Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. The passage of this bill is long overdue. The previous Government promised to clamp down on contraband, but, as with so many other law and order bills, it allowed this bill to languish on the Order Paper for months. The previous Government had the opportunity to push through this legislation, but it did not take that opportunity. It did not do so because cracking down on crimes run from inside prisons was never a priority. In contrast, we have given the passing of this legislation a high priority, because there is an urgent need to improve the safety and security of our prison system, and to better protect the public from high-risk offenders who are released into the community. The bill is an important first step towards achieving those objectives.

I do not intend to give a lengthy summary of the bill. Its content was well covered in the recent second reading debate. I would like to highlight a few of its provisions that will help to make our prisons more effective. First, it is essential to stop drugs and other contraband getting into our prisons. Among other things, the bill makes it an offence for visitors to have unauthorised items in a prison without reasonable excuse. It also extends powers to search areas such as staff lockers.

Drug testing is an important means of controlling drug use by prisoners. It is therefore important to ensure the integrity of testing procedures. The bill does this by providing for retesting where a sample is found to be diluted or contaminated, and for strip-searching of prisoners who are about to be retested.

The use of cellphones by prisoners threatens prison security and public safety. This matter is addressed by giving specific legislative authority to detect, monitor, and jam cellphones in prisons. At the same time, there is protection for telephone companies and their legitimate customers, because the bill prohibits harmful interference with cellphone use outside prison boundaries.

It is totally unacceptable that some prisoners have been able to abuse the mail system to organise crimes and to threaten people. We know that letters containing threats, plans for further offending, and other prohibited communications have been leaving prisons. This will not be tolerated. Under the bill, prisoners’ private correspondence may be read routinely by authorised officers. Correspondence with official agencies, members of Parliament, and legal advisers will continue to be protected. When highest-risk prisoners are released from prison, there needs to be a coordinated approach to their management in the community. This bill assists in that regard by providing for police, the Department of Corrections, and, where appropriate, relevant social agencies to enter into information-sharing agreements for the purpose of monitoring highest-risk offenders.

The present bill is part of a broader Government strategy to improve the prison system. I have directed the Department of Corrections to work on a range of important initiatives. These include, amongst other things, boosting the numbers of prisoners learning industry-based skills, doubling the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment, and reviewing the screening and treatment of prisoners with mental health problems.

We also intend to introduce and pass legislation that will allow for competitive tendering for the management of prisons, on a case by case basis. The Auckland Central Remand Prison was successfully managed by a private company for 5 years, but the prison had to revert to public management because of legislation passed by the previous Government. We believe there could be substantial benefits from private sector involvement in the management of prisons.

The Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) makes a significant contribution to the safe and effective management of the prison system and of the highest-risk offenders released into the community. Many people who look at this bill and who are listening to this debate would wonder why this was not done a long time ago. There is nothing in this bill that does not reek of common sense.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There appears to be a member on the far side of the House who is talking on a cellphone. I think that is a breach of Speakers’ rulings.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. If the member wants to use her cellphone, she must go out into the lobby. I ask the member to continue.

I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to support the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). I would do that, of course, because it was authored by the previous Government. I listened carefully to the Minister of Corrections, and I must say that she made an interesting contribution, which was rather measured, in stark contrast to the rather colourful tough-person statements she has made both in this House and outside this House. These statements may well lead to her and the taxpayer’s dollar being in jeopardy.

💬 Hon Member: Never, mate.

I do not cost the taxpayer money, mate, unlike the member’s colleague. It is interesting that the Minister entered the fray on this bill only in the Committee stage—her colleague Simon Power took it through the first and second reading stages. She made some rather uncharitable and factually incorrect comments, if I can say that tactfully so that I am not in breach of the Standing Orders. For instance, I recall in the Committee stage that that member said it was outrageous that members of the public were charged a fee to visit Spring Hill Corrections Facility.

💬 Hon Member: Were they?

