Corrections Bill

I move, That the Corrections Bill be now read a third time. The law governing the operation of the corrections system, the Penal Institutions Act and some sections of the Criminal Justice Act, is overdue for reform. This bill will replace that outdated and complex legislation with an Act that will, firstly, reflect modern conditions and approaches to the management of offenders; secondly, set out principles that will guide the future development of the corrections system and the application of corrections law; thirdly, be compatible with the Government’s criminal justice reforms—the Sentencing Act, Parole Act, and the Victims’ Rights Act—particularly in emphasising the central importance of public safety; and lastly, be clear and easy to implement. This bill will come into force by Order in Council. A substantial new set of regulations to replace the Penal Institutions Regulations 2000 will need to be made before the bill can come into force.

During the select committee process, a number of sensible changes were proposed to the bill. Most of those were minor, technical amendments, but there were some substantial proposals, as well. One was to enhance public protection by making provision for information sharing between the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police. It was also proposed that the bill authorise an information-matching agreement between the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Immigration Service. Members of the Law and Order Committee also considered that justices of the peace, and not just lawyers, should be eligible for appointment as visiting justices. However, the committee reported the bill back without amendments, not because there was anything particularly controversial about the proposed changes but because it was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill should proceed. That was because of the Government’s decision to transfer the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison to public management.

Some matters were added to Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain, following helpful discussions with Nandor Tanczos and the Hon Matt Robson. In particular, the bill has been improved in the following ways. There is now a reference to the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, there are provisions for the chief executive and prison managers to obtain advice from communities significantly affected by corrections policies and practices, and the annual report of the Department of Corrections will include reports on those consultation processes and on the activities of inspectors of corrections. Overall, the amendments have improved transparency and clarified the matters for which the chief executive and prison managers should be accountable. Decisions to segregate a prisoner for security reasons or to protect the safety of others will be reviewed at least monthly, rather than every 3 months. Any extension beyond 3 months will have to be approved by a visiting justice. That will act as a safeguard with regard to the use of the powers of the State.

Throughout the legislative process, the most contentious matter in the bill has been the ending of the private prison contract. I reiterate that the Government’s decision on that matter is based on an important principle. The management of prisons involves the exercise of some of the State’s most highly coercive powers against individuals, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There needs to be direct accountability for the exercise of such powers, and that can be best achieved through a Government department that is directly accountable to a responsible Minister. I would like to thank the Department of Corrections officials and the members of the Law and Order Committee for their work on the bill. I also thank all members who have contributed to the debates on this legislation.

Within 18 months this Corrections Bill will be repealed. This bill will be gone by this time next year, because it is a shameful, backward step in corrections policy in this country. That is for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it makes it illegal for the Government to contract private companies to manage the New Zealand prison service.

Since 1999, Australasian Correctional Management has run our only private prison, the Auckland Central Remand Prison. Throughout this entire debate we heard Government Ministers say that prisons by their nature involve the use of highly coercive powers against individuals, and that only the State should be able to wield such powers. Every Opposition party—even United Future, which supports the Government on matters of confidence and supply—was opposed to that because, as we pointed out clearly in the quote from Professor Charles Logan: “Keepers do not take away anyone’s freedom; catchers and convicters and sentencers do so”. There is an important difference between the power to deny liberty and the job of carrying out those orders. It is a remarkable ideological leap that sees this Government, at the same time that it is opposing private prisons, inviting the private sector to provide prisoner custody services between prisons and courthouses. So it is apparently OK for the private sector to use coercive powers between courts and prisons, but not OK for it to use them actually in prisons.

The overriding international evidence is that private prisons are highly successful. The Australians, the British, the South Africans, the Canadians, and the Americans are all expanding their use of private prisons. As incarceration rates increase around the world, Governments have looked to the private sector to build new facilities and to provide for future prisoner numbers. In fact, it is reported that the Labour Prime Minister in Britain wants all new prisons there to be built and operated by the private sector.

Internationally, the private sector operates at considerable cost efficiency compared with the public sector. Numerous reputable studies have concluded that the private sector operates prisons at least 5 to 15 percent more cheaply than the public sector does. In Britain, a study undertaken in 1996 by Coopers and Lybrand for Her Majesty’s Prison Service concluded that the private sector there provided operational savings of between 13 and 22 percent over the public sector. Here in New Zealand, the private prison in Auckland operates at a cost of $43,000 per prisoner per year, with a mix of low and high-security prisoners in a high-security environment, whereas the public prison service costs $54,000 per minimum-security prisoner per year, and $72,000 per high-security prisoner per year. For members opposite, that is information they can rely on.

What is clear is that although private prisons are cheaper, that efficiency does not come at the cost of quality. The head of Britain’s National Audit Office advised the Government there, after a major review of prisons in Britain, that competition has helped drive up standards and improve efficiency across the prison system as a whole. It compared Britain’s private and public prisons across a checklist of quality criteria, such as prisoner safety, assaults, and purposeful work. It concluded, with one exception, that private prisons provided a service of a superior quality compared with that of public prisons.

Here in New Zealand the private prison received strong support from the Māori community, and it must be an embarrassment for the Government when the Iwi Whānui o Tāmaki-makau-rau talks about the premier service provided to their people by that prison in a firm environment.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: We want Māori out of there.

I presume Mr Horomia is talking about Māori getting out of the prisons, but I do not see anything that this Minister is doing to try to stop the levels of Māori reoffending, and reoffending by the general public as a whole. This Minister, instead of throwing away taxpayers’ money like confetti on capacity-building programmes, would be much better off doing something about reducing the reoffending rate amongst his people. If he put as much effort into trying to stop Māori reoffending, or reoffending throughout the community, as he has into greasing his popularity with the Prime Minister and ensuring his position in Cabinet, this country would be a much better place.

What is wrong with this bill is it gives sweeping new rights and privileges to prisoners with an uncompleted cheque from the New Zealand taxpayers. It is an open cheque because the Government has no idea what the cost of these new rights and privileges will be. We have warned the Government time and time again that it does not know what it is doing. Surely we have seen with the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) that the Government should not rely on what its Ministers tell them is in a bill.

