Corrections Bill

The National Party Opposition remains firmly opposed to the transitional provisions in Part 3, not the least because it perpetuates the ridiculous, ideological stance this Government is taking on the private prison contract to manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison.

This is an appropriate time to draw members’ attention to the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement that features on page 18 of the commentary on this 150-odd page bill. In summing up the benefits and costs of this proposal, I share with members what that Minister was never prepared to take a call on and admit, but is prepared to state in the commentary. He did not take one call to confirm the following statement: “It is likely that there will be transitional costs at the end of the contract period”, and that is referring to the Australasian Correctional Management contract. He then states: “It is also possible that the ongoing costs of these services to the Department of Corrections will exceed both the level of the funding transfers that occurred at the beginning of the contract and the level of payment to the contracted provider.”

Government members would not admit in this debate that the Government’s decision to cancel the private contract to manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison will cost the taxpayer plenty. As we heard earlier, it costs $43,000 a year to keep an inmate in the Auckland Central Remand Prison and $54,000 a year for the equivalent inmate in the public prison service. This bill is solely about ideology; nothing more. There is no good reason for making this change, other than that the Labour Party made some sort of commitment to the public in 1999 to get tough on crime and the causes of crime. This Government has not kept that promise, so why is it bothering to try to do something about these transitional provisions?

Let us look at clause 206 dealing with the provision of escort services, courtroom custodial services, or both. We have the remarkable situation where the Government is saying the private sector cannot manage prisons, because the private sector should not be allowed coercive powers over individuals in the prison. Yet clause 206 recognises that the Government is prepared to give those coercive powers to the private sector to transport prisoners between courthouses and prisons. So it is all right for the private sector to have those coercive powers while prisoners are transported in a van to the prison but it is not all right to have those coercive powers, once prisoners are on the other side of the prison gate. So it is all right for the private sector to control prisoners in a van, but it is not all right for the private sector to control prisoners in a prison. What complete ridiculousness, and that is what this bill is all about.

Throughout the Committee stage the Opposition asked the Minister to take a call and explain why his Government is giving away this opportunity to have significant amounts of money to spend elsewhere in the corrections sector; to explain some of the foolish proposals—such as putting the integrated offender management system in legislation, legislating about how many times prisoners’ sheets will be washed, legislating about what sort of food prisoners will eat, legislating about whether prisoners can send letters, and how much exercise they should get. Those things should not be in the law; they should be in the regulations.

We still have not heard from the Minister about the litigation risk of the new rights for prisoners as proposed in the bill.

I rise to speak to Part 3, and in particular clause 194, which makes it illegal for the Crown to extend the term of a private contract to run a prison. What the Hon Tony Ryall said about the financial cost is true in that the private prison is cheaper. However, I say this to the Committee, and to the Greens, before they think about voting for this legislation: we know that private prisons are more efficient. We also know a terrible thing about prisons, and that is that some people who go to prison become suicidal. We know that many people sent to prison are mentally unstable. We also know that the public service was very much opposed to this private prison, and so when it first started, they actually sent to the private prison people they knew from experience were the most likely to mutilate themselves or commit suicide. To the astonishment even of those who supported private prisons, no such person has committed suicide.

I have been told by prison officers that when this private prison is closed—and I would like the Greens to think about this—it will mean that some prisoners will die. The Greens are voting for ideological reasons, and the member might think that is uncomfortable.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: It’s a remand prison.

The member might say that. What if I sent her the name of every prisoner who committed suicide following the passage of this bill and asked her what her ideology was worth? That is the reality, and we ought to debate it properly. We are saying that it does not matter if unstable people commit suicide in prison, provided that the prison officers all work for the Public Service Association. I just say that the Labour Party I used to belong to did not think that sort of nonsense. It was prepared to think past ideology and look at the practical reality.

I just wonder what is going on in the Minister’s mind, the mind of the Labour caucus, and the Green Party, when they know that every word I am saying is correct. That representation has been made not just by prisoners’ families, not just by people who visited, or by the private prison. I know that it is now conceded by senior managers of State prisons, who now realise that when this bill and this clause go through, those prisoners that the State system made a muck of handling will come back into the State system. Many of those prisoners will also be Māori—not all, but many will be. When we talk about suicides and say how shocking it is in Australian jails, we need to know that they also occur in New Zealand jails. However, this is the first time I have seen a Parliament prepared to put ideology higher than people’s lives. I say to members opposite that even if it costs more to run private prisons, but they were doing a better job, I would be in favour of a private prison system.