Yes, they were. She paraded this fact as some sort of outrage, but as usual it was a little half-truth. She never told the New Zealand people why. It is true they were charged. Why? Because the Department of Corrections decided to have a charitable event—and without bringing the Deputy Speaker into the debate, he has acknowledged that; I think he knows the area well—to raise money for a charity. So members of the public could visit Spring Hill, and the money they paid was donated to charity. But charity is a word that does not come easily to that Minister. She is not charitable in nature, from the bile she puts upon this House from time to time.

She gives little half-truths, like on the issue of telecommunications, which she waxed so eloquent about in terms of how long it took. I read the transcript of what her colleague Simon Power said about the telecommunications issue. Quite rightly, he pointed out that the technology had not advanced to the point where, say, one could block out just the telecommunications of prisoners in Mt Eden without taking out large portions of the telecommunications of the surrounding residential area. But, oh no! Charity and charitable words do not come easily to Ms Collins. She gave us a little half-truth to try to justify her position.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: This is a very personal speech.

No, it is not a personal speech. I am laying some facts on the table, unlike that member, who tells little half-truths and is very slippery with the facts. I am pleased to support this bill. [Interruption] Of course, the Government members do not like it; they are on a wee skewer today and they do not like it. This is a good bill, because under the previous Government, which proposed this bill—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep the level of interjections down, please.

I am indebted to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But, actually, you can let them go, because the inane way in which they make their contributions somehow bolsters Ms Collins’ position as a person who has very little charity—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to bring the member back to the bill. He is giving a rant of personal abuse, but to get back to the bill would, I think, be helpful to the House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is some fairness and equity in what the member is saying, but this is a robust debate and these are debating points.

Let us be very clear. It is not personal to point out half-truths by that Minister in regard to Spring Hill and the communications issue. But I do say that under the last Government, which authored and introduced this bill, there was an 84 percent reduction in prison escapes. We know that very clearly. We know also that in the 3 months that this Minister has ranted and raved around the country, there have been more escapes, especially in relation to her police portfolio, than in the last 3 years. So her credibility now totters on the edge of the knife.

The last Government, of course, reduced drug taking in prisons. Drug taking in prisons was less than half what it was when the National Government left office in 1999. But this Minister stands up and takes credit for this legislation, as she stood as the Minister of Police and took credit for the opening of the Counties-Manukau police station. She said the station was an illustration of the Government’s commitment to law and order, when, of course, it was built, paid for, and allocated under the last Labour Government. It is great to take credit for the last Government’s provision of services! Also, fewer inmates were returning positive drug tests. Labour put in place something that I think was very practical. We put in 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing so that we did not have cases—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They used to have an open door at Wanganui Prison.

My colleague says they used to have an open-door policy at Wanganui Prison. I do recall that the previous National Government’s Minister of Corrections, Nick Smith, presided over the Department of Corrections when a chap with a saline drip on a stand managed to outrun the prison guards and vault the fence. Actually, I do not think there was any perimeter fencing around some of the lower-security prisons.

I am very happy to support the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). It is robust and it also provides some technological future-proofing for our prisons. Indeed, I will look with interest as we proceed to implement this legislation, and as an Opposition we will hold the Government to account by the same standard with which members opposite held us to account when we were in office.

I recall the words of the now justice Minister, Simon Power, when he said that two escapes in a week was a worry. I have asked Judith Collins what six escapes constitute, and how she would characterise six escapes in a week under her watch. Her response was, at first, silence, then to say that it was an operational matter and it was nothing to do with her, and then to come out and bag the previous Government. When we were in Government we did not allow those six prisoners to escape, but this Government does not provide any support for the victims or reassurance for the community. Her only action, as she said in this House some time ago, was to run around the country visiting prisons and to ask everybody else how she should do her job. I would have thought that after 9 years in Opposition she would come to this House with a plan. In effect she has; but it is our plan, our bill—we authored it when Labour was in Government.