I will tell the House about some of the risks imposed by this bill. This bill will require the Department of Corrections to take into account the cultural background, ethnic identity, and language of inmates in managing sentences. What will the impact on the system be of having the chief executive charged with catering for the “various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners”? What is the boundary of that duty? That clause may try to clarify it, but, again, this bill allows for uncertainty, and that can be costly. The Government should be mindful that prisoners can be litigious, and the statutory rights proposed by this bill, coupled with its foolish principles, could be further defined and expanded by the courts. Parliament should be crystal-clear on what it intends to have available in terms of the statutory entitlements.

Here is another example: the bill enshrines in legislation rights for prisoners that were previously detailed in regulations. There is a sweeping new right for prisoners to access information and education. Prisoners will be entitled—not permitted, but entitled—to access further education that will help their rehabilitation. Although the Government has included a few words to try to limit the cost, the point is there is considerable risk and uncertainty in this area that invites prisoners into the courts to gain an expensive education at taxpayers’ expense.

Some of the earliest provisions in this bill to be repealed will be this Government’s foolish decision to legislate the current integrated offender management system into the law. It is a system that this Government uses for managing prisoners’ individual needs within the prison environment, but, as we said time and time again in this debate, there are other ways of operating prisons. Penal policies come and go, and the strategies and philosophies that this liberal, social-engineering Government has foisted on the corrections system may not be what a Government of the future proposes to follow.

The National Party strongly opposes this bill. It could have been a great opportunity for Parliament to bring the corrections legislation into the 21st century. It could have been a wonderful opportunity to put public safety and the rights of victims to the fore. But we heard in the Committee stage from Judith Collins MP that this bill, with over 8,500 lines, had only two sentences and one word devoted to the rights of victims, and that is why this bill must go.

If that is as good as it gets from the Opposition spokesperson on justice and corrections, then that is about as good as it gets, I guess. I understand that the member is a specialist in porridge—particularly after having watched what he gets up to in Bellamy’s! I understand also that he is one of those MPs who has visited corrections facilities—more often than any other MP in this House. It has nothing to do with strip-searches, they tell me!

There are two issues here, and we want to make our position very clear as to what defines this Government from that mob on the opposite side of the House. The first issue is whether to grant any institution the power of the State to take away one of the greatest rights of any democracy—that is, the ability to imprison, to take away freedom. We say that power must be vested solely in the right of Parliament and the Government. Privatisation is what the Opposition wants. We do not stand for privatisation. Privatisation is the true agenda of the National Party, which would even sell the prisons. It would even sell the right to lock up Kiwis, which is one of the greatest constitutional rights of any Parliament, to the private sector. That is the litmus test that clearly separates us from them.

The other issue that the honourable member raised was the treatment of prisoners. Either we have a prison system that allows us to conduct ourselves with some humanity, dignity, humility, and ability to allow the rehabilitation of prisoners back into our communities, or we continue to build more prisons, more prisons, and more prisons. There is a range of issues in this bill to cut down on recidivism. This bill looks at providing some form of restorative opportunity for people as they come back into our communities. I commend it to the House.

I rise in the third reading, which is our final opportunity to voice our opposition to this bill, to urge in the closing stages those members of the Government who are sane and able logically to work their way through the issues to reconsider their vote on this bill. The decision that this Government is about to make is a wrong decision, a bad decision, an illogical decision, and a decision that the Government is making, on its own admission, through adherence to blind ideology. I could be unkind enough to say that one would have to be an idiot to vote for certain parts of this bill.

I will now re-emphasise a few points from the New Zealand First section in the report back. New Zealand First opposed this bill for a number of reasons. In terms of Crown versus private management of prisons, we stated: “New Zealand First having seen the evidence submitted”—and having visited a number of prisons throughout New Zealand, including the Auckland Central Remand Prison—“does not accept that there is any justification for the prison to be taken out of the ACM management and put back in Crown control.” All the evidence that was presented to us—everything that we saw, everything that we heard from the inmates and the prison officers—told us that, in comparison with State-run prisons, Australasian Correctional Management had exceeded the State-run prisons’ performance. That is fact.

With regard to the information and education needs of prisoners Australasian Correctional Management “was found to be a leader particularly in areas of its rehabilitation programmes (that is, reading, literacy, computer training, fork lift and heavy truck licences) that will assist prisoners’ self-esteem on their release.”—and their ability to gain meaningful employment. I will say that again: Australasian Correctional Management’s programmes will help prisoners, and do help former inmates, to gain meaningful employment.

I have visited Paparua Prison, and one of the most disheartening things was to go into that prison and see a massive carpentry shop—fully equipped and fully tooled—empty. No one was learning anything. I think there were two men in that carpentry shop, and when I asked why the prison was not teaching carpentry skills, I was immediately taken through to the other side and shown where 25 inmates were doing carving. I asked them how many expected to get jobs carving, and how many actually thought they had an opportunity to get a job as a cabinetmaker, a joiner, or a chippy’s labourer.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: It’s PC gone mad.

The interesting thing is that a PC-driven Lf thabour administration was quite happy to keep these chaps busy carving bones, wood, and stones, but it did not want them—

💬 Jill Pettis: The private sector doesn’t like any competition.

That is a nonsense because, on the other side, I can go to the same prison and find two ventures running there that are in direct competition with local business. Jim Anderton refused to shut one of them down, despite the fact that local businesses wanted to employ inmates.

The inconsistencies are a nonsense. I quote our report: “New Zealand First believes that the decision to return ACM to State control is ideology driven without regard to its performance. It is our view that ACM should be left to continue to run externally to the department as a private provider for a further four years reviewable at the end of that period against good business practice and its compliance with the 1995 Act. The intent to return ACM to state control without regard to its commendable performance is not, we believe, based on logic.”—nor is it in the best interests of the people who are contained there.

Regarding notifying victims about the transfer of prisoners, New Zealand First noted that the Government does not intend to make the Department of Corrections responsible for notifying victims of its intent to transfer prisoners to home detention. We believe that is wrong. We believe that it is wrong that a man who is in jail for stabbing a taxi-driver in the head with a carving fork be put on home detention in the community, without the next-door neighbours being told that he will be there. We believe that it is wrong to put that man back out into the community without his victim, Les Williamson, being told that that is going to happen. This bill does that.