I am in favour of punishment, but we do not send young men to jail to commit suicide, or perhaps we do. Perhaps that is what this Minister meant when he said he was tough. I say to the Minister that he has a responsibility. When he said that the Crown ought to be in charge of jails, he ought to be running a professional, humane, jail system. He says he is doing that, but what is the reality? We all know that when we pass this part, we are sentencing some of our fellow New Zealanders to die, and I say that is disgraceful.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Brian Connell.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. My colleague from New Zealand First has been seeking the call on this part for some time. You have now gone to National twice and ignored New Zealand First.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I say to the honourable member that it is not a race as to who stands up first. I look at the proportionality of the House, and Mr Mark will get the next call.

I rise to speak on Part 3, and, like the other two members who have taken a call on this part, I also want to focus on clause 194, “Existing management contracts must not be extended.” But before I do, I want to respond to the Green member who made some extraordinary comments in respect of some comments I made. I want to clarify to that member that there are prisoners at the Auckland Central Remand Prison who have admitted their guilt. They are there on remand because they have done just that.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: He’s not listening.

He should be listening. Some of those people spend a long time there, and if they did not go into some form of rehabilitation, that management team up there would be ignoring its responsibilities. I say to that member that sometimes it is best to remain silent and have people think he is a fool than to open his mouth and remove all doubt. I also have to say that I am astonished to look across the House and see Government members who were on the Law and Order Committee with me and have not yet taken a call.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Name them!

Martin Gallagher is one of them, and he is the chair of the committee. I ask Martin Gallagher and others what price principle? Mr Gallagher and I, and others, went to Auckland and visited a number of prisons. The difference between what we saw in Mount Eden, for example, and the Auckland Central Remand Prison was one that a bus could be driven through. He knows, and I know, that one of those institutions was being managed exceptionally well—the one managed by Australasian Correctional Management Ltd—and the other was not.

He knows, and other members of the select committee know, that this is a miscarriage of justice. This should not be happening. The Auckland Central Remand Prison delivers a higher standard of service for both inmates and taxpayers, and the Government bleats on about private prisons not being cheaper. How do we know that? We know that because the Minister tells us that the Department of Corrections told him so. If the Minister believes that, he believes in garden fairies, because of course the department will tell him that.

This is the truth: with the cost of capital and overheads accounted for, the cost per day under private management is $130 per inmate, and under the Crown it is $270. I would like the Minister to take a call and respond to that. For his edification, and for the Green member who is now exiting the Chamber because he cannot stand the heat, let me repeat that. Private management costs $130 per day per prisoner, and under the Crown $270 per day. That is a whopping $50 million that this Minister, and this Government, would have the taxpayers of New Zealand continually fork out. The reward for the private prison management team for outstanding performance is: “We’re going to get rid of you. We are terminating you.” The Minister is tough; he is the terminator. He says: “We’re going to terminate you, despite how well you have performed.”

Do members know why that is? It is because the Government’s buddies—the unions—have had their inefficiencies exposed. Members should listen to this, as it will interest those who are really dedicated to best practice. Private management uses a ratio of two staff to 57 inmates. Crown prisons use a ratio of 18 staff to 60 inmates. That is the difference—that is what this Minister is trying to force on the hard-working taxpayers of this country.

The Auckland Central Remand Prison does that because it uses better technology, has better management, and, quite frankly, employs better staff. I have met some of those staff, and so have other members of the select committee, which is why I say to Government members who have not taken a call that it is to their everlasting shame. This bill does not stand close scrutiny.

What a sick and sorry joke this part is! This part is a very sick joke. Members should look at it. I will take clause 200, which deals with the transition, as an example. It states: “Monitors—(1) There must be appointed under the State Sector 1988 as many monitors as are required for the purposes of this Act.” Essentially, this gives the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections the power to assess and to monitor the management of a contract prison. For what? All of the evidence that the select committee saw, and all of the debate tonight, have pointed out one simple fact: all of the evidence that is available in every newspaper clipping from the past 4 years that one cares to go over suggests that if any wing of the corrections system is failing and needs monitoring, it is the State side of the bill. It is not the private contractor. Indeed, I suggest that the people who should be getting monitored on their track record to date are Mr Byers, Mr McCarthy, and everybody in the Department of Corrections, including the Minister, because the track record of the Auckland Central Remand Prison in terms of its operations, its drug-testing regime, the number of suicides, the number of assaults on inmates, and the number of assaults on prison officers shows quite clearly that it is outperforming the State-provided service.