Now Judith Collins goes to the Department of Corrections officials to ask: “What should I do? I have had six escapes in a week. My colleague Simon Power said two was a worry under the last crowd, but what do you think I should I do?”. The Government does not like it. To use the Dad’s Army expression: “They don’t like it up ’em, the old cold steel.” Government members do not like it when we bring facts and when we prove that they tell half-truths. Then what they do is to characterise it as personal by saying: “Oh, Cosgrove, you’re making a personal attack on the Minister.” If it is a personal attack to correct the record over half-truths about Spring Hill and about the telecommunications technology, then I say to colleagues that I stand guilty as charged. It is not a personal attack to bring that Minister to account.

I support this bill, the Opposition supports this bill, and we support it because we authored it. I invite the Minister in her own unique, “charitable” way to give credit where credit is due rather than, as she has done as Minister of Police, wander around the countryside taking credit for police stations that were funded and built by us, and say that they were her commitment to fighting crime. If her only commitment to fighting crime is to congratulate herself on what the previous Government did, then goodness knows what will happen to the safety and security of the community.

It was a good decision to call that member. Listening to the former Minister Clayton Cosgrove speak, one would think he was speaking in opposition to the bill. In fact, I thought that maybe the Labour members had done a U-turn halfway through the discussions today and come up with a decision that they were no longer going to support a bill that, as the former Minister said, was drafted by the previous Government and has been modified—I guess we could say—and brought into Parliament by the current new Government.

Listening to the member, I was a bit perplexed as to where he was heading, but the reality is this legislation is something that should have been done at least 8 years ago. It has been in the pipeline for so long that it is a wonder that it did not disappear like a lot of other legislation on the Order Paper such as the trout amendment bill and various other bits and pieces that hung around there—I think they have been there for successive Governments.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to clarify that it was not Labour that removed that legislation from the Order Paper; it was National.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

I not sure how to respond to that. It is not often that I end up in a situation where I am not sure how to respond to a member like that. The reality is that the bill has been in the pipeline for a long, long time; it is well overdue. It does a number of things and perhaps it is time we started to talk about some of the things that the bill does.

One of the things the bill does is to make it much more difficult now for criminals inside prison to communicate with the outside world, particularly when that communication is not in the best interests of justice. In fact, in a lot of cases, communication was taking place to further enhance prisoners’ criminal activity both inside the prison and outside. That is one of the things the bill deals with. As the Minister of Corrections said in her speech, it does so by using modern technology that, hopefully, will not interfere with legitimate telecommunications activity outside the prison. I know that that technology has advanced substantially in recent times. We will have to wait and see, but we are assured that that is the case.

The legislation also brings about a situation where, finally, when people go into prison they will have to adhere to what the jury and judge dished out in regard to the punishment they were supposed to receive, what they are allowed to take in and out of the prison, what they are allowed to do within the prison itself, and how they are allowed to carry out their legitimate business. It should also bring an end to the kind of—I guess one could say—covert activity that has gone on over the years within our prisons in regard to dealing in drugs, and other illicit activity.

It always astounds people when they find out that a criminal, for whatever reason, has been able to carry out some kind of commercial or drug-dealing activity when supposedly in jail. Hopefully, this bill will send a message to those people and give the Department of Corrections the opportunity to do something about that in a way that it has never had before. Those are very positive outcomes. A number of different anecdotal statements have come back to us as members of Parliament about the kind of activity that some prisoners are engaged in: intimidating witnesses, writing coded letters to supposedly their personal friends or loved ones, and suchlike. Hopefully, the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) will help to bring about changes to some of that behaviour.