Regarding the mental health of prisoners, we stated: “It is New Zealand First’s view that mentally unwell prisoners should not be detained in a prison. They should be in a secure environment in the care of staff trained in the management of such patients.” Of all the prisons I have ever visited, which prison has the best processes for identifying inmates with mental health and psychological issues? The Australasian Correctional Management - run Auckland Central Remand Prison. That is the only prison I have been into where there is thorough screening of inmates on day one, when they walk in, where mental health issues are identified, and where their programmes and the management of them are immediately adjusted. I hear speech after speech from members of the Government about how appalling it is that mental health patients should be held in prison, but it is taking the one prison that handles such prisoners correctly out of the control of its very good managers who are doing that. There is a word for that; I will not use that word, which is banned in Parliament. I will just use “stupidity” instead, because that word is not banned.

Regarding considerations for temporary release from custody or temporary removal from prison, we stated: “New Zealand First disagrees with releases made without first notifying victims. Victims should have the right to object.” Victims have a right to know.

We concluded by stating that New Zealand First will be opposing a number of other aspects of the bill. I want to touch on one of those aspects, and that is the integrated offender management scheme. That is the great con job of the decade. I put it on record that the integrated offender management scheme is Labour’s new INCIS. This computerised programme, which will generate nothing of any worth, is a “touchy-feely”, feel-good, fluffy, nonsensical approach to managing prisoners that, firstly, is not being complied with now, and, secondly, cannot be complied with, given the problems that the Department of Corrections faces with musters, and with not knowing what its musters in any one prison are from one time to the next.

All the prison officers—the good staff whom Mr Robson will stand up and compliment—know that, but their wonderful management here in Wellington has provided Ministers, both former and current, with inaccurate information. For example, the Minister was asked about the number of inappropriate relationships between prison officers and inmates. He said there were three. Members asked again: “How many was that, Minister?”. He said there were five. “How many was that, Minister?”. He said there were 17. “How many now?”. He said there were 21. This department’s heads give the Minister such inaccurate information, but he relies on it, he stakes his reputation on it, and he will not go and talk to the prison officers, who would tell him to his face that the integrated offender management system is an absolute crock. It sets the department up for failure.

Worst of all, it imposes a fiscal risk on the Crown and future Governments. The fiscal risk comes when inmate Bloggs, having asked to do a BA in Māori Studies at Victoria University, a special advanced anger management course, and a course in business management, and having been denied all of those opportunities—contrary to what the bill states he should be entitled to—is released into the community and offends again. He will be able to put up as his defence that he was unable to get work and be reintegrated into the community, because when he asked to do those courses, which he was entitled to do, he was denied them—he was denied them because there was a lack of resources and a lack of opportunity, and that was why he offended, and now he holds the State accountable for his reoffending.

I have a Chapman Tripp legal opinion that states that is so, and this Government will not believe it. Well, be it on its head. Know this: New Zealand First will come back to this Act when we are in Government. We will not have private prisons from one end of the country to the other, but we see value in the current private prison. We cannot ignore success, and that prison is entirely useful as a benchmark for checking and assessing the State-run prisons for their deficiencies and weaknesses. On that basis, New Zealand First believes that it is stupidity to let that prison go.

I do not want to go over in great detail the significant amendments to the bill that have resulted from the Greens’ negotiations with the Minister. I have done that already in the second reading and during the Committee stage. Some of them were mentioned briefly by the Hon Rick Barker; in particular, the new clauses about community consultation and tangata whenua participation in decisions—we can compare that to what is done so well at the remand prison; some strengthening around protection for whistle blowers in the prison system, and also some added safeguards around the use of non-voluntary segregation, to try to ensure that abuses of the behavioural modification regime are less likely to occur in the future. Those are things that the Green Party is proud of. Members who want to check that out in more detail can do so on the Green website, www.greens.org.nz.

I would like to confine my speech to the central issue at the heart of the opposition to this bill—the ending of the privately run prison. I will begin by once again pointing out the curious fact that those people who are most supportive of the remand prison are the same people who are fundamentally opposed to the very things that are said by the general manager to be at the heart of its success—in particular, the focus on rehabilitation, its relationship with tangata whenua, and its humanistic approach to the way it deals with inmates.

It is interesting, because this internal contradiction was inherent in the speeches of Mr Ryall and Mr Mark. They spent the first half of their speeches telling us how fantastic the privately run prison is, then in the second half talked about how bad this bill is, because it will implement some of those same kinds of ideas. Mr Ryall talked about rights for inmates and how terrible that was, and how terrible it was that the prison service will recognise some cultural values in its processes and practices—what a terrible thing that is! Those are the very things that Dom Karauria said are at the heart of what is done at the remand prison.

That was the Government that chose the site for the Ngāwhā Prison. When that Government did an evaluation of the site, it came out at 35th out of 70—but then, 1999 was an election year, John Banks was stepping down, and Phil Heatley was standing for the first time in the Whangarei electorate. The National Government decided that it could not annoy Whangarei farmers too much, so it put the prison at Ngāwhā, because who cared what the people of Kaikohe thought? So that is how that party made decisions when it was in Government.

Even so, let us be clear that many of the claims made on behalf of the private prison are simply not true. One of those claims is around the costs. Members tell us in the House all the time how much cheaper it is to run the private prison. Of course, they are not taking into account the fixed costs that are born by the ministry. They are not comparing comparable costs with costs. The members who say how much less we are spending on the private prison are factually incorrect.

There are many other ways that the prisons are not comparable, in any case. The remand prison is a remand prison. The factors that one has to take into account are quite different. The other thing is that it has a managed roster. I had people from te Iwi Whānui talking to me just a week or two ago about how the Government had tried to increase their roster and they had refused. That is fine. Good on them, because it allows them to manage their services properly. But the reality is that the public service just cannot do that. It has to take what it is given. So let us be fair when we start to compare what is going on in those two different institutions.

More importantly, we need to take account of what the future will hold if the privatisation of prisons continues, which is clearly what the members on the right of the House would have us do. Australasian Correctional Management has no regard for tangata whenua or for the rehabilitation of inmates, or for Aotearoa, at all. It is interested in the maximisation of its shareholders’ profits.

So what is the remand prison? It is a glossy sales brochure for Australasian Correctional Management, in order to maintain a presence for private prisons in that company so it can stick its foot in the door, because if it gets that foot in the door we can be very clear that under a National Government the door would be jammed open and it would be all on.

Let us look at the history of Australasian Correctional Management. [Interruption] Well, good. It has been subject to a history of complaints of abuse. First of all, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has called for a sweeping and comprehensive inquiry into all its detention centres, following allegations of poor management at the Woomera detention centre. [Interruption] It is Australasian Correctional Management. The member should have a quick look on a website. There have been huge numbers of allegations of all kinds of abuses.

