areas is not working. Only the Kia Mārama example can be held up. Even with straight thinking, there is nothing out there that suggests, or proves, that all the work that has been done on straight thinking has been effective in the long term. This policy is setting up the Government for failure.

Before I begin to address some of the various amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper, I shall address a comment by Brian Connell, who criticised the Greens for supporting rehabilitation and the end of private management contracts. I remind him that the Auckland Central Remand Prison is a remand prison. It does not have convicted offenders, so the question of rehabilitation cannot be compared. One would think that that member would understand the difference between a remand prison and an ordinary prison.

I move on to some of the amendments negotiated by the Green Party with the Government. The first I shall address is the question of non-voluntary segregation, which is particularly important in light of the real problems with the behaviour management regime that have come to light in the public service. The bill as introduced included in clause 57 the opportunity for the prison manager, basically, to direct the segregation of a prisoner for the purpose of security, good order, or safety. In the original bill, the prison manager makes that order, the prisoner must be given the reason in writing, and the chief executive must be informed. That expires after 14 days unless before it expires the chief executive directs that it continue in force, and the chief executive reviews the order at intervals of not more than 3 months.

The Greens were concerned about that, because we felt it left open the potential for some abuse. The amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper allow that when the prison manager makes the order, it expires after 14 days, but it must be reviewed by the chief executive at intervals of not more than 1 month, and that it must expire after 3 months unless a visiting justice directs that it continue in force. The visiting justice must review the order at intervals of not more than 3 months. We felt that was important because it gave some independent, outside scrutiny. It meant that the question of someone remaining in segregation was not simply left up to the corrections authorities.

Another thing I would like to address is the protection for potential whistle-blowers. I direct the Committee to clause 140 in the original bill where it states that everyone who commits an offence is liable to punishment. Clause 140(1)(e) states: “holds any communication with, or makes any sound recording of, a prisoner:”, and paragraph (f) states: “makes any visual recording of a prisoner (whether by photograph, film, videotape, or otherwise):”.

The Greens were concerned that this provision could potentially punish whistle-blowers, and people who were aiding whistle-blowers, within the corrections systems, and we did not want to make it a punishable offence to bring to light or public attention real abuses within the system. As a result of our negotiations with the Government, we now have a situation where before anyone is subject to any penalty, the department will have to show that the communication might prejudice the maintenance of the law, the safe custody of the prisoner, the safety of any other person, or the security of any prison. That means that if those things are brought to light for the public good, and for the purpose of exposing abuses within the system, they are not punishable offences. We think that is also important.

Another thing I would like to address is the question of the complaints system. The Green Party would have liked to see a fully independent complaints authority, but we recognise that there would be substantial fiscal burdens as a result of that, so we negotiated an amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper by which the prison inspectorate reports to the chief executive, and the chief executive, in his or her annual report, has to include the work undertaken by the inspector of corrections, including statistical information about the disposition of complaints made by persons under control and supervision, and comments and issues arising out of complaints or visits during that period. Again, that relates to clause 182.

The last issue I would like to touch on is a minor thing, but we thought it was important. Under the bill as it was introduced, clause 49 stated that prisoners must be assessed on entry. It now explicitly requires an assessment for mental health, as well.

I wish to refer to clauses 185 and 186, headed “Management of prisons”. I have visited the Auckland Central Remand Prison, which is managed privately. I have also visited Mount Eden Prison and Pāremoremo prison in its various aspects—the most secure, to the somewhat less secure. I would have to say that there was a marked and remarkable difference between the management of the prisons.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: One’s old and one’s new.

That is exactly what one would expect the Government to say. The Government simply puts the issue down to “one old and one new”. There are new parts to Pāremoremo prison, as well. I guess we would not expect the Minister to know that, because the Government never gets as close as that to what is happening in the real world. One wonders to what extent the Government has really looked at how modern prisons are managed. I can tell the Minister that if he actually went to the remand prison and saw the innovative programmes, and, more particularly, the incredible spirit of the team members and the way they work together as opposed to the—frankly—dispirited and desultory crew that exists at the other prisons in terms of the management, there is just an enormous contrast.