I was interested that the previous speaker went on about the fact that some of his criticism had been interpreted as a personal attack on the Minister. I know that the Minister will take any type of personal attack that that member wants to dish out. It certainly will not have any effect on her response to the way our laws are drafted. So if the member thought he could in some way intimidate the Minister with that bluster, then I suspect he is mistaken in his judgment. I also suspect that, if anything, his approach will help this side of the House have some clarity about the fact that this bill is overdue. It should have been done by the previous Government. The legislation has been necessary for a long time. It will bring about changes that most decent people will say are the right changes, and potentially will help us have better control over what happens in our prisons. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am happy to speak on the third reading of a bill that—as has rightly been pointed out by previous speakers—was drafted and introduced by the previous Labour Government. I am pleased to see that virtually the only criticism that has been aimed at the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) has been that it was not introduced sooner. I think that stands the bill in good stead in terms of its content. Generally, the debate around this bill has been productive. I have to say that that held true until we reached the Committee of the whole House stage and what I perceived to be a most un-ministerial display by the Minister of Corrections when she made a speech on the bill.

I think this debate is an opportunity for us to clarify a bit more of the context that surrounded the bill when it was first introduced. If we reflect back on the situation when Labour came into Government, we see that, beginning in the 1990s, drug use in prisons was endemic. We have to acknowledge that drug use in our prisons in the 1990s was a massive problem. In fact, by 1999, 34 percent of inmates were testing positive for drug use. That is a fact that has been brought out many times before. It is not something that has been disputed by either side of the House. We also had a high rate of prison escapes. That is also something that has not been disputed by either side of this House.

Labour did have a response. It was claimed during the Committee of the whole House stage that there were 9 years of inaction. That is an absolute half-truth and a “mistruth”. I would not go so far as to say it is a lie, because I know that is outside the Standing Orders. Labour introduced the Corrections Act in 2003 in response to all of those issues. As a result, drug use halved. That is not something this House can dispute; drug use halved.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How would you know?

Because we have the facts, the numbers, and the drug tests to display. Unlike members on the other side of the House, who think evidence is something to be bandied around at will, we choose to use it to back up the legislation we introduce.

We also saw the number of prison escapes drop dramatically. In fact, prison escapes per 100 prisoners were just under one-sixth of the escape numbers under National, so there was a dramatic decrease. But we recognised that more could have been done. That is why we introduced this amendment bill. I am pleased to see it now being progressed through the House.

Those issues are not the only ones raised by the Minister that require correction—and I will pick up on a couple that were not mentioned by Mr Cosgrove in his address to the House. There was quite a significant rant by the Minister about prisons being luxurious. It is a myth that she has perpetuated in the House—and beyond. It is a myth that I notice seemed to stop circulating about 90 days ago when she took up the post of Minister of Corrections. Apparently, the day Judith Collins took over as Minister of Corrections, prisons stopped being these luxurious places. In 24 hours everything in those prisons changed, apparently. Apparently, prisons are no longer the luxurious places she claimed they were under Labour. Any member of this House who has visited a prison will know that—as the public described when they went to Spring Hill for a charitable event—our prison system fulfils its requirements. They described it as chilling. Our prisons have been described by that Minister as luxurious. If she still believes that to be the case, then I would be interested to know what it is about our prisons that, in that regard, she plans to change.

I will not reiterate any more of the finer details of the bill. There is something I want to highlight, though—a statement made by Simon Power in his first reading speech before this bill went to the select committee. He stated that the select committee process would “determine whether these issues need the type of approach that the Government is offering, or whether in fact we need to be tighter than the approach the Government is offering.” We have not seen any substantive changes made either by the Government or, I would say, by the select committee, and that again demonstrates that this amendment bill got it right in its original bar 1 text.

I will dwell for a moment on a couple of changes that were not addressed by the select committee. We were looking at trying to reduce the incidence of contraband in prisons. Two issues that this bill does not pick up on contribute to the problem of contraband: the size of the prison muster and the ability of staff to deal with it. We have seen several bills come through this House that will directly impact on the prison muster. We all know in this House that as a consequence of those bills we will see an increase in our muster.