It does not apply just to the detention centres. The prisons that that company runs have also been subject to allegations. They are the first prisons subject to suit in Australia by an employee, where a court found the company guilty of unsafe work practices. The problems are not unique. Australasian Correctional Management is one subsidiary of a much bigger global conglomeration of security services whose aim is to gobble security and prison services all around the world. For the majority of the time it has been running the remand prison it has been a subsidiary of the Wackenhut Corporation. A quick look on the web shows that prison staff at Wackenhut are suspected of having sex with inmates—so that is not confined to the public sector.

One website states: “Published news accounts report that authorities have subpoenaed jail records in search of evidence that may reveal assaults, retaliation, contraband, attempts to silence witnesses and the response of jail management to any problems in the past two years’.” I have been told by people who have been employed by Australasian Correctional Management of lack of appropriate medical services. Doctors who have been employed by Australasian Correctional Management have had to sign dubious contracts prohibiting them from commenting on what is going on. In fact I have seen the clauses in contracts that Australasian Correctional Management prison staff have been required to sign, stating that they will agree to withhold information even where a court has directed that information to be made available. That stuff is all publicly available. There are overall concerns about lack of responsibility, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability. There have been huge numbers of resignations.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This bill is not about Waikeria, it is not about Paparua, it is not about Paremoremo.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order. It would be better if the member did not disrupt the speaker.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists has said that encouraging people to work in the centres in Australia would be similar to telling them to go and apply for jobs in Nazi concentration camps. That is how Louise Newman, the chair of the New South Wales branch of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, has described the practices in Australasian Correctional Management.

Let us be clear. There is a perverse incentive in privately run prisons. We could say that Chubb would run the police more efficiently, but that is not an argument. Most of us would not say that we should privatise the police and turn them over to Chubb. Perhaps ACT would disagree. I am not sure. Mr Prebble is nodding his head—fair enough—but it is certainly not something that the Green Party would support.

There is also evidence from the United States of big campaign donations to political candidates by prison companies, which shows the potential for very real corruption. The Government made it clear when it introduced this bill that it will stop Australasian Correctional Management running the prison, regardless of whether the bill passes. The Green Party said that we support that. Our responsibility is not to save the remand prison for the benefit of Australasian Correctional Management shareholders. Our responsibility is to change the practice in all prisons by addressing the problems in the public sector. We have tried to do that in this bill. We are not expecting miracles. We are not saying that there will be changes overnight, but it is a start—not just for a few remand prisons, but for all 6,393 inmates in the New Zealand public prison sector.

I rise to speak to the third reading of the Corrections Bill. I will take up the points made by the Green MP, but I first want to make a few comments about the bill. In this respect I can agree with the Labour Minister Mr Tamihere, who said that one of the serious things Parliament can do is authorise by law a person to be deprived of his or her liberty, and that we as parliamentarians should look at the matter of setting out what those conditions should be. Having said that, this bill, as a matter of lawmaking, is fundamentally misconceived. What we have is, basically, the regulations put into statute. So there are provisions that set out in minute detail how the prison is to be run. I was not on the select committee. During the Committee stage I heard Mr Power raising a point about clause 71, which deals with bedding. He said that bedding had to be laundered in between prisoners, which made me wonder what the definition of bedding is. So I looked it up in the dictionary and discovered that “bedding” includes mattresses. I draw that to the attention of the House because here I am, after 27 years, finally getting to amend a Government bill. I see that there is a new subclause now—

💬 Simon Power: The “Prebble section”.

Yes. Subclause (4) states: “In this section,—bed includes a mattress bedding does not include a mattress.” The absurdity of that matter has been taken up by some of the media but I have no doubt that if we were to go through this bill, clause by clause, we would find many other clauses that are just as ridiculous. I looked at the clauses dealing with mail, and it appears to me that within prisons now it will be virtually impossible to prevent a prisoner who has nothing else to do but who has a good supply of paper—which I think the prisons will supply—basically harassing every citizen up and down New Zealand.

It is true that under that section the citizen being harassed can then write to the prison to prevent the prisoner writing to that person, but do all 4 million of us have to do that? I can go through other sections and make similar criticisms. However, the fundamental point I am making to the Government is that this legislation is misconceived. We should be setting out the basic principles for running prisons and corrections services, and then leaving those matters for regulation. Mr Ryall pointed out that because prisoners have nothing else to do, they are known to be litigious; they are known to raise matters. Because this legislation is now in statute, it will be a matter for bush lawyers. They will take matters to court. Indeed, the legislation we are passing basically states that, according to those sections, prisoners can take prison authorities to court, because we cannot put any restrictions upon a prisoner getting in touch with his or her legal advisers, or any other person in authority.

The legislation is misconceived and it will cost us a lot of money. Having said that, I do not say that our prisons should not—as Mr Tamihere said—obey certain humanitarian principles; they should. He said that the greatest principle is a person’s liberty. In fact, it is not. The greatest principle a person has is his or her right to life. I point out to the House that the legislation will cost some people their life. We all know that. Most of us would have received submissions—as I have—from senior people in our prison service who pointed out that the effect of having a private prison is not as described to us by the Green MP, and we can tell that it is not. He said that the Auckland prison is a shining example. He did say “glossy”, and then tried to state reasons why private prisons somehow are worse. We know that private prisons have a record that is exemplary, far better than expected by someone like myself who supported putting in private prisons. However, I never said that there would not be a suicide in a private prison, because that would be a ridiculous claim to make.

We know that suicides happen within our prisons. We know that people mutilate themselves. We also know that many mentally unstable people are in our prisons. In fact, many people in prison today would not have been in prison a few years ago, except juries now will not accept insanity pleas, because they have a great concern about our mental hospitals letting people out with a bottle of pills. Even though a jury may think that a person is a complete nutter, that he or she is dangerous, it will put that person in prison. So our prisons today have to manage some of the most dangerously mentally ill patients.

We all know there were Public Service Association members opposed to privatisation. I am sure the Green MP knows that the prison authorities referred to the private prison—which is not just for prisoners on remand; there are lifers there; some of the most dangerous mentally ill patients in our prison system are there—and then were absolutely astonished that none of them committed suicide. We also know that by voting for this bill we will see some of those prisoners die. Then we had the Labour MP say that the reason he was opposed to privatisation was because of humanity. Where is the humanity in that?