The sick, sick joke of this part is—and it does not matter whether one looks at clause 200, clause 201, or clause 202, “Monitors to report on certain matters”—what aspect of the operations of the Auckland Central Remand Prison could the Department of Corrections possibly have a right to monitor, based on its own track record and its own performance? I would suggest “Nothing!”. I would suggest that, indeed, the Department of Corrections would be far better off getting off its backside and going to look at the Auckland Central Remand Prison.

I do not want to hear any more of this claptrap from the Greens that those prisoners are only remand inmates. Everything that Mr Prebble said is correct. The Auckland Central Remand Prison was set up to fail. It was given some of the worst cases possible—that is, people who were not meant to be there long term. Can the Minister answer me this? Why was Ahmed Zaoui sent to Auckland Central Remand Prison? Is he not one of the greatest threats to New Zealand’s security that has ever touched our shores? Is he not a man against whom a certificate of risk has been issued because he is suspected of terrorist activities? Is he not enemy No. 1 and danger No. 1 in New Zealand today? Well, according to the SIS and the Government he is. So why is he not in maximum security at Mount Eden Prison? Why is he in the Auckland Central Remand Prison? Some would suggest it was a deliberate move by people in the Department of Corrections, who were thinking: “In case this guy is going to embarrass us, in case Amnesty International is going to come and inspect our prison and focus on the way that this man is being contained, we’ll put him in a place where it’ll come up with a clean sheet and a good report.” That attitude says to me that even the Department of Corrections has no confidence in itself.

Things will get worse. The integrated offender management system that we have just legislated into being is not even working now. Where was the sentence plan for Mr Jarden? Where was the sentence plan for Mr Isherwood? I tell the Minister that people who have been transferred from one prison to another are going out of State prisons and landing up at the Auckland Central Remand Prison, and they have never had a sentence plan done. Yet the bill says it will be done—that the integrated offender management system will work, and that it will all be done within 20-odd days, or whatever the figure is. The fact is it will not. If the Minister cares to have a look at the Ministry of Justice report, he will realise that if the situation is not working now, it will be worse in 2009 when inmate numbers will have risen—according to the Government report—from 5,891 to 7,340.

The facts show that the Government has set itself up to fail, and it has the audacity to tell everybody that the Department of Corrections will monitor the Auckland Central Remand Prison. I suggest it should be quite the contrary: the Government should use the management of that prison to sort out the Department of Corrections.

Firstly, I have to apologise for members on this side of the Chamber being too soft on the Minister of Corrections. We have been sitting around saying: “Oh, the poor old Minister; he’s trying to stand on principle.” Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! There is no principle in this bill; it is all ideology. It is ideology from a weak Minister, who took over from Margaret Wilson—an even weaker, more ideologically pure Minister—and who has not had enough gumption to stand up to that woman and say: “No, I’m going to do the right thing.” The Minister knows very well that this is a stupid bill. It has been wandering around the House for 2 years, and he knows why. The Minister has not had enough gumption to stand up to his party, which is full of ideologues, none of whom has ever done a decent day’s work—not one. He has not had enough gumption to do that. He sits there in the chair and does nothing. He has a giggle with little Darren Hughes, the youngest person around Parliament, who is here to organise Helen Clark’s handbag and that is all. The Minister sits there smiling like a Cheshire cat, thinking: “This woman’s on to me. She knows I’m just an ideologue.”

As for the Greens, I have always had a bit of time for them—I know that is strange—but I will not feel that way any more. I actually thought they believed in a few things. They might be bizarre, they might make totally off-the-wall comments, but I have always thought they genuinely believed in what they were talking about. But I know they have visited the Auckland Central Remand Prison and have seen the great work that the private prison managers are doing. They have seen the results, they have heard the evidence about the rate of suicide in public prisons compared with the private prison, but they stick their heads down, talk about something totally unimportant, and say they are going to get rid of that prison because it is not ideologically pure. They are not Greens; they are socialists. They are leftist socialists, and they even make this Minister look relatively moderate, and that is a shocking thing to say.

I wonder who is driving this measure. Are the Greens driving it, or the Minister, or the Minister’s bosses? We know the answer: it is the unions, it is the Greens, and it is the leftist vote in this Parliament.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It’s actually the Labour vote.

Labour is the leftist vote—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: And proud of it.

Those members admit they are proud of it. The next time they talk about being centre-left, what do we say to that? We say they are totally left. They are ideologues. There is nothing in their argument except ideology. They do not care one scrap about any prisoner who commits suicide, who goes through torment in the public prison system. They do not care. If any prisoners who are taken out of the private prison system commit suicide, their blood will be on the Government’s hands and on the Minister’s hands, because they knew that that would happen.

What could they have done about it? They could have stopped this bill. The Minister had the opportunity to do that. When Margaret Wilson got shuffled out of this portfolio, as has happened with most other portfolios she has been involved in—shuffled out as fast as anything—this Minister had an opportunity to do the decent thing, but he could not bring himself to do it, because he would have had to show a bit of spine. He could not do that, so he likes to go around, grinning like a Cheshire cat, and making out he is friendly to everybody, but he knows exactly what is going on.

Where is the Māori caucus? Where are Nanaia Mahuta and John Tamihere? They are not here. Unfortunately, Tariana Turia is not able to vote on this matter. We know she would be voting with us on it. We know she would. The Māori caucus, which must have had every representation possible from Māori, knows the truth of what we are saying. What are those members going to do? They are going to give in—roll over and have their tummies tickled. They are going to roll over and let the Government do whatever it wants.

It could not have been put better than it was by Judith Collins. This was an occasion when “Swainy” and the boys could have stood tough. Look at them—they are all here backing each other. They could have stood tough. Look at Clayton Cosgrove wailing that he stands tough. That is about as far as it goes. A bit of a wave—that is their tough stand. But in reality we know what happens. They are as weak as custard, because as soon as the Prime Minister—and, indeed, those known as the sisterhood—says that ideology rules, these boys cave in.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: That’s not far wrong!

The Minister said that that was not far wrong. There are some remarkable confessions here tonight. The boys are not the boys we thought they were. Well, perhaps they are the boys we thought they were.

It is quite distressing to know that a large percentage of the Government knows that this bill is wrong. I know that Mr John Tamihere knows that this bill is wrong. He knows that the private prison works—he has actually said so. All these tough boys know that the private prison system works. They know that it is cheaper, yet tonight they will vote to abolish it. That is the tragedy of what we are dealing with today.

I think it is just an extraordinary comment as to where this Government is taking us. This Government came in 4 or 5 years ago saying that it would bring in a new way, that it was listening to the people, and that it would not let ideological blinkers stand in the way of common sense. Yet that is precisely what it has delivered us in this legislation. That will be the death of the Government. That is what New Zealanders hate about this Government. They hate the idea of political correctness. They hate the idea that ideology is ruling in the place of common sense.

In a few minutes, the Minister will have the opportunity to vote for sensible policy. If he did that he would be voting against clause 194 of Part 3, because it is that provision that prevents any further extension of the management contracts to private contractors. Yet the Minister is not going to—I was going to use a word that is probably unparliamentary, so I will not—be committed to his convictions or to the inner truth that is in the soul of “Swainy and the boys”, those tough boys who swagger around on the other side. Instead, cravenly he is going to support an ideologically driven position that can only harm this country, and that can only cost this country.

In fact, I heard one member earlier from a party that foolishly supports the Government—United Future—say that it would cost $400 million to take this blanket approach. It is a party that says that $400 million is a waste of money, yet in 1 week’s time it will vote with the Government. Well, the United Future party—

💬 Ron Mark: They will vote the money in.

That is true. Its members will vote for the money to support this foolish bill. So it is all very well for them to get up and say “We are opposed to this”, but they will vote in the money to implement the bill. These are the times when parties get judged on whether they have common sense.

In 15 months’ time, or less, there will be an election. New Zealanders will get the opportunity to judge whether they want an ideologically driven Government that wastes money, or whether they want a sensible, practical approach that allows the private sector to do what it does best, and in this instance that means managing—

💬 Hon Member: Move on!

Actually, that is possibly one of the best comments tonight. It is time for that crowd to move on and let people who are competent run this country.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Earlier on in this debate on Part 3 I asked you about my colleague Ron Mark getting a call, and you told me you were sticking to proportional party representation. I draw your attention to the fact that New Zealand First has had one call, and the National Party, who I think is guiding your proportions, has had four calls. There has been no call from Mr Marc Alexander, and he has several amendments. We took you at your word. We have been waiting, to keep things in proportion, and now you have closed the debate. I ask how fair that is.