That cannot be put down to the fact that one is new and one is old. It is not. It is actually about management technique. The public sector brings all the old public sector shibboleths with it and has an incredibly hierarchical approach to things. I guess the Government likes that sort of thing. Its mates in the Public Service Association want that kind of approach. It is what it is used to. It is the sort of Government that brings back unions through the current Employment Relations Amendment Bill before the House at present—that is, very old-fashioned and lacking in forethought.

The most serious criticism that one can make of the Government in this regard is that the Government bases its actions today on the basis of a promise—in the past, ill-informed, prejudiced, and without any benefit of learning from what happens in the real world. Normally, we expect people to say: “Well, that was a promise, but I’ll look at the evidence.”—that is, an evidenced-based approach. This Government has completely failed to do that and has acted entirely on an ideological basis.

I have to inform the Committee that it is cheaper. The cost per prisoner equivalent on a per annum basis through adult and community education is in fact $43,000. Public sector costs are $54,000. It has to be an ideological decision to say: “We would sooner spend $11,000 more per prisoner per year, simply to suit an ideological perception.” It is those kinds of decisions—bit by bit by bit—that add up to Government costs, and, of course, higher taxes. It is a whole bankrupt philosophy that this Government cannot look past in its blinkered approach to contemporary modern management. We make an absolute commitment that we will bring back modern management to prisons. That means adopting best practice, learning from real-world experience, and involving the private sector.

I want to briefly turn to the issues that have been greeted with some mirth, and rightly so, about bedding, exercise, and training. What is so disturbing about this is that this Government thinks it is important to spend hours of Parliament’s time putting these kinds of nonsensical provisions into legislation. It is again reflective of the Government’s habits—the socialist tendency to micromanage everything down to the finest possible detail. We live in New Zealand. New Zealanders know that we actually have to feed people. They know we have to give them bedding. Maybe I can understand the issue about exercise. It is a genuine issue of human rights as to whether a person should be detained 24 hours a day without any exercise, or have an hour. I can understand that point. But food and bedding! Frankly, this is just absurd. This Parliament costs tens of thousands of dollars per hour to run. We expect the Government, in its occasional lucid moments, to take some cognisance of that.

I wish to discuss a number of matters and also to draw attention to two papers on corrections that have come out of Britain. Interestingly, the British Labour Government’s ideology does not prevent it from displaying common sense in the management of prisons. The report Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach is a correctional services review by Patrick Carter, dated 11 December 2003. I shall quote a couple of points: “The benefits of competition from the private and voluntary sector could be extended further across both prison and probation.” The second point is: “The introduction of competition in prisons has provided a strong incentive for improvements in public sector prisons.”

I had the opportunity of travelling to Australia with the Law and Order Committee and having a look at some prison facilities in Western Australia. The chair of the committee and I went to a centre for youth and noted that the prison was remarkably well run, very clean, and had everything that is good about a prison. Interestingly, it was a public service prison, and we were told by the director that, had it not been for the private prisons in Western Australia, the prison could not have existed. That is the point. We want a counter-balance to the public sector to ensure accountability and the best possible service to the taxpayers of this country, some of whom, strangely enough, happen to be victims. So firstly they are the victim of a crime, and, secondly, they are called upon as taxpayers to help pay for the offender’s upkeep in prison.

I shall quote another point from that Carter report: “The introduction of competition has provided a strong incentive for improvements in public sector prisons. The introduction of performance testing has been successful in driving down costs, changing the culture, and enabling flexible staffing structures to be introduced.” Why is it that the only privately managed prison in this country is the only one that has met international standards? The public sector has had over 100 years to do so, yet it cannot achieve it. But now this Minister, shamefully, is going to extinguish the one light in our Department of Corrections, and he is going to be left in the dark, fossicking for a match to light.

The idea of a review, after making a decision to close the private management prison, is utterly absurd and shameful. With the disgusting complicity of the Greens, one cannot but feel incredible contempt for what is about to happen, if this bill proceeds.

I turn now to the second corrections report from England, entitled: Reducing Crime, Changing Lives, introduced by David Blunkett, issued in January 2004. “The Government is not interested in using the private sector for its own sake, whether in prisons or in the community. We want the most effective custodial and community sentences, no matter who delivers them.” Does that not strike us as common sense? I say to our Government: “Hello! Wake up!”. This is not about driving ideology; this is about seeking the best possible outcomes for the taxpayers of this country. But the Government is going to stick to a decision it made prior to the experience of the privately managed prison in Auckland. It seems incapable of a turn-round and treating the facts on their merits. Instead it will adhere to an outdated policy and in the process turn its back on the community, on Māori, on common sense, and on the victims of this country, who will have to pay for this ideology.

This is a shameful day for this Government. It is sad. It is pathetic. I want the Minister to get up and tell me that he believes in this ideology—but he will not. He will not, because he knows it is wrong. He knows it is fallacious. He knows that it is utterly crapulent. He will not stand up, hand on heart, and support the intent of this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you for the opportunity of contributing to this debate on the Corrections Bill—which National opposes. The particular topic I would like to speak about relates to the provisions dealing with justices of the peace and the role they are to play, or not, as visiting justices. Before I do that I would like to comment—and it is unfortunate the Minister responsible for the bill is not now prepared to take a call—that there are in this Supplementary Order Paper 213 no fewer than 42 amendments, and they are not minor amendments. They are described as substantive amendments. When were these amendments put before us? On Tuesday, 18 May—today! It does not reflect at all well on the democracy of parliamentary process that we should be presented with so many substantial amendments so late in the day.

I make those comments in the context of Part 2, because it contains the guts of this bill. If there is to be a true parliamentary process, if there is to be insightful consideration of clauses in a bill, then it can scarcely be said to be satisfactory that amendments of this character and quantity arrive just so very, very late in this process.

The issue I would like to talk about, though, relates to the role of justices of the peace, because as members of the Committee will be aware, clause 19 originally proposed that JPs would be ruled out of what has been for them a substantial role. They had had the role of being visiting justices, or, as I understand the jargon in their part of the world, to be “VJs”. The proposal was, in respect of the bill as it was introduced, that they were to have no further role at all. Instead there were to be visiting justices in two categories: and District Court judges and barristers or solicitors.

I read with interest the comments that were made in the commentary on the bill about the argument that apparently took place before the Law and Order Committee, prompted by the officials, to cut justices of the peace out of the action. This detail is set out on page 6 of the commentary, which I am not going to read but I simply flag that there were three arguments that basically indicated that this particular role was not for justices of the peace.

The three arguments were identified as litigation risk; the complexity of cases—the argument that JPs could not get their minds around the issues; and an issue related to legal representation. I would like to say in that regard that the role of JPs is a hugely distinguished and venerable one. In fact, it is traced back to the unpaid posts of wardens, conservators, and keepers of the peace in the 14th century. So there has been a tradition of unpaid service dating back more than 600 years, and in New Zealand we have had a particular tradition, which saw the first justice of the peace appointed, the missionary Thomas Kendall, who was given responsibility in the Bay of Islands and throughout the islands of New Zealand.

So why have justices of the peace been cut from the action? I think that was a proposal that was hugely ill-considered and it reflects an arrogance, I would suggest, on the part of the Government and its advisers that only qualified lawyers should exercise an adjudicative jurisdiction; only qualified lawyers should have any role in the judging process. The judging process, of course, takes many forms—judging issues in a prison, judging issues in the raft of courts that JPs currently have jurisdiction in. I simply do not subscribe to that. I do not believe that lawyers have a monopoly on wisdom in the legal domain. What of justices of the peace?

💬 Hon George Hawkins: That’s a bit obvious.

I am glad the Minister of Police has intervened, because clearly he agrees with that view too.

I move, That the question be now put.

I wish to add to some of the comments that I previously made. I have a Supplementary Order Paper with a few things that I would like to address. If we are going to micromanage the prison system to the point where we are talking about the prisoners’ exercise, their bedding, as has described before, and their diet, etc., there are a few other measures that I think ought to be mentioned. I suggest that we insert a new clause—clause 70B—on smoking, to read: “Every prisoner, in the interests of their health and well-being, will be prevented from being permitted to smoke tobacco, and/or”—for the benefit of Nandor Tanczos and the Greens—“other products.”

The point of this is quite simple. We have passed legislation that takes effect at the end of this year that says that individuals in the privacy of their own investment will be denied the ability to smoke. But it is OK in the public investment of a prison that the inmates are allowed to smoke. Let us have one rule for all. I suggest that if we are going to micromanage the inmates, we at least give them the same consideration that we are giving to members of the public, who decide, with their own investment in their own hotels, private clubs, or restaurants, to smoke. So let us deny prisoners the ability to smoke. It is a health benefit, surely.

I also suggest inserting a new clause 73 stating: “Physical exercise, where possible, should be redirected to employment-related activities, whereupon all moneys as a result of such activities will be given up to defray the costs of their upkeep.” At least, in that way, taxpayers will be getting something for the money that they have invested in keeping these people at the overblown prices of the State corrections facilities.

Because, as has already been told, the one privately managed correctional facility in this country saves taxpayers—guess what—$27,000 per inmate per year! If one translates that right across the board, we would save close to $400 million a year. I tell members that that will buy us an awful lot of police. That will buy us an awful lot of equipment for police so that they can do the job better, and we will have fewer victims. Ultimately is that not really what the criminal justice system is supposed to be about? But no, we want to spend the extra $400 million. Why? Because Labour has an ideology that it has stuck to closer than superglue; it is time that this Labour Government decided that experience and outcomes ought to matter more than ideological blindness. It should take the bandages off and finally see for once what this bill is actually doing, and what it is telling the public of this country—the victims of this country.

I also suggest that we insert a new clause 71B regarding television. Guess what? I actually got this idea from information I gathered when I went to the prisons and talked to the inmates. One of the things they told me was this. Why on earth are the inmates allowed to watch television, including Sky television, like everybody else? Why? These individuals ought to be watching television, if at all, that will be educational or help them to become so-called “rehabilitated”. I do not believe that inmates should be allowed the luxury of watching the same television that law-abiding citizens are sometimes denied because they cannot afford it.

I also suggest that we include a new clause 72(4) that states: “Every prisoner will be given food that complies with nutritional requirements,”—who can argue with that?—“and also that meets the cost implications to taxpayers, and in line”—and this is the important bit—“with public expectations of what inmates ought to receive for their food.” There are plenty of law-abiding individuals who do not get any Government subsidy for decent food, but if they commit a crime and go to prison they will. That does not make any sense to me. Why are we advantaging inmates against many of the law-abiding citizens who are also victims?

This Government has a lot to answer for when it talks about victims and it does very, very little. It is offender-focused. If we really wanted to talk about victims’ rights and the interests of the public, we would at least address the concerns of the 92 percent of people who voted for the Norm Withers referendum who are not being treated well by this legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to speak to a couple of amendments that I have put in.

The first amendment is to Part 2, and inserts a new clause 8(1)(ba). This clause is all about looking at the powers and functions of the chief executive. My amendment states that part of what the chief executive should be doing is “ensuring that the interests of the victims of prisoners are acknowledged and respected”. These prisoners are, of course, never going to confront their issues and problems until they acknowledge the wrong they have done, and acknowledge the harm they have inflicted on their victims. I think that is a sensible provision, and I would like to get support from the Committee on that.

Clause 25, “Functions of probation officers”, should be extended out so that breaches are quickly actioned. We do not want further instances of people committing more offences while they are on probation. We do not want to create a situation where they say that that does not really matter, because they are going to jail anyway, and as, basically, prisoners get a discount these days for more and more offences, they might as well commit more crimes while they are out, and get some more stuff put away, because it will not matter. No one will give them a longer sentence, because under Phil Goff’s new parole rules they will be out after serving a third of their term. All they have to do is con everyone into thinking they have done a few anger management courses, ticked a few boxes, gone along to a kapahaka group or something, and everyone will think they are good guys now. These guys are not stupid.

💬 Richard Worth: No!

They are, in fact, very, very good manipulators of people—extremely good manipulators. They understand the systems. The one thing they do understand is how to get round people and how to get what they want. They are people who have often committed many, many crimes before they go anywhere near a jail, because it often takes a long time to catch them.

One of the things we want to change is in clause 55, which covers the information to be given to prisoners about transfers. The Hon Tony Ryall spoke before about the fact that at the moment the managers inform prisoners that they will be shifted, and they also inform the inmates’ families—or, under this bill, the inmates’ local gang members with whom they have a bond. But, no, they do not inform the victims. We wish to insert a subclause that states: “(4) As soon as the manager informs the prisoner, a copy should be sent to the prisoner’s victim(s) if those victim(s) have expressed an interest to be so informed.” That gives the victims an interest in the matter that goes beyond their simply hoping the Department of Corrections has this person locked away somewhere. It is so important that victims know about prisoners’ transfer.

I would like to turn now to clause 79, which deals with the religious and spiritual needs of the prisoners. Some people would be very interested to know that 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. Well, is that not fantastic? I have to say that if these people had any spiritual or cultural interests, they would not be in prison in the first place. What has been put in this bill is absolute twaddle.

I just compare that with the situation of schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and other Government-run agencies. If we had a provision that said that the spiritual and cultural needs of children in our schools would be looked after, that would be interesting. We would know that such a school was an independent school. It would be interesting if we had something like that for kindergartens. We cannot even have Father Christmas appear at kindergartens at Christmas time, because that is considered to be culturally insensitive to somebody who is not a Christian. It is absolutely true; in my electorate of Clevedon we have had that happen. No wonder the private childcare centres are booming; it is because of the nonsense that is being force-fed down people’s throats by this Government. Prisoners get rights, but ordinary, decent, law-abiding taxpayer people do not. The children do not.

I draw the Committee’s attention to a number of amendments in my name, which I hope members will support. Among other things, they will remove the legislating of the integrated offender management experiment, because there are different ways of managing prisons, and when the Government changes, that will be changing.

💬 Richard Worth: When will that be?

Very soon, and hopefully soon, I say to the member. When introducing this bill the Attorney-General, Margaret Wilson, gave only one reason for abolishing private prisons. She said: “Prisons by their very nature involve the use of highly coercive powers against individuals. This Government believes that it is inappropriate for private sector organisations to wield such powers.” The majority of parties in this Parliament strongly disagree. As Charles H Logan, an American professor, said: “Keepers do not take away anyone’s freedom. Catchers and convicters and sentencers do.” As I said in question time today—I had asked the Minister, who was completely unable to respond—there is an important difference between the power to deny liberty and the job of carrying out those orders. The power to punish belongs to the people, and is subject to the rule of law. That rule of law applies to the public and the private sectors alike. That means the State is free to choose who carries out its custodial responsibilities and obligations, and as such it can use the resources that are freed up for priority areas like policing, schools, and hospitals.

This measure is based solely on ideology. That is made even clearer when we consider that this same Government, at the same time that it says it does not want the private sector involved in prisons, is inviting the private sector to provide prisoner custody services between prisons and courthouses. So, apparently, it is OK for private enterprise to use coercive powers between courts and prisons, but it is not OK in the prison.

Let us look at the evidence of the cost and quality. Prohibiting private involvement in prisons is contrary to every international experience. The Australians, the Canadians, the South Africans, the Brits, and the Americans are all expanding the use of private prisons. In fact, the Prime Minister’s close personal friend Tony Blair has announced that all new prisons under the Labour Party Government there will be built and operated by the private sector. Here in New Zealand, the department’s budget has more than doubled in 10 years. Well over a billion dollars will be needed to build four new prisons in the next 5 years. The proposed prison at Meremere is going to cost more than $260 million, compared with its original budget of $188 million. Members will be shocked to know, but probably not surprised, that the private company Australasian Correctional Management, which manages the Auckland Central Remand Prison, told Parliament’s Law and Order Committee that it could build the 650-bed Meremere prison for half the price.

Research shows that, internationally, the private sector can manage prisons between 5 and 15 percent more cheaply than the public sector. Let us go to Tony Blair’s Britain again, where Her Majesty’s Prison Service concluded that private sector prisons provided significant operational savings of between 13 and 22 percent over the cost of public prisons. Here in New Zealand, the private prison in Auckland runs at $43,000 a head per prisoner. It has a mix of low and high-security prisoners in a high-security environment. Public prisons cost $54,000 a year for minimum-security prisoners and $72,000 a year for high-security prisoners.