Then the Green MP said that various organisations made complaints against private prisons. I say this to the House. There are so many private prisons around the world and I have no doubt there have been incidents of prisoner abuse and the like. The difference is that when that happens in a State prison—and we have had that repeatedly; Mr Ron Mark reads out a list every day of various people having sex, people being beaten; I will not go through the list, because it is too disgusting, but the list is read out—because a prison is State run by State servants, the State prison is never closed. We all know that it is extremely difficult to get rid of a civil servant. We have State prisons, and I am not talking about all State wardens. However, there are people who should not be wardens. Some prisons have been so badly run that they should have been closed down. The Minister of Corrections at the time would have liked to do that, but he could not.

Of course, when a prison is privately run, when there is a contract, that is the difference. Under the principle of a contract, the Government can state: “Here are the things you were told to do, Mr Private Prison. You haven’t done it. We are terminating the contract. You’re all fired.” That is why, on average, private prisons worldwide have been run better. Because when they are not run better, they are got rid of. But the Government has taken that away with the bogus statement that it is perfectly OK to take away a person’s liberty, providing the warden works for the Public Service Association. That is nonsense. It is only OK to take away a person’s liberty providing it is done according to the rule of law. That is what we should be doing. This legislation is defective in setting out the rule of law. Because the ability to fire bad men and women who should not be wardens in prisons has been removed, we all know that as a result of this legislation, there will be a triumph of Green ideology over humanity and practical common sense, and some fellow New Zealanders will die.

I would like to make a few points, before I get to the substance of what I really want to say about the bill. Firstly, this is a very sad day when the Government puts to an end the only part of the corrections system that was accountable through a tendering process. It will be taken out and shot, and all because of ideology. That is sad for the people of New Zealand, and certainly sad for the victims of offenders in prison, who are in there as a form of punishment. A point was made earlier that a core function of the State, with regard to prisons, did not conform to the Government’s ideology. I would have thought the core function of the State would have greater precedence than the restraining of an individual’s liberty. The State should be acting on behalf of victims. It should be protecting victims, but it has failed to do that. The interests of victims should be placed ahead of the interests of offenders.

It seems that this bill does not denounce the violence and crime that is being inflicted upon the lawful citizens of this country. That is a pity. One of the things missing from our corrections system is a set of principles that asserts that a regime is in place, on behalf of lawful citizens, to protect them from those who would offend against them. That set of principles should have been included.

My second point relates to the integrated offender management system. In my opinion it is nothing more than a $120 million grab for budget. This country has a strange culture whereby Government departments and ministries puff out their chests, depending on how much public funds they spend. It is not really about accountability. I would like to see that culture changed. I would like to see Ministers ranked according to their efficiency, not on how much of the Government purse they use up, and burn.

Although the select committee amended the purpose clause to make clear that the fundamental purpose of the corrections system is to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society, one thing stands out. It actually does the reverse. How can the corrections system maintain and contribute to a just society, when it hits the pockets of law-abiding people, twice? Firstly, by its inability to police adequately the offenders in our community, and, secondly, when they are apprehended, and spend 1½ years waiting for a trial, they finally go into a prison system that costs more than it should. So law-abiding people are hit twice.

In relation to a comment made earlier by the Minister, John Tamihere, about the core functions of the State and taking away the freedoms of the individual, I want to make one point. Offenders voluntarily give up their right to freedom, in the commission of the very acts they stand accused of and are found guilty of. The State does not deprive them of their freedom. These offenders are deserving of their restriction of freedom.

What system is Labour trying to defend—or, at least, Labour, the Greens, and the unholy alliance with the Progressives? They are defending a system that presided over the “goon squad”. Those things did not happen in the privately managed prison; they happened under the watch of a State-managed prison. In an inquiry it appears the only people who really suffered were two investigators who tried to advance accountability over the “goon squad”. They felt they were forced to take the only option that would keep their integrity intact—and that was to leave. They had to leave. Honesty was not rewarded; it was penalised by this Department of Corrections. In fact, if we look at the leaders of the “goon squad” we see they have been promoted. The man who gave blanket approval for the “goon squad”, Paul Rushton, is now a member of the committee that, ironically, is looking at professional ethics in State prisons. He will be working alongside the new sexual harassment officer—the same man who produced his penis for another man to hit. These are the kinds of people who are promoted by the Department of Corrections, while the honest ones had to walk away.

Then, of course, there are the multiple rapes. Not that long ago there was the rape of an inmate at Hawke’s Bay prison, and the pitchfork killing of an inmate at Rimutaka Prison. The point is this bill protects a system that is bankrupt and needing the benchmark of helpful advice and standard that the privately managed prison can provide, yet the Government wants to pull the rug from under it. I think the Government is ashamed of the comparison.

Nandor Tanczos was given a letter by Toi Māehu, who acted on behalf of Māori, begging him to reconsider his support for this bill, and basically saying: “Turn your back on our calls and you turn your back on Māori.” They have done so. Eru Thompson begged the Greens to stand up for Māori. Again, the Greens have turned a deaf ear. They have turned their back on Māori. Members should have a look at the six northern Māori iwi who are working with the remand prison and trying to do their very best. That is an example of a community taking ownership of its own correctional system. But this Government wants to turn a blind eye to them.

I share with the House this comment made by Te Wērina Tawa, who is the chair of the six northern Māori iwi: “To hand it”—the State-managed corrections system—“an exclusive monopoly to manage every prison in New Zealand, regardless of its performance or whether other agencies can deliver better results, is wrong. 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.” How true that is.

Not so long ago I had the privilege of attending a youth facility outside Western Australia, along with the chair of the Law and Order Committee, Martin Gallagher. It is a very well-run facility. It was pointed out that it is run by the public system, and that the only reason it was brought up to scratch was that a privately managed prison in Western Australia had been completed. This Government is talking about putting together a review. On Tuesday, 18 May, in question time I asked the Minister what the point was of conducting a review of the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison, when the Government has already made the decision to close it. In other words, the Government will not be reviewing its decision based on the resulting outcomes, but it is lining itself up purely on the basis of ideology.

The thing that really saddens me is that this Minister has not once stood and said, with hand on heart, that he honestly believes that terminating the privately managed prison is the right thing to do. He descends to talking about the ideology of the Government’s policy that it put in place two elections ago—but there is no ability to contrast that principle with the privately managed prison, because that prison was not in operation then. Rather than being sensible and prepared to re-examine whether that policy should remain, the Government has adhered to an outdated policy.