The ASSISTANT CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution. I have been looking for some time, and most of the calls have been coming from my left. There has been no movement at all from the back. I point out Speaker’s ruling 59/2, and that is that Committee proportionality applies principally to fixed-time debates. I try to be as fair as I can, but there does not appear to me to be enough support for continuing the debate. The reality is that I have now taken the closure, and the Chair is the sole judge under Speaker’s ruling 58/8.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have been part of this debate since it started at 3.30 this afternoon. I have kept note of the number of calls and the time taken on the various parts. It is interesting that when we considered Part 1, which has five clauses, we spent an hour and 10 minutes on it. We started Part 3 at near enough to 9.10 this evening—there are 24 clauses—and we have spent 35 minutes on those 24 clauses. The point I make is that there are members on this side of the Chamber who have been part of the debate right from Part 1. Simon Power was our next speaker, and he has taken part in the debates. Mr Mark has been a consistent speaker for New Zealand First. I, also, have spoken on every part. This opportunity was not afforded to us, because of the closure motion.

It is our view that the closure motion was unnecessary. There have been calls from all parties on this side of the Chamber. Although National has been proactive in seeking calls, it does not discount that New Zealand First or United Future should be disadvantaged by it, when they have been part of the debates right through. I make the point very strongly that we are disappointed that you accepted the closure motion. We ask that when you move to the title debate you give fair consideration to the speakers who have not spoken.

Mr Chairperson, you are absolutely right. Under the Standing Orders you are the sole judge. But I do think that you have made an error. The reason I say that is that as the debate was proceeding Mr Marc Alexander from United Future handed me a sheet, which I notice he had put before the Committee, on this part. I am counting up and I think there are 12 amendments. Maybe Mr Alexander should have gone for the call, and maybe you judged that he did not want to make one. But then I noticed that he voted against the closure motion.

I think in all fairness I would like to be able to ask for leave that this vote not be taken at this point. At least we could hear from United Future, because if you look at this bill that party has taken a great interest. It has put in a minority report and has fully participated. Mr Alexander may not wish to speak to his amendment—but I hear from him that he does. I think it is fair to have at least one more speaker on this part. At that point at least all those parties that wanted to participate on the bill will have done so, otherwise it is not fair. I know that you try to be fair, but I think you have made an error of judgment on this occasion.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think there are two key points here. The first point is that Mr Alexander did not seek the call on Part 3. The second point is that having accepted a closure motion, the Committee then voted on it. The Committee voted for the question to be now put. So the points that members are making are academic in that sense because the Committee has had the question before it, it has voted on the question, and now the appropriate thing to do is to put the question.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to members that the closure has been agreed. I must now proceed with putting the questions on the amendments and the part. I recognise that there have been some concerns. There are other parts where this can be debated. There is the title debate, as well. I will take that into consideration. But I have to say that not a lot of people were calling, and I judged as I did. Regardless of how people take that, the actual situation is that I have taken the closure and we must now move on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It had better be a new one, because I have made a ruling. Under Speaker’s ruling 20/3 the member is entitled to raise a point of order. That is part of the way in which the Committee operates. However, once I have made a decision, that is it, and if the member persists, then I refer him to Standing Order 85/1, and it will be his first yellow card.

I accept all of that, Mr Chairman, but the point of order I would raise is that the Hon Richard Prebble has sought the leave of the Committee, through you, in the submission he made. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that it is requisite on you to put the question as to that leave. I trust I am not out of order.

Did the Hon Richard Prebble seek leave?

I was indicating to you that I think the way out of this is to seek leave to allow Mr Marc Alexander to be able to have a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Committee is the master of its own destiny.

In that case, I seek leave for Mr Marc Alexander to be able to make one speech and for the vote to be then taken.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Committee is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 194 be agreed to.

The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 194 is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment in the name of Marc Alexander.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 194 be agreed to:

to omit clause 194.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is just a point of clarification, and you may be able to point me to the appropriate Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling. I note that the junior Government whip is casting two votes for the Progressives. My understanding is that—certainly at question time today, and presumably it is still the case—Mr Anderton is not around and I just wonder under what rules the junior Government whip can cast two votes in that instance. If more than a quarter of the caucus is away, one would think it would be only one vote being cast.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): As the Chair, I have to accept the word of all honourable members. If the member has cause to believe otherwise, then there are appropriate courses of action that can be taken.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 196 be agreed to:

to insert after the words “, on and after the commencement of this section”, the words “notwithstanding any other section in this Act”, and.

Stephen Franks’ amendment to omit paragraph (e) from clause 196 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 is out of order. It is the same as the previous amendment in the name of the honourable member Marc Alexander. The next one to be voted on is to clause 196 in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall. It is an amendment to omit paragraph (e). That is out of order, because it is the same as the previous amendment. Both of those amendments are out of order, so they will be deleted. They were both the same.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 196 be agreed to:

to insert in paragraph (e), after the word “effect”, the words “other than the management contract of Australian Correctional Management Ltd to manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison which is hereby deemed to have been extended”.