💬 Brian Connell: How much?

It is $72,000 for high-security prisoners and $54,000 for minimum-security prisoners. If private prisons are cheaper, Mr Swain says it is because the quality does not measure up. But Mr Swain’s own department has written to Australasian Correctional Management to congratulate it on its performance, and to note that it has performed every contractual standard. Here is a point that I think Richard Worth made earlier in the debate. The British National Audit Office recently completed a major review of private prisons in Britain—

I move, That the question be now put.

We are in the final stages of Part 2. I want to pick up on the point that my learned colleague Richard Worth OBE—soon to be Dr Worth—made about the role of visiting justices. This relates to clause 19. We note that in the bill, JPs who have traditionally carried out this function are excluded.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Outrageous.

It is quite outrageous. I spoke in the debate on Part 1 about the definition of a visiting justice. I am now carrying that through to talk about why I believe that justices of the peace should be included in the bill. We note clause 19 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 213, and that the Supplementary Order Paper landed in the House today. It has 50 pages of corrections. The bill is 150 pages, and the corrections to the bill are 50 pages. One correction is clause 19, which states: “The Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, appoint any Justice of the Peace or barrister or solicitor of the High Court to be a Visiting Justice for every prison.” That is great, because now we have back in the bill the inclusion of JPs, who are leaders in the community. They are people of high standing. In many cases they are people who have undertaken judicial training. Some are only ministerial JPs, but many have undertaken judicial training and are qualified in that respect.

The point I want to bring forward, and I have asked the Minister to take a call on it, is that as his new addition in clause 19 allows for justices of the peace and barristers or solicitors, there will be a two-tier system. JPs act in a voluntary capacity. They are volunteers. But when a barrister or a solicitor becomes a visiting justice, who will pay? It is a very good question. The Minister may have an answer. I will be looking forward to the Minister taking a call on this point. Who will pay? Will the money come out of Vote Corrections when we hear the Budget next Thursday, 27 May? Will we see something in the Budget that will allow for barristers or solicitors to be visiting justices? In my view, there will be two levels. I am interested to know what the costs will be. It could also be that there will be conflicts of interest. A barrister or solicitor who has been involved in a case could be visiting, as a visiting justice, somebody whom he or she may have had a part in putting into prison in the first place. I say that would be a conflict of interest, and that certainly is one of the concerns we have. The Minister may have an answer. While we support justices of the peace being included in the bill, we certainly do not support the inclusion of barristers or solicitors. That is the reason why the Hon Tony Ryall moved an amendment along those lines earlier.

I move now to clause 25, which talks about the functions of probation officers. It is interesting to note that clause 25(1)(b) states that the role of every probation officer is “to arrange and administer the sentences of supervision and community work referred to the officer for that administration, and to ensure that the sentences are carried out:”. Well, I have some statistics here about community work, and they show that fewer and fewer people are turning up. In fact, the statistics show that in places like Auckland and Manurewa—and these figures relate to 7 March of this year—of the 482 people who were meant to report, 104 fronted up. That is 22 percent. Only 22 percent of those people who were meant to report under the community work programme actually fronted up. That is the sort of nonsense this bill is about—no accountability.

I move, That the question be now put.

The amendments to omit clauses 49, 50, and 51, in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall, are withdrawn.

The question now is that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 52 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(4) Whenever a prisoner is transferred on the direction of the chief executive or an inspector of corrections for a period in excess of 7 days then the chief executive will advise the inmate’s victim(s) or families of the victim(s) if those latter parties have indicated they wish to be informed of the inmate’s movements and transfers in excess of 7 days.

The last amendments are the Minister’s handwritten amendment and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213. All those in favour please say “Aye”—

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. During the debate the Minister indicated an amendment to clause 71, which I have not heard called out. I would be in favour of that amendment. You said there was a handwritten amendment, and, if it relates to clause 71, I would like that put separately because I will support the Minister on that matter—in a reciprocal way, you understand.

It does. I will put that amendment separately.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to clause 71 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(4) In this section: bed includes a mattress; bedding does not include a mattress.