This bill is an affront to the New Zealand taxpayer, it is an affront to the victims of crime, and it is an affront to the six northern Māori iwi, whom the Government has turned its back on. It is a disgrace to the corrections system.

When there is a change of Government, whether or not at the next election, the new Government will want a change to allow for privately managed prisons; and it will have my vote.

I rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Corrections Bill, which will replace the 50-year-old Penal Institutions Act and bring the legislation governing prisons into the 21st century. As the former Minister of Corrections during the 46th Parliament, I continued the process begun by National Ministers Nick Smith and the Hon Clem Simich that led to this bill being introduced to the House soon after the 2002 election. The bill deals with how we take offenders and rehabilitate them, if we can. However, the Department of Corrections is but one part of the offending cycle. If we can intervene much earlier in a person’s life, we have a greater chance that that person will never re-enter the corrections system. The Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters is one example of early intervention. It operates in 18 places throughout New Zealand. It is the brainchild of Lesley Max and the Pacific Foundation, and is a home-based programme that helps parents to help their children with learning and success in education. I speak about it here because the methods of rehabilitation and of targeted intervention at an early age are the same principles that should be applied in the corrections system. That is what this bill takes up.

Tutors in the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters work with both children and their parents, to give those parents confidence with their children. At a low cost, the programme turns potential criminals into confident children. Parents who have been in crime start to transform their lives. That supports the assertion that I made in the introduction to the 2001 About Time report: “We know the earliest possible intervention works best and costs the least. Working with a 5-year-old to change aggressive and defiant behaviour is estimated to cost $5,000, and has a success rate of 70 percent. The same behaviour at age 20 costs $20,000, and has a success rate of only 20 percent.” It is that 20 percent success rate that the corrections system is stuck with really. Those are the people who have not been able to be turned around at an early stage. The corrections system deals with the most difficult and most entrenched behaviours.

The assertion made in the About Time report is also borne out in one of the stories of a formerly criminal father, who was turned into a supportive and responsible father for his own 5-year-old through the early intervention of the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters. I would urge member to read the book We Talk in our Family Now, and in particular to read the story of Gordon, that father’s real name. Gordon’s life story, ending in serious criminal offending, epitomises the men who come into the corrections system. It outlines the individual dysfunctionalism that this bill, with its rehabilitation and re-integration emphasis, is designed to cope with. Hopefully, the bill will enable the staff and service providers to change behaviour and to equip the individuals concerned with the skills to build successful lives once they are released from prison. Building successful lives means the prevention of victims. It means a chance for the children and families of inmates, and it means safer communities. To understand the typical male inmate—the features are similar for the small number of women inmates, but they also have separate, deep-seated issues and traumatic backgrounds, usually including domestic violence—Gordon’s story is worth reflecting upon, especially by members who wish to deny that dealing with the environmental factors affecting inmates is any business of the Department of Corrections.

Gordon stated: “I grew up in Ōtara. My own family was not a nice place for me. I don’t like talking about it. All I can say to you about it is, I survived. By the time I was 14, I was hanging around with much older boys, part of a gang. They used to beat me up. When I was 14, I got a letter saying I had a special exemption and I could leave school. I celebrated by drinking. I never went home after that, and I never saw any of my family again until last year. At 14 I used to drink at the Star Hotel with the gang. Heaps of us were under age, but nobody did anything about it. From there I guess you could say I spent 30 years as a delinquent—heaps of drugs, heaps of crime. I think I started drinking at 14, and never really stopped until I was over 40. I had my first child when I was 14. His mum was 14 too. Her father came looking for me with all his Tongan friends. They wanted to get me, and he reported me to the police. They wanted to charge me. I had seven children, but Kūpā was the only one I am bringing up. Kūpā’s mum’s family was just like me—violent. Through HIPPY I learnt to appreciate him and take an interest in him. In a way, I grew up with him. We did a lot of things through HIPPY that to him were natural. It was all new to me—like before HIPPY if I ever took him to the park, I would just sit there and ignore him. Once we started HIPPY, I would play with him in the park. At first, when Kūpā started to speak out more, I thought HIPPY was bad for him. I thought: ‘What are they telling him?’ Before HIPPY, I thought that kids should be seen and not heard, and someone else should look after them. My parents never read to me or talked to me or played with me. All I ever got from them was a hiding. My mum only ever came to school if I was in trouble. Now, I am a teacher of kōhanga reo. I am part-way through a 4-year course. I know my whole whakapapa now on the Māori side and way back to a Scottish ancestor, as well. The biggest difference HIPPY has made to us is that I am here at all. I am here for Kūpā. My dream for Kūpā: I don’t want him to lose his smile.”

And to the sceptical Opposition members of Parliament who are still opposed to the rehabilitation and re-integration policies spelt out in this bill and being practised by the Department of Corrections, I say they could do worse than to reflect on Leslie’s story in that book, and on what changed her from a life of offending and, therefore, from passing on to her children the culture of offending. She stated: “I was a drug addict for 15 years. I was addicted to heroin and I used speed every day, and I used to be on the methadone programme, as well. All my three kids were born addicted to drugs. They screamed and screamed. The doctors had to give them opium to calm them down and wean them off. It was horrible. I had a baby every 3 years. I was in a series of violent relationships. Our life was chaotic. Everywhere it was arguing. I was always stressed and disorganised. It was HIPPY that changed things. I really loved it, and I had to keep it together because someone was coming to my house once a week, and then I had to go to meetings. The HIPPY tutor saved my life and my children’s life. HIPPY gave me tools. It empowered me. They showed me how to be grown up and how to put my children first.”

We give the Department of Corrections the difficult task of dealing with people like Gordon and Leslie after they have offended. The point about this bill is that it is designed to be part of a whole system of saying we should work on people in the corrections system, but we should also work on their minds at the earliest opportunities and transfer them to re-integration. A focus on punishment is the focus of the Opposition. But going to prison is the punishment. How do we punish someone like Gordon or Leslie more than that? Was it punishment that changed their lives? If we listen to the professionals, whose work is reflected through this bill, then we hear them say we must implement targeted intervention, which the integrated offender management policy practices, and we must deal with the underlying causes.

That is why it is important to actually understand the principles in clause 6 of this bill—and I do not think that Opposition members have actually read them. Clause 6(1) states: “(a) the maintenance of public safety is the paramount consideration in decisions about the management of persons under control or supervision: (b) victims’ interests must be considered in decisions related to the management of persons under control or supervision: (c) in order to reduce the risk of reoffending, the cultural background, ethnic identity, and language of offenders must, where appropriate and to the extent practicable within the resources available, be taken into account … (ca) offenders must, where appropriate and so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, be provided with access to any process designed to promote restorative justice …”. Those are the principles and that is the pattern behind this bill, which incorporates the best practices, as observed over many years and practised by those who actually understand what they are talking about.

As to the question of the Auckland Central Remand Prison, that prison was the result of ideology, all right. It was the result of the National Party washing its hands of responsibility for the social and environmental issues that cause offending. It got rid of the prison, so it could turn it over to a private provider. The plan was to turn the whole prison system over to private providers. That ideology, which sprang from the Richard Prebble – Roger Douglas period and the period of the National Government of the 1990s, was one of actually ridding ourselves of all State-owned assets—something that New Zealand First at one stage said it was against. When most assets were gone, the privateers looked elsewhere. One of the places it looked at was the prison system. That was nothing to do with having a better system or with rehabilitation, and was all to do with profit. And the remand prison is a remand prison. It does not deal with long-term serious offenders. The whole gambit of offending has to be dealt with in the public system.

The parts of the Auckland Central Remand Prison that are good can and will be transferred into the public system. I would like to ask those members who say that they have the confidence of Māori, and that they have listened to Māori, to actually go to the Māori focus units and talk to people like Mita Mohi, who is a legend inside the prison system. I ask them to listen to the inmates who have gone through the Māori programmes and the Pacific programmes, and then to say that nothing is being done. They should talk to all the iwi and rūnanga that have relationships with the prison. All that commendable work has been done by the present Government.

One cannot help but reflect on the last comment made by the Government senior whip, who praised Mr Robson’s speech. It is quite extraordinary that she should have done that, because for the last minute—and only in the last minute—Mr Robson felt it necessary to condemn the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison. Of course, in doing so he was completely oblivious to the facts, and that is why National has said that this bill is a monument to ideology. We say that for the reason that the Government is persisting in closing down a private prison, even though all the evidence says the Government should keep it in private management. I suspect that one of the reasons Mr Robson waited until the very last minute to discuss that prison—and only on being prompted by an interjection—is that he knows that is true. He knows it is an embarrassment to have to get up in Parliament today and pass a bill that represents a vote against practical experience. It is surely the refuge of the desperate to prefer ideology over common sense. I would like to remind Mr Robson—because I am sure he knows this saying—of the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s saying that it does not matter whether the cat is black or white, if it catches mice. In other words, should we not prefer real-life experience over ideology?

Let us look at the facts. The cost of remanding a prisoner at the Auckland Central Remand Prison is $43,000 per annum. In a public remand prison, publicly managed, the cost is $54,000. If that is not enough, one has only to visit that prison to get a real sense of the difference between the two systems. I know that Mr Robson has, in fact, visited the Auckland Central Remand Prison, and that is why he knows why it works. I guess that is why he spent so much time on referring in his speech to the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters. As Mr Robson knows, that is also an example of the private sector providing more effective programmes than the State. He spent, I suppose, something like 5 minutes of his speech on praising the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters—and it is well that he should, because it is a successful programme that was implemented by National. The programme works because it is detached from the public sector and is not besotted with a huge bureaucracy, but has people who work effectively on the ground.

I have visited quite a number of the prisons of New Zealand. I must admit that I was initially sceptical about the issue of private prisons, because I had thought that that was a core area of State activity. I was convinced by what I saw. I saw the most effective prison in New Zealand’s history being run really well, not just in a sense of keeping the public safe but also in terms of getting a new attitude, both within the staff and on the part of remand prisoners themselves. And it is not just a question of remand prisoners, because approximately one-third of the prisoners are actually sentenced prisoners, or, in other words, people who have been convicted by the courts and are serving their sentence. So, in fact, the Auckland Central Remand Prison is not only a remand prison. Members will be interested to know, as I am sure Government members do know if they have thought about this issue or taken their ideological blinkers off, that there is actually a demand by sentenced prisoners to get into the remand prison. They want to go there because it is such a good prison. There are work opportunities, greater educational opportunities than in the public prisons, and basically a better environment for rehabilitation, because the bond of trust that is built up between the staff and prisoners sets up the climate for effective rehabilitation.

We have heard in the House today about many of the deep-seated problems of the public prison service. Some people referred to the “goon squad”, and others referred to the problem of sexual relations between staff and prisoners. All those things tell us that the culture of the public prisons is wrong, and that it has led to a poorly performing prison service. I find it extraordinary that the Government has a $500 million programme to build new prisons, at approximately $250 million per prison—one up in the far north, and one in the mid-Waikato area. In contrast the remand prison, built along the most modern lines drawn from the United States and clearly effective, cost $40 million—one-quarter of that price. I know Government members will say that is because it is only a remand prison. Well, I ask the Government why there is a big demand from sentenced prisoners to go and serve their sentences in that prison? Why can we not repeat that prison around the country? Frankly, in the words of Deng Xiaoping, if the cat catches mice it works, so we should keep it. That is the message. That is the lesson from the People’s Republic of China, and its Government had to do the most revolutionary change: a change from pure communist ideology to the free market. It did that because it works, and that, surely, is the lesson from Australasian Correctional Management’s running of the remand prison.

I found it absolutely extraordinary today to listen to the Green member. It was probably his most animated speech in my several years here in the House. One has to ask why the Greens find a private prison so fearful a prospect that they have put their deepest energies and ideological commitment into opposing it. What is wrong with that party? Then I reflected on the fact that the senior Government whip exhorted members on the Opposition side of the House to listen carefully to the Green member, because we would learn something. I guess that tells us something, does it not? It tells us that the Government’s preferred coalition partner is the Green Party. That is what the Government will be offering the country just 12 months from now—an unholy alliance between Labour and the Greens! I can tell the country, and the Government, that the public will not buy it. That is why Mr Marc Alexander will have an opportunity to vote for common sense, because he will be voting for a National-led Government in a little over 1 year’s time.

I just want to close on this ironical point. Mr Marc Alexander gave a very good speech today—thoughtful and considered. He, and the United Future party, will vote against this bill. The irony is this: tomorrow the United Future members will vote for the money to fund this bill. Is that not extraordinary? This is a time for the United Future party to recognise that the Government has failed. Every day during question time we see the look of despondency and despair on the faces of Government members. Nowhere was that more evident than with Mr Tamihere today. I know for a fact that he did not believe one word of his earlier speech. When it gets to the stage whereby a senior Government Minister has to basically argue against his own beliefs, one knows that the Government has failed. There will be a judgment day in just a few months’ time.

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate, because I think our corrections policy in this country is very important, particularly when we consider the disproportionate number of Māori and Pacific inmates in our jails.

Earlier I heard some comments about a lack of initiatives for Pacific and Māori inmates. I am concerned that the wrong perception is being created in this debate, because there has been the development of a Pacific strategy, and I was recently involved in launching it in Hastings. I want to acknowledge one specific gentleman, Luki Purcell, who has worked very hard on that strategy. He served in the Department of Corrections for a very long time, and has recently retired.

The strategy provides a direction from July 2002 to June 2005 for reducing reoffending by Pacific offenders. It is a pilot scheme, and I believe it is a very positive initiative. It illustrates what this Government is trying to do in terms of preventive and rehabilitation work to ensure that inmates do not reoffend when they come out of prison. It looks at how they integrate with the community, at how they go back into society, and at some of the positive things that the link with the community can do for the rehabilitation of inmates.

This bill enhances a lot of good work, and the focus in relation to private prisons is not accurate when we look at the figures. Although there have perhaps been some good initiatives—particularly in relation to some of the advisory groups within the community that have been established with the private prison—I see no reason why that cannot also be the case for the public prisons. Certainly, it is clear that it is cheaper economically to run public prisons compared with private prisons.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Nonsense!

The facts before me show that it costs $36,000 per inmate at a public prison, compared with $42,000 at the Auckland Central Remand Prison. So it is certainly a lot cheaper, according to the figures that I have been given.

There is no question in my mind that the public prison system is just as effective and efficient as private prisons overseas. I believe that the responsibility of locking people up and monitoring them—and of ensuring that the job is done properly—is the responsibility of the Government, not of some private company.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: They would sell the prisons.

That is right. I am concerned that a disproportionate number of certain sections of our community is represented in the jail population. I am pleased it is this Government’s policy to ensure that those who are prison guards reflect our communities.

There is also a concern about the location of prisons. I know that for a long time it has been a very big problem that inmates have become dislocated from their families and homes, particularly as a large number of Māori and Pacific people in prisons are shifted to the South Island, or to prisons further south from their families. That has resulted in a lot of requests—and I am sure that my colleague John Tamihere appreciates this, because he gets a lot of representations in his electorate office, as I do—from families who are trying to have inmates shifted closer so they can visit them. I have had many representations in relation to inmates who are in prisons in Wanganui, Wellington, and the South Island. The representations have also been in relation to residential custody facilities for youth, where some young inmates have been dislocated from their families. It is very important to take that into account when it comes to legislation, and in terms of our future planning.

I believe that this bill is due and is warranted because of some of the changes to legislation made by this Government, which is really getting tough on offending. The Government is tough on crime and, as a result, our corrections system has to change to meet the tougher measures that this Government has put in place. Labour is committed to reducing recidivism and to utilising, where appropriate, restorative and reintegrative justice policies to ensure that the rate of reoffending is reduced.

Early intervention will be emphasised in the Budget announcements tomorrow. I think that in the justice and corrections area we will see some real direction in funding to ensure that those rehabilitative and early intervention programmes are put in place and are properly funded.

On this side of the House we believe that prevention is better than cure. It is better to look at preventing people from going to jail, at preventing people from offending and committing crime, rather than ending up in jail. That is the philosophy behind this bill. We are very supportive of the bill and of the programmes that have been put in place to involve the community in the rehabilitation of inmates.

I wish to make a short contribution on the Corrections Bill that, if I time it correctly, should end just prior to 6 o’clock. The matters relating to the ideological nature of this bill have been well canvassed by those who spoke before me, in particular the Hon Tony Ryall, Dr Wayne Mapp, and my colleague from New Zealand First Ron Mark. Many of those issues have been well canvassed.

I want to concentrate on two issues. The first relates to the bizarre and ongoing oddity that is United Future’s support for bits of legislation—when its members stand in this House and tell the New Zealand public that they detest the direction the Government is taking in respect of, for example, the canning of a private remand prison contract, and when, tomorrow, they will march in here and, at 2.40 p.m. to 2.50 p.m., provide the Labour and Progressive parties with the necessary numbers for confidence and supply to continue to run this Government.

I want to give the United Future members a very clear message, in very simple terms—a message I am sure they will understand. I know that Marc Alexander, who will be listening carefully to what I have to say on this issue, will share this view, given his contributions on this bill. I say to United Future members that the public will not distinguish, bill by bill, when they are standing on the platforms at the next election—[Interruption] Jill Pettis is having a little chuckle over there. That is because she knows I am right that the public will not make that distinction. The only conclusion the public will come to is that United Future provided the votes and the support for legislation like this to pass through the House. In the public’s mind, the Government’s ideology is United Future’s ideology. It is as simple as that.

I know there are United Future members who feel extremely uncomfortable about that course of action. Let me offer those members an option—an option that will solve the problem of the Government’s ideology being completely indistinguishable from United Future’s ideology. The option is this: do not vote for the Budget tomorrow. It is very straightforward. If the United Future members who come down to this House and preach to this Parliament about virtue, honesty, and choosing the right road, which we heard in the general debate today, stuck to their guns and voted the Budget down tomorrow, then they could hold their heads high in this Parliament and say that they are different from the minority Labour-Progressive Government. They could then go on the platforms around this country during the election campaign next year and say that they held the Government to account. But they will not do that, and that is a sad indictment on a party that says it believes in honesty, principle, virtue, and, more important, common sense. I have a message for those members: watch the worm turn the other way. At the next election their ideology will be indistinguishable from that of members sitting on the Government benches.

I conclude my short contribution to this debate by saying that when legislation reaches the Committee of the whole House—and, in respect of this bill, I to refer to what is commonly known in prison lingo as the “Prebble section”, which is clause 71, relating to bedding—and members of this Parliament have to amend a substantive section of it at that stage, then that says to me that it is sloppy law. It is sloppy, ideological law that needs to be amended on the way through, after the select committee process. The public will remember that at election time. They will remember that United Future passed this legislation because its members supported the Budget that will be delivered tomorrow.