The Government claims it is putting forward ideas that will deal with our increasing prison numbers. The first one, which we heard about just recently, is the increased use of private prisons. I want to reiterate the Labour Party’s position on this issue. Labour’s position—as it has always been—is that prisons are a core public service. They are part of what the State and the Government provide. There is a reason that we perceive it to be that way. If private enterprise enters into the provision of prisons, it will do it for one reason and one reason alone—profit. For what other reason would private enterprise enter into provision of prison services? We already know; we need just to look at the numbers. Under the public provision of prisons we are looking at a prison remand cost of $36,000. If we look at the numbers under private provision, we are looking at a cost of $42,000. Profit is the No. 1 reason. And the State has other things it needs to achieve in its provision of prison services. One element is retribution—fulfilling society’s requirement that civil liberties are denied. The other is rehabilitation, which is a core part of the prison service, as well.

We need to keep in mind that the prison muster will directly have an impact on contraband. But the second thing the Government is proposing is the use of prefab prisons, or Lego prisons as I have heard them called in the UK. The UK imported them from China. I am not sure whether that is part of the Government’s vision, as well. I am not sure whether there are Resource Management Act concerns. Perhaps, to get round those, the Government could turn those prefab prisons into mobile prefab prisons and circulate them around various communities so that there will be only a little bit of complaining every once in a while.

We need to remind the Government that the wider issue of contraband is not about just the provisions in this bill; it is about the Government’s ability to deal with prison numbers, it is about the staff working within its prison service, and it is about the operational provision of prisons—whether they are private or public. These all impact on the issues that the Government is trying to deal with in this bill. I urge the Government, now that we are soon to pass a bill that both sides of the House agree on, to start considering the wider issues that will impact on contraband.

I rise to speak in the final reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). My view on it has not changed since I spoke during the second reading. The bill is a reasonably good start, I suppose. It will give staff of the Department of Corrections, when they are not engaged in other things, the right to search prisoners for contraband. It will allow for random searches of staff lockers, which, sadly, is sorely needed. This week an absolutely damning report has been released, which not only implicates Mr Barry Matthews but goes further down.

In talking about contraband, I say that it is illusory to think that this bill will stop cellphones and drugs getting into prisons. It might help to curb access to contraband a bit better, but, as I said in my second reading speech, the only real way to stop it is to have only non-contact visits, where even lawyers must sit in a separate room and communicate with the prisoner by telephone. I have seen with my own eyes that that completely stops contraband and cellphones getting into prisons. This bill is nothing more than a reasonably good start.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it doesn’t. What about crooked guards?

Well, exactly! That is why there is a provision in the bill to search guards’ lockers. Sadly it is necessary. It should not be, but it is. As the previous National speaker said, we found a drug ring being run by cellphone from Auckland prison. Apparently several members of the drug ring allegedly made millions of dollars. What a disgraceful indictment on the previous system.

We have also seen much hand-wringing from members on the other side. Perhaps I should not put it like that, because it is correct that many prisoners have drug and alcohol issues. It is also correct that prisoners should be offered treatment, but how can they possibly be offered treatment if prisons are awash with drugs? Some criminal lawyer friends and colleagues say that drugs are easier to get inside prison that outside. At least the dealers are close by. As I have already said, the provisions relating to cellphone communications are a good start, but the only real way to stop cellphone usage is to prevent contact visits.

The ACT Party supports this bill. It will give Department of Corrections staff some more tools in their arsenal. But it goes nowhere near far enough. Thank you.

One of the facts that really stood out in the Department of Corrections’ post-election briefing to its Minister was the fact that the majority of offenders have histories of addiction and substance abuse that have typically contributed to their offending. The statistic that said it all was that a massive 90 percent of inmates fall into this category. Nine out of every 10 prisoners have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. What we know, too, is that if these same inmates do not receive treatment while in prison, there is an impossibly high chance that, upon release, their addiction will lead to criminal behaviour that leads the offenders right back through the prison gates. It is a vicious cycle in which the revolving prison door places relentless pressure on the economy and a heavy burden on society.

What we are talking about is not just the 7,900 inmates who currently occupy our prisons; we are talking about the children, the partners, and the parents of these inmates. We are talking about the 29,000 staff who work in the justice sector. If the forecasting is right, the pressures on prison capacity will get even worse, with the projected increase to 10,700 inmates by 2016. This is population growth that nobody welcomes. The impetus, then, to get it right is incredibly important. This bill is a step in the right direction.

The Māori Party fully supports the intention to improve the operation of the corrections system, to move with the times, and to respond to some of the technological advances that challenge the sector. Our overriding caution, however, is that the amendments in this bill will certainly allow a clean sweep of the system, but what we worry about is the amount of dirt still swept under the mat. By dirt I am referring to the rubbish that is smuggled in by loved ones and staff, the substances that addle minds, hype up the paranoia, add fuel to an explosive temper, and become the key ingredient in conflict and dispute.

The vital need to address drug and alcohol abuse has been swept under the carpet, while we deal to search, detection, and offence provisions. It is a bit like the perennial problem of Governments that become fixated on building prisons rather than investing in solutions. The new Minister of Corrections has been confronted with the fact that the downstream effects of Labour’s policies have created a massive demand for prison beds, spiralling up to 2,200 more beds—the equivalent of four new prisons. The taxpayer is counting the cost of a prison system that continues to breed failure by building jails and incarcerating people, but ignores the critical issues and systemic failure that lead to criminal offending in the first place.

But there is good news at hand. The Māori Party is delighted that our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples has been appointed Associate Minister of Corrections. Dr Sharples has spoken often in this House of his desire to enhance the mana of all people in society, and especially those caught up in the criminal justice system, by promoting a system based on restorative principles and less on adversarial principles. It is a principle that, clearly, this Government has recognised as desperately needed in a criminal justice system that fails to invest in the restoration of relationships, and ignores the imperative to inspire offenders to address the issues that led to offending.

It is a principle also that Ombudsman Mel Smith promoted in his inquiry into the criminal justice sector in 2007. In his report he concluded: “I believe that statements from politicians are necessary which challenge the ‘more imprisonment’ panacea.

I am of the view that such statements will be heard with a great deal more sympathy than is superficially apparent, as my investigation leads me to conclude that there is much wider public support for, and social acceptance of, an approach to offenders based on humanity, rather than retrebrition,”—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Retribution.

—I thank the Minister—“than is apparent from headlines.” This is good news.

💬 Hon Member: Who wrote this rubbish?

It is the Ombudsman’s fault for using that word.

What he said is good news. It is a debate well worth having. In their various contracts across the State sector, chief executives of Government departments are required to contribute to public debate in their field. We look forward to the chief executives of the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections leading this debate about the things that really matter: the three R’s of rehabilitation, restoration, and reintegration.

I have broadened our debate on this bill to ensure that we have a sharp focus on the whole operation of the corrections system, not just the various measures that are being introduced to improve incrementally the control of contraband in prisons. Make no mistake: the heightened emphasis on operational measures to restrict contraband, to monitor prisoner mail and telephone calls, to disable and jam cellphones, and to increase information sharing with the police are all worthy goals. And we are particularly pleased that amongst the legislative measures is the understanding that the offence provisions will apply to all inmates and staff.

The bill specifies a whole range of precise indicators. The additional search powers will now apply to staff lockers and spaces. There are detection provisions regarding drug and alcohol testing. There are new offence provisions regarding sample tampering. There is a consistent standard that all mail can be read in order to determine whether there are grounds for it to be withheld. There is authority for the department to intercept, monitor, disable, disrupt, and interfere with wireless transmission to prevent cellphone use. And the bill now enables information to be shared with the police, and to be extended to relevant social agencies. These are all important means of achieving compliance with law reform to improve the operations of the corrections system.

The smuggling of cellphones into prison has long been a problem. Having access to mobile technology ensures access to a means to organise criminal activity. Access to a mobile can also provide the opportunity for those on the inside to harass and threaten victims, witnesses, or other members of the public on the outside. Furthermore, increasing the capacity to monitor prisoners’ telephones calls increases the chance of being able to prevent illegal activities or the harassment of members of the public by inmates.

It is, of course, noteworthy that the staff of prisons are to be included within the scope of this bill. We do, of course, recall that there have been unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct and corruption laid against staff at Rimutaka Prison in the last 2 years, and that many of those staff were Māori. Bearing this in mind, Māori Party members will be watching carefully to see that these new provisions do not, in fact, escalate harassment of prison staff, and Māori staff in particular.

Finally, I return to the dirt under the mat. The Department of Corrections administers a screening test of offenders at the pre-sentence stage. That test can be used to develop sentence plans, and to refer inmates to appropriate services, including prison-based drug treatment units. Currently, there are enough treatment places for about 500 prisoners per year. That is a mere 6 percent of the total muster. We know that substance abuse treatment does make a difference in minimising criminal behaviour and reducing the recidivism rate. Treatment, if associated with community supervision and social support upon release, is even more likely to be successful. Although we support this bill as a very positive move to ensure that search, detection, and offence provisions are introduced to improve the justice system, we cannot rest easy until a comprehensive approach is taken to address drug and alcohol abuse, to provide effective education and training opportunities, and to invest in success rather than systematic failure. Thank you.

I am pleased to speak on the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). Firstly, I acknowledge the excellent work of the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Judith Collins. It has been outstanding. I also acknowledge the previous speaker, Rahui Katene. She was quite right when she said there is a lot of work to do.

The previous Government dragged the chain for 9 years. It dragged its heels and nothing happened until towards the end of that period of 9 years. It was disappointing to see that the minor parties opposed the inclusion of this bill in the legislation that went before the House before it rose for the 2008 election.

I agree with David Garrett that this is just the start. Let us face it, why should prisoners have cellphones? People seriously wonder why prisoners should even have televisions. This legislation takes a giant step forward in making sure that prisoners realise they have done the crime and must now give up the privileges that law-abiding New Zealanders enjoy, do the time, and do it hard—and rightly so.

New Zealanders are tired of criminals being seen as pandered to. On numerous occasions I have received, as I am sure a number of my colleagues have, emails that outline the rather innovative approach that is taken in Arizona. I am sure members are very aware of what I am talking about. Prisoners sleep in tents, wear pink overalls, and work on the roads in full public view so that they are shamed and do not want to reoffend. They do not get any luxuries. It is no surprise, then, that reoffending rates are incredibly low in Arizona. Offenders do not want to go back. A huge part of the population here in New Zealand wants to see that sort of tough approach to criminals in this country.

Another request I get constantly is that we go into contracts with the private sector and contract out prison services to Indonesia, or establish prisons on islands. That is the sort of comment that a big sector of the New Zealand public is making in relation to dealing with criminals in this country. New Zealanders have lost their patience on this matter. This bill is an acknowledgment to those people that, yes, we received that information, and, yes, we have heard their concerns, but we will not necessarily take that really hard-line approach. That is why I acknowledged the previous speaker.

This bill is a start. Changes contained in this legislation reinforce this Government’s tougher approach of clamping down on contraband, drugs, cellphones, and weapons in our prisons, and restricting the ability of prisoners to abuse the few privileges they have. Those prisoners should consider themselves lucky. All of these changes are long overdue, which is no wonder given that the previous Government had 9 years in office but did nothing.

Prisoners will now not be able to get on the phone and dial a prostitute. They will not be able to get on the phone and dial a drug ring. Once this bill is enacted we will be able to say: “Tough, get over it, shape up, ship out, and don’t come back.” We want to make sure that people in prisons really have time to think about what they are doing with their lives, and about the directions they are taking. We want them to be able, with further support, to get out there and have a productive, contributing, meaningful life where they get to enjoy the privileges that law-abiding New Zealanders have—where they can feel the wind on their face, feel the heat of the sun, feel the patter of the rain, and enjoy family and friends. That is what we enjoy. They should have the opportunity to do that, too, but unless they get with the programme they will not, and we do not want to make it easy for them.

My heart goes out to the victims, because they never felt they had the justice they deserved under the 9 long years of the previous Government. I will tell members one of the reasons for that. A former Minister stated in this House that he did not denounce criminals.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Who was that?

It was the Hon Jim Anderton. He did not denounce criminals. What is the opposite of denounce? Well, the opposite of denounce is condone. If you condone the activity and the actions of criminals, you do not support—[Interruption] I beg your pardon. My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker; I did not mean to bring you into the debate.

When a previous Minister says he does not denounce criminals, then by definition he condones their activities and their actions. Can any of the members opposite actually understand what it means to victims to hear a statement like that? I ask where the support is in such statements from an Opposition that thinks it is wrong to denounce criminals and that, by that definition, condones their actions. I think that is absolutely appalling. It is no wonder this bill languished for 9 long years and we did not have the sort of activity that should have taken place during the 9 years of the previous Government—now the Opposition.

In the last 9 years National has consistently highlighted the unacceptable levels of contraband within prisons. Upon release Rachealle Nāmana, the killer of 23-month old Lillybing, claimed that while in prison she had access to a range of drugs including P and to a cellphone on which she downloaded pornography. How about that! Labour is an Opposition that does not disclaim—what was the word I used?

💬 Hon Members: Denounce.

Thank you. I say to members bear that word in mind. The Opposition does not denounce criminal behaviour.

In 2006 a prostitute was found in the grounds of a Department of Corrections staff college near Rimutaka Prison after her services had been procured by an inmate using a cellphone. But we should not denounce that behaviour, should we? Is that what Opposition members say? In 2006 an inmate at Christchurch Prison was sending obscene text messages to women. Did the Opposition denounce that behaviour? No. And in 2006 P was being consumed in the exercise yard at Mount Eden Prison. Did the Opposition denounce that behaviour? No. What is the opposite of denounce? Why, it is to condone.

I would like to get that message very, very clearly across to the New Zealand public because I think it gives them a sense of the sort of ideology we are dealing with. That is why it is so important that we get things started, move across all fronts, and identify the precursors to crime and deal with them. We have to identify how we give support to those criminals to get them out of our prisons and back on to the streets as responsible New Zealand citizens. At the same time, if they have done their crime they have to do their time and do it hard.

I rise to speak in support of the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). I liked the tail end of the speech by the member for Coromandel, Sandra Goudie, when she began to talk about rehabilitation, about getting people back on the streets, and about reducing reoffending. But I say to the member that prior to that point in her speech my head was spinning with what was essentially a sort of tabloid horror show of crime stories. I want to finish the parliamentary week on a positive note, but I cannot pass up the opportunity to note what a display that last speech was of how low the standard of political debate has fallen.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, I tell you what, she has been sent here by an electorate, so—

I say to the member for Northcote that we are better than this. We are better than this. [Interruption] Well, we should be. Is this what our political system has fallen to? Is this what our political debate has fallen to concerning matters of crime and punishment? Do we want our politicians and political parties to engage their minds simply in outbidding each other on how tough they are, and in recounting an endless stream of stories—some kind of tabloid horror show of nasty criminals?

We do have problems in this country. We do face challenges in the field of crime and punishment. We have a proportion of our population behind bars that is one of the highest in the world—the highest outside the United States. We have high levels of recidivism. No one is proud of that. But if there were simple answers, then I tell members that those answers would have been implemented and turned into policy by now. I call on all of my parliamentary colleagues to lift the standard of debate and to talk about practical measures that will actually improve our justice and corrections system.

On that note, I say that I am happy to stand in support of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a practical bill, it is a reasonable bill, and I am proud that my Labour colleagues did the hard work in putting it together during the last term. The Corrections Act is relatively new legislation, and, generally, I think, pretty much all observers would say that it is working pretty well, but there are some fine-tuning amendments that need to be implemented.

Significant progress has been made over the last few years in this area. Prison escapes in the last 9 years were down by 84 percent to just one-sixth of escapes in