Corrections Bill

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Towards the conclusion of the debate on Part 3 on Tuesday night I raised a point of order about the closure motion being accepted by the Chairperson—you were not in the chair. I made the point that a number of Opposition members were seeking the call when the closure motion was moved. The closure motion was accepted, and we are not relitigating that fact. But I did make the point, and it was accepted by the Chair, that when we move to clause 1—which we are about to debate now—fair consideration should be given to those members, and to all parties that wish to participate in this debate. I am asking that a fair debate take place on clause 1, “Title”, because that was certainly the indication given by the Chairperson on Tuesday evening. I am seeking that you will honour that undertaking.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for his point of order, and I have noted what he said.

The National Party remains strongly opposed to the provisions of the Corrections Bill, and throughout the part by part debate on this bill I think that the Opposition, across the Chamber, has effectively focused on the extraordinary weaknesses provisioned in this legislation. Not only have we highlighted the inconsistency of the Government on the matter of private prisons, not only have we highlighted the cost to taxpayers of the Government’s ideological aversion to private prisons, not only have we talked about the fact that victims are ignored throughout this legislation, not only have we talked about the fact that this bill overprescribes the management of our prison service, not only have we talked about the new and extensive rights and entitlements given to prisoners by this legislation—in marked contrast to the lack of rights and entitlements given to victims—but also we have talked about the fact that this is a Government department under pressure, underperforming, under-resourced, and under complete scrutiny by the Opposition in the House.

We are seeing, time and time again, situations where this Minister, Paul Swain, is failing in his responsibilities to provide a safe and secure corrections system for this country. As we sit here today, it is just 24 hours since another couple of prisoners escaped from a prison in the Minister’s own electorate, and it is just minutes since the House in question time asked this Minister why it is Government policy that a man who bashes his wife can go back, on home detention, to the very house with the woman who is too scared to say no, because it is a question of: “Do I get the bash now or later?”. This Government does not deserve the privilege of writing corrections law for this country. The Minister does not deserve the right to write corrections law for this country.

The thing that galls me the most about this legislation is that the Government plans to do away with the one bright spark across the whole corrections system—a system that I describe as “good people, bad Minister, bad system”—and that is the private prison in Auckland. That is a prison where it costs $43,000 a year per inmate, compared with an equivalent cost in the public service of $54,000 a year. It is a prison that is putting more emphasis on rehabilitation, the holistic care of the prisoners in terms of the issues they face. It is a prison that does not require these new powers to allow prison officers to control inmates. This Government plans to do away with that private prison.

During the part by part debate we asked the Minister, time and time again, to take a call and explain why the Government wants to abolish the involvement of the private sector in the prison system. There is a lack of consistency from this Government. It does not want private enterprise involved in the supervision of prisoners in jail, but it is quite happy for the private sector to be involved in the incapacitation of prisoners between a court and a prison. There seems to be a real inconsistency there.

During the part by part debate the Opposition focused on the lack of rights for victims in this legislation. In this bill there are 75 lines that describe the purpose and role of the Department of Corrections. Do members know how many lines actually refer to the victims of crime in terms of the purpose of this department? Just 2½ lines—that is all! That department is prepared to tell the families of offenders when a prisoner is being moved, but it is not prepared to tell the families of victims when the offender is being moved. This is a Government that does not deserve the confidence of the House.

This part of the Corrections Bill is the tidying up, and after looking at Parts 2 and 3 members are supposed to be discussing the overall purpose of the bill. But, clearly, the Opposition, sensing that there may be some votes in scaremongering and worrying people with fears they need not hold, is using this opportunity in its usual irresponsible manner. Opposition members are not dealing with the real issues that either the Department of Corrections or the Ministry of Justice needs to deal with. Instead, they are hopefully stampeding some misinformed or ill-informed people into voting for them, when really, when those members are in Government, they face the same problems every Government does, which is to try to use the best practice to reduce the prison population—or at least that is what Governments should do. So in the speeches on this bill, I am not surprised at the low level of the Opposition’s contributions and the misinformation it has supplied on most of the major issues.

The bill has been in its genesis for quite some time, including during the time when National members of Parliament were corrections Ministers. I discussed this bill with the Hon Clem Simich, who was my predecessor, and I had some sensible discussions—some, but not all—with the Hon Nick Smith on this matter. Those discussions were rational because they were in private. I must say that Clem Simich is always rational, even when he is allowed by the National Party to discuss these matters publicly, but in private those members recognised that there were some very pedestrian matters to deal with.

The first pedestrian matter this bill deals with—which is why it is called the Corrections Bill—is the updating of the Penal Institutions Act of 1954 and those sections of the Criminal Justice Act that apply to the Corrections Bill. Most of those are largely matter of fact. Secondly, what the bill does is build upon those parts of corrections practice that we know work; not because a politician has decided they will work, but because professional people in the field, victims, and offenders have been able to comment on what aspects of corrections practice are most effective—and they are in the bill.

If people took the trouble to work through the bill, they would also be able to see that we have incorporated best practice not only from our own corrections system but also from overseas jurisdictions. But it does come down to questions of ideology for those parties that say that the most effective form of corrections system is to have a total punishment regime. I am—or I thought I would be—surprised by the concentration on punishment by so many speakers in the Opposition, including the Hon Tony Ryall, Mr Stephen Franks, and Mr Marc Alexander. I wonder whether most of those speakers had a very, very severe background in terms of educational upbringing in boys’ boarding schools. It seems so. But that focus on punishment, even if it meets some psychological need of those people, does not work in practice, and the focus in a corrections system has to be on the question of what happens when people leave the prison system. So, quite sensibly, the Corrections Bill, in its philosophical framework, deals with what can be best done in a prison for the different range of offenders there, and also points to the re-integrative practices that have to come into being.

We should celebrate—and I believe that victims in particular will—the fact that restorative justice processes are now an integral part of the corrections system. In terms of practice, most New Zealand prisons have been carrying out restorative justice processes for quite some time, and they have had some amazing results. But now that is part of the Corrections Bill. It is also part of three other major planks in the criminal justice system, and also in Acts that deal with victims. So that is a substantial victory for common sense and for best practice in this particular bill.

The issue of the private prison has loomed large for a number of reasons. I accept that some members have just fallen prey to the spin of the private company that manages the Auckland Central Remand Prison. That private company could manufacture bicycles, nuclear weapons, or run prisons; it is purely for profit. The ideology came in when the National Government introduced the provision to allow for the contracting out of prisons. It was absolving itself of the responsibility of the social issues that go with prisons.

I have heard some ridiculous things come from the mouth of the former “Minister for Sex in Prisons”, Mr Matt Robson. I have heard him say some stupid things, but the notion that private prisons—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to refer to members by their correct portfolios.

He is the former Minister of Corrections, who advocated that prisoners should have sex in prisons.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, don’t be ridiculous!

Well, that is what he did. That Government member, instead of parroting on, needs to go and read a few newspapers. That man was widely quoted all over New Zealand as advocating conjugal rights for inmates. Now, either that member is here on false pretences because she does not do any work, or she is simply ignorant and does not read the papers. It is one or the other, and members can take their choice. The facts are the facts. Matt Robson is the man who, as the former Minister—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member come to the bill, please.

I am just responding to interjections. I thought I was entitled to do that.

💬 Jill Pettis: The member is absolutely incorrect, and he knows it.

Members can see what I mean. To try to lead this Committee to believe that private companies that run prisons use inmates to manufacture nuclear weapons is absolutely ridiculous—absolutely absurd! I have never heard of such a nonsensical, unsubstantiated, baseless comment in all the time I have been here—and I have heard some comments.

In this part of the Corrections Bill, members are here to reflect on the bill’s purpose and intent. If I go back through the explanatory note of the bill, I see it states that this bill is designed “to reflect modern policies and practices”. Modern policies and practices are the very things that are witnessed at the Auckland Central Remand Prison. They are the very things that have led to the high performance that this Government, in this very bill, wants to get rid of. The most modern practice that this Government could undertake in order to enhance its sordid and sorry performance in the corrections area is to take Dom Karauria, the former manager of the Auckland Central Remand Prison, and put him in charge, as a State employee, of the Department of Corrections. I tell the Minister that one would then see a more modern and enlightened approach than we see today from some of the dinosaurs in the department, whom the Government has to stoically defend whilst it knows, in the core of its very being, that it has problems in that department with regard to modernity.

Let us go to the second bullet point in the explanatory note. This bill is supposedly designed to insert powers to drug test inmates. Well yes, it does, except that it does not deal with the people within our Department of Corrections who are studiously manipulating the drug-testing regime, so that their prisons come out looking good. What they are doing is deliberately drug testing inmates whom they know do not use drugs. When prison officers say they should go and drug test Mr Inmate Bloggs, managers tell those officers not to dare to test that inmate, because he would come up with a positive result. But does this bill deal with that issue? No. We simply allow the prisons, the Department of Corrections, and their current managers to avoid the issue. But not all prison managers do that. If we look at the returns that have come out today, we see that some prisons are reporting a 30 percent usage or positive return rate. I suggest that the managers in those prisons are doing the job correctly. Those prison managers are honest, and the figures they represent are accurate. But I would look with grave suspicion upon some of the prisons that are mysteriously plucking brand-spanking-new, good figures out of the air, because I would question their regimes.

Let us turn to the third bullet point of the explanatory note, which states: “the law governing the administration of the corrections system needs to be compatible, in its philosophy as well as in its specific provisions, with the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002.” Well hello, some of us voted against both those Acts. Some of us said they would be an abysmal failure, and some of us opposed them all the way through the House. Any legislation that is designed to be in keeping with those Acts will clearly meet opposition from New Zealand First, because we do not believe that some of the things that are happening under parole today—excuse me if I mention Mr Isherwood as one example—are right. If the Parole Board is doing such a fantastic job, how is it that a man who drugged, raped, and forced into prostitution a young woman was allowed by our Parole Board back out on the street to, within 12 days—not 12 months; not 12 years—do the very same thing again? And Government members sit there on the other side of the Chamber and tell me the Parole Board is doing a wonderful job of taking into account the safety of the community. What rubbish that is!

This bill will become a monument to ideology. The last speaker for the Government, Mr Robson, went on—

💬 Hon Matt Robson: The honourable.

The Hon Matt Robson, the former Minister of Corrections, was proud of conjugal rights—let us remember that reality. He is so obsessed with the idea of private prisons that he can only condemn them by suggesting that nuclear weapons would be manufactured in them. One assumes that he did actually visit the private remand prison in Auckland. I can tell the Minister, because I have visited it, as well as Mount Eden Prison and Pāremoremo prison, that there was a truly remarkable difference between those institutions and the remand prison. If the member had taken the time and trouble when he was the Minister of Corrections to visit it, we would not have this bill before us today.

The reality is—and the Minister in the chair today, Mr Swain, knows this—that this Government will be judged on this ideological perspective. That is how this bill will go down in history. The former Minister may well talk about the need to modernise the corrections law, and no doubt there was a case for consolidating and updating it, but I do not think that there was any need to put in the legislation things like the requirement for prisoners to have clean bedding, and to state that bedding had to be laundered carefully and thoroughly.

💬 Brian Connell: What about separate beds?

And separate beds—no topping and tailing, I guess. In addition to that, the legislation specifically provides that prisoners have to be fed—as if somehow New Zealanders would lose their collective sense of responsibility, and as if somehow we would mistrust our corrections service so much that we would think it would, firstly, starve prisoners to death and, secondly, put them in cells with absolutely no bedding whatsoever. To have that sort of thing in legislation, frankly, brings this House into discredit. Actually, it does not bring this House into discredit; it brings into discredit the Government responsible for that kind of legislation.

National is deeply opposed to the ideological perspectives of this bill. We are opposed to the whole idea of ignoring best practice. The Ministers know full well that the private prison in Auckland, the remand prison, has been both effectively and well managed, and has done its job more cheaply than the public sector prisons. For instance, the cost of keeping a prisoner per annum in the private prison was $45,000, compared with $54,000 in the public sector. [Interruption] Government members may well deny those kinds of figures, but that was what the report stated. Yet, for the sake of ideology, they would turn their backs on that experience.

The other thing I note is that we have been going through a long-running prison construction programme, including a prison in the northern Waikato, costing approximately $250 million per prison. It is noteworthy that the private remand prison in Auckland cost $40 million. So we would have to wonder why its cost was less than is expected for the Waikato prison. Auckland Central Remand Prison is regarded as an excellent prison. Even though it is primarily for remand prisoners, it is the sort of prison that can actually be used as a long-term prison. Why do I say that? One of the wings, in fact, has sentenced prisoners in it—those who undertake the work in the prison. And those prisoners apply to go to that prison.

💬 Judith Collins: They do; it’s a privilege.

It is a privilege, as has been noted by my colleague Judith Collins, for sentenced prisoners to go to that remand prison to undertake the work there. That surely is a testament to the quality of the management of that prison, and I am sure the Minister will well know the incredible enthusiasm the staff of that organisation has had, which is in marked contrast to the tone of the public prisons. So this bill is a monument to the Government’s ideology.

I want to conclude on this point: we will reverse the Government’s policy, and we will be able to do that within 12 months, because there will be a change of Government.

I rise for the ACT party in the debate on the title, purposes, and principles of the Corrections Bill. I have put forward two amendments, both of which are intended to highlight the fact that the title “Corrections Bill” does not describe the bill, at all. This bill is a triumph of the philosophy that Mr Robson has just demonstrated. He thought his most withering attack on those on the Opposition side of the Chamber might be that we were not really responsible for our malign opinions. Of course, in the way that Government members approach almost everything in life—that no one is to be held accountable or responsible for anything—he decided to excuse all of us over here on the Opposition benches, on the grounds that we might have been to boarding school. It is a slightly different theory from potty training and those other theories.

💬 Ron Mark: Didn’t Michael Cullen go to boarding school?

Dr Cullen did go to a private boys’ school. That may account for the absence from office now of the former Minister, Matt Robson.

The purposes and principles are set out in this bill. This bill very clearly reflects the ideology of those who have held the corrections portfolios since 1999. I may have missed some of them, but this is really a Tariana Turia bill, a Matt Robson bill, and a Margaret Wilson bill. And now it is a Paul Swain bill. This bill goes into endless detail about elementary management practice, and misses three of the four purposes of punishment. Those purposes are classically known. All the literature about imprisonment talks about protection or incapacitation. The bill states in perhaps one small provision that one of the purposes of punishment is the maintenance of public safety. It is possible that that is the way the Government refers to protection or incapacitation. Of course, if one is on the Labour side of the Chamber, it is very ugly to talk about “incapacitating” prisoners. Let us remember that Labour starts from the basis that if we are really nice to criminals, they just may be nice back to us. “Incapacitation” is a word that would be far too direct and far too ugly to put into the bill, so instead it uses the phrase “the maintenance of public safety”.

The second recognised purpose of punishment is rehabilitation. That is usually seen as the very last purpose, because it is very hard to achieve and because the other purposes must be achieved. Rehabilitation, if we can get it, is desirable, but it has to come second, third, or fourth. Yet in this case, the rest of the bill is all about rehabilitation. It contains nothing more about deterrence, though every person who writes about punishment systems and prisons states that deterrence has to be one of the principal objectives, and it has nothing about the price for the crime: denunciation. Punishment, denunciation, and the price for the crime—every culture expects its justice system to denounce crime, to provide a price for crime, and to make sure that the victim does not end up feeling that the criminal is better off after the crime. Yet this bill does not even record the need for denunciation. It makes denunciation illegitimate, because it purports to be a comprehensive code.

A sensible prison manager whom I met several years ago said that she would not recommend people for home detention, because it was not fair on the victims, as the prisoners looked forward to home detention so much that it was self-evident it was not a punishment. That prison manager reflected the normal common sense of every culture, not the gobbledygook of the self-anointed elite that has taken control of our prisons—and, in fact, of our entire justice system—in the last 30 years. That manager had common sense, yet nowhere in this massive bill do we see any reflection of the possibility that a sentence should denounce criminals, and enable victims to feel that there was a price to be paid for committing crime. This bill expressly rules out the possibility of hard labour, which 92 percent of New Zealanders voted for in the Withers referendum. Could anything be more direct than stating that what the Government calls “afflictive labour” is illegal? This bill makes solitary confinement, which is one of the most humane forms of prison discipline, only a management—

I move, That the question be now put.

I hope I will be given more than one call, owing to the fact that I was not given the courtesy of a call when we dealt with Part 3. Prior to starting, I want to pay tribute to the comedy stint of Matt Robson as a former Minister of Corrections. That material is ripe for New Zealand On Air funding as a satirical series, but I do not think the people of this country would find it very funny, and I do not think the victims of this country would find it very funny, at all.

If we look at the kind of system this Minister intends to support, to the exclusion of any possible alternative—an alternative that is beneficial to the correctional system—we see that it requires an in-depth look at “goon squad” activities, which happened in a State-managed correctional facility rather than in the private one. The interesting thing is that most of the leaders of the “goon squad” not only remain at work but have been promoted. The man who gave blanket approval for the emergency response unit to act in that way, Paul Rushton, is now a member of the committee looking at prisons, professional ethics, and organisational culture.

That is what this Minister is trying to defend, with the complicity of the Greens, who have spent plenty of time railing against this very thing. There was the rape of an inmate at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison while the inmates were drunk and out on a work party, and the pitchfork killing of an inmate in Rimutaka Prison while working in its faith unit. Then there was the judgment of the behaviour management regime. As a result of Justice Ron Young’s decision in the Wellington High Court, Taunoa and three other behaviour management regime inmates can now ask for damages, along with other prisoners held unlawfully for a few weeks more than supposedly required. That is something that happens under the State management of prisons.

What about the assault at Pāremoremo, when prisoner Toko Manahi was restrained by a number of guards, including senior officers and unit managers, such as Murray Sweet and Trevor Tohill? I want to quote the following at some length: “Four inmates gave evidence on Mr Sweet kicking Manahi. One prison officer even acknowledged the corrections officer kicked the inmate while he was restrained. Mr Sweet himself, in his own review with Reti Pearse and David Pomeroy on November 13th last year, acknowledges kicking Manahi.” I want to know what disciplinary action was taken against Mr Sweet, given that Manahi was restrained at the time he was kicked. There was none. I do not see the Minister in the chair, Paul Swain, jumping to the defence of his own department.

There were some shocked reactions from different sections of the public that want to maintain the present privately managed prison. A letter sent to the Hon Paul Swain from Te Warena Taua, chair of Iwi Whanui o Tāmaki-makau-rau, who raised serious concerns over the Department of Corrections’ controversial behaviour modification programme, states that nine inmates launched legal action against the Crown and the Department of Corrections, claiming that they had been subjected to psychological torture, unlawful solitary confinement, and numerous other breaches.

We are not talking about prisons in Iraq. It is a Department of Corrections facility. The Minister runs that department, yet he wants to close down the only other alternative—one that has the highest international recognition and standards. Why? Because of a belief in an ideological policy he supported before he had the chance to find out empirically how good privately managed prisons could be. Anybody who is not willing to change an opinion given fresh evidence ought to have his or her head examined. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I continue to quote the letter: “Now is not the time to reward the department with a monopoly on prison management, or to take away the competition which is forcing the department to finally start lifting its game. When we get rid of the privately-managed prison, we will get rid of the whole impetus for the Department of Corrections to start seeing beyond its prehistoric methods.”

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you for a call on the great bedding debate. Talk about micromanagement! My colleague Mr Mapp has already mentioned clause 71(2). I remind members what detail we are getting down to. That subclause states: “A prisoner’s bedding must be laundered as often as is necessary to maintain cleanliness.” This week, our wishy-washy, Chardonnay-sipping, insipid, mealy-mouthed, PC Government has been absolutely pathetic on crime. Next thing we know, the Minister in the chair, Paul Swain, will be legislating for prisoners’ mummies to come in and make sure they have clean underwear. That is the sort of detail that the Minister is putting into legislation.

The Minister in the chair is so hopeless that he had to table a Supplementary Order Paper of 50 pages—

💬 John Carter: How long was the bill?

It was 158 pages. A third of the bill has been corrected. It is certainly the “Corrections Bill”, is it not? It is the “Corrections of the Corrections of the Corrections Bill”. That Supplementary Order Paper was sneaked in at the last moment so that we could not have a quality debate on it. Do members know why? It is because that Minister is absolutely ashamed of this legislation. He has been rolled by Matt Robson and his union mates. He does not believe one iota of it, and it gets worse. That Minister, who maintains that his Government is concerned about victims, has completely ignored victims in this legislation, other than in a passing reference. In a bill that is 158 pages long, there is one slight, passing reference.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: And 50 pages of amendments.

And 50 pages of amendments. When we raised it, what was his answer to the Opposition benches? He said they had the Victims’ Rights Act. Anyone who believes that is anything but a Clayton believes in garden fairies, as well. This Government is soft on crime. Five out of eight of the principles mentioned in clause 6 provide for offenders, and there is one passing reference only to victims. This is a pathetic excuse for legislation, and the Minister is hanging his head in shame because he knows it does not stack up to close scrutiny. It is a bill that is being perpetrated on Parliament by unions and crooks. Actually, that is a tautology, is it not?

The greatest travesty of all is that the bill closes down the private management of prisons. The Auckland Central Remand Prison is the best performing prison in this country by a long shot. What is it getting as a consequence of its outstanding performance? It is getting the great terminator. It is not getting Arnie—it is getting Paul Swain, terminator.

💬 Ron Mark: “Swainy and the boys”.

It is getting “Swainy and the boys”. He will be the Governor of California next. That is what he is aiming for. He is going to terminate the best-performing prison in this country. The decision to terminate the prison is on no other basis than ideology. Had the Minister cared to look at any sort of criteria at all, he would have found that that prison is far more efficiently run and far cheaper than anything else in this country, but he would not listen. With the cost of capital and overheads accounted for, the cost of care per day for an inmate in a private prison is only $130, compared to $270 a day for an inmate in a Crown prison.

The Minister in the chair should take a call to acknowledge whether those figures are right, because they are. He will say that that is not true. We know that, because management in the Department of Corrections would tell him so. Who would believe them?

I move, That the question be now put.

Does anybody believe that this Government is listening to the people? I do not think that it is. It is not listening to Māori or the public of New Zealand, and it is certainly not listening to the victims of this country. It does not listen to Eru Thompson, a prison counsellor, who wrote: “It surprises me that Nandor Tanczos, the Green spokesman on corrections, thinks that prison culture in our publicly managed prisons is going to improve overnight. Here we have a prison”—referring to the privately managed prison—“that is functioning superbly for inmates, our community, and the Government.” However, the backing of the Greens is going to reverse the progress, and that will result in negative outcomes for inmates, all for the sake of politics.

I have a transcript of a note to Nandor Tanczos from Toi Maihi, who said: “We are shocked and appalled to hear that you are supporting Paul Swain in his attempts to outlaw private prisons in this country. We thought you understood our feelings.”—and then a warning—“Be assured that if this bill passes, because of your stance, we will ensure that every Māori radio station in this country will be broadcasting that fact, as will emails and any other media vehicle. In the past the Green Party has picked up quite a few from Māori, but if you consign our unfortunates to the prevalent so-called corrections culture, I wouldn’t count on you having much of a political future.”

The Greens are not listening to Māori, to the public of this country, and that is strange. Contrast that with some of the comments that have come from its members. Comments from Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald in 1999 included: “We say prisons are dinosaurs of the modern age. In no other area—health, education, accounting, banking, sport, or whatever—do we allow 19th century philosophy and practice to dominate.” Now, the Greens are going to turn around and support it; what an about-face! What did they get for it? What little political sop did they get for this about-turn? At the election next year the Greens will be punished severely by the population, by Māori, and anybody with a remote sense of common sense.

They go on to say that the Greens support alternatives, and it is called Auckland remand, but they now want it killed. It is an absolute irony. Nandor Tanczos himself said in July 2001: “If the Minister and the public are to have any faith in this department and in the process surrounding this proposed prison, the whole thing needs to be independently investigated to the full.” That is referring to Ngāwhā Prison.

There is an unholy alliance between the Labour Party ideologues and the Green Party ideologues who now want to get rid of the one best thing in our Department of Corrections. Now they want a review—not a review to find out the truth and then base a decision upon it, but a review as a kind of sop to Māori, as if “Yes, we are taking your view into consideration, but guess what, we’ve already pre-determined the decision; we made the decision ahead of time.” Who in their right mind does that? Nobody with half a brain could make a decision before he or she found out the facts that related to it. That is what Labour and that is what the Greens are doing.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: This Minister can.

That is right. That Minister can. I hope that if the Government has a review, it will base it on independence, and look at iwi partnership, health, mental health, risk assessment, suicide prevention, alcohol and drugs, education and rehabilitation, and Māori culture and prison culture, with an open mind, but I bet it will not. It will have predetermined positions on all of this, and it will squash all the benefits that have emerged so far in the privately managed prison.

We heard from the National Party that when it returns to Government, this legislation will be one of the first things it will repeal. I tell members that my vote will be there. National can count on my vote to reverse the shocking ideological vote of Labour, the Greens, and the redundant Alliance leftovers—the dogsbodies, the Progressives—will be on.

💬 Hon Matt Robson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. That was a hurtful comment. The Standing Orders state that members cannot use hurtful comments. When that member’s leader was just a one-person party in this Parliament, we were very kind to him. Sometimes we forgot his name, but we were kind. I am sure that the Standing Orders do state that members cannot make hurtful comments, and if they do not, they should.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I did not catch that comment. I was talking to the Clerk at the time. Did the member refer to another member in derogatory terms?

I would not have called it derogatory. I would rather have called it truthful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Did the member refer to the member by anything else but his name?

Not specifically to the member, but I did refer—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows that he cannot use an unbecoming term to refer to another member.

I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

I will then rephrase whatever I might have said and refer to the party as the dogsbody. That party will certainly not be around after the next election and neither will the comical former Minister of Corrections.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Did the member hear Jill Pettis say that his party was mad?

💬 Jill Pettis: No, I said the member.

I am continually reminded that when Jill Pettis starts to screech and scream, she sounds very much like a car door has slammed on her genitals.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have been looking at this bill yet again and I wonder whether we should call it the “Mistakes Bill”. It is not really about corrections. A whole third of the bill has to be acknowledged even by the Government as a mistake and changed again. Let us have a look at some of the mistakes. First off, there are 8,280 lines in this bill and its Supplementary Order Paper.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Bring back Mike!

I ask Mr Cunliffe how many of those lines deal with victims. Two lines and one word deal with victims. That is all this Government and the Greens think about victims.

💬 John Carter: How many?

Two lines and one word out of 8,280 lines talk about victims.

💬 John Carter: Only two lines about victims?

Let us be fair, it is two lines and one word. That is what the Government thinks about victims. That is not the only mistake in this bill. When the Hon Matt Robson was the Minister of Corrections—and he has been wanting to tell us all about it today—he wanted conjugal visits for prisoners, as if there were not enough of them anyway. That was definitely a mistake. Then there was the other Minister, the Hon Margaret Wilson. She was probably just a mistake. Then there is the Minister the Hon Paul Swain and his boys—“Swainy and the boys”—who are apparently supposed to deal with some of the “girlies” in Labour. What does he do? He stands up every day in Parliament and has to correct his answers to this House, which he says have been given to him by the Department of Corrections. That is for sure. It surely is the “Department for Mistakes”, and he is the “Minister for Mistakes”.

When we asked him about the different costs involved in private prisons and the public sector, all he talked about was fruit. All he could talk about was apples and oranges. That is about as far as he can go. He then came up with another little line. He said remand prisons were not as tough as some other prisons. Any of us who really understand what remand is all about realise that the remand prisoners are the ones charged with the worst offences. These are the people with the worst histories. These are the people where the court says: “We’re not even going to presume that you can be staying out in the community until your trial. We don’t trust that to happen. We want you in that prison now.” These are the worst prisoners.

The private prison is the same one where William Bell went—the Returned Services Association killer. That was the only place secure enough to hold him in remand. He could not go anywhere else. It is where Mr Zaoui has to be held, because it is the most secure unit. What does this Minister say? He talks about apples and oranges, and every day he has to correct himself in this House.

This is the same department that has encouraged the “goon squad” mentality to operate. We have an inquiry still going on into the “goon squad”. What has happened to those people? What has happened to those people under the 5 long years of a Labour Government with its puppy-dog friends? They have all been promoted. That is what has happened. At least those who mistreated the Iraqi people have actually been dealt to, but, no, these ones have been promoted.

Punishment does not enter into this bill. The Government says that prison is not about punishment. Government members should ask the 92 percent of the people out there what they think prison is all about. They know that it is very seldom that it rehabilitates anyone. They certainly know that prison is to keep prisoners locked up and to punish them for their crimes.

This is another example of a private-public partnership being thrown out by this Government. Do members remember when the Government first came into office? Its members talked about how they wanted private-public partnerships. That is called sucking up to business. This is the example of what they do to it. They get rid of it, and they do not believe in business.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I probably have two points of order now. I had to call for a point of order seven times to get your attention, and you deliberately looked the other way and continued on. I want to register my concern and dissatisfaction with that. The reason I was originally seeking the point of order was to draw your attention to this before you made that decision. Successive Chairs have sat in that very seat and given the Committee an assurance that calls would be allocated on a proportional basis. I know that you have already proceeded on the voting path, and that it is a very deliberate act and cannot be overturned, but I ask you to look at your figures as to who took calls and were granted calls. New Zealand First representation in this Parliament is half that of the National Party and almost twice that of United Future. On that basis, I would have thought New Zealand First would have been granted half the number of calls that National got and twice the number that United Future was granted. But that has not happened. I have sought the call, time and time and time again, and I absolutely take exception to your deliberately ignoring me and denying me that opportunity.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The decision on the closure is mine entirely. I take into account what Mr Tisch raised about the previous debate on clause 3 last night. The debate on the title, as members know, has recently been changed. I took that into account. All factors are taken into account, not just proportionality. I have ruled on that, and I will not entertain further debate on my decision.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am a senior member of this Parliament, and I do not often take points of order unless there is an issue that needs to be raised. I will not have my point of order dismissed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will call the member for a point of order, but I would make the point that it is not a debatable motion.

That is correct, and I understand that, Madam Chair. I am well versed in the Standing Orders of this House. But I want to make the point that while it is true that proportionality is only one part that needs to be taken into consideration, at some stage I would ask you to give a considered ruling on Standing Order 102. The reason I do so is that I was involved in the discussions in the Standing Orders Committee when this whole issue was debated. It was debated for the purpose of addressing the rule that in the past, anyone who had not spoken in a debate was given priority over anybody who had. Part of the problem then was that often the larger parties could cut out contributions from smaller parties. As a consequence, we changed that rule in the Standing Orders for the very purpose of trying to allow, as one of the factors, proportionality. I accept that it is only one of the factors, but it may be something you can give a considered ruling on in due course, and I ask you please to do so, given the background of why we arrived at the Standing Order as we have.

Today in the debate Mr Alexander of United Future made two contributions. By my calculations, therefore, New Zealand First should have been allowed a further two calls, and National should have been allowed a further four. On that basis, the Greens could have made a contribution had they sought to. ACT also should have been given a further allocation. So we should really have had at least another seven contributions. Accepting that, I think we need a system, to help the Chair, whereby proportionality is a significant factor. I accept that you are right, Madam Chair, that there may be other factors—such as a member being in charge of a bill—that you need to give emphasis to, but it is probably appropriate that we get a considered ruling on this, not now—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: And members who have moved amendments.

Yes, the factors include members moving amendments, as Mr Ryall has, and I accept that Mr Alexander certainly has done that. But there are other factors, and I would ask that you at some stage, perhaps next week when we are in Committee, or the next time we are in Committee, give a considered ruling on how we are to deal with this relatively new Standing Order, which is an important one for us all to understand.

💬 Ron Mark: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am not going to entertain any more discussion on this matter. I will rule on the point of order. The member will please be seated. I just remind members that there should be silence while I am ruling, and also while a member is speaking on a point of order. I note the points made by Mr Carter. It is a question that is raised from time to time. However, I refer the member to the Review of Standing Orders. Certainly, it contains quite a lot about the title debate. I suggest that members have a look at that again. I will put the question on the closure motion.

💬 Ron Mark: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have made my decision. There will be no further debate on the closure motion.

💬 Ron Mark: We seem to get into the habit of having clairvoyance guiding us on occasion—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): If it is a new point of order, it is acceptable.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is a request, through a point of order, of you, Madam Chairperson. It is this: when members feel they have been deliberately ignored by the Chair—and there are people here who would attest to such an observation—when members, having stood to seek a call, feel that the Chair has made eye contact with them on two previous calls and when the Chair is well aware that that member was seeking a call; when members feel that the Chair has given consideration to one other party of smaller size, when members feel they have been deliberately ignored, what rights of recourse do members have other than to recall the Speaker? Can you tell me what rights I have?

The member will be seated. The member is relitigating my decision. He knows his rights perfectly well, but I will not have this point of order relitigated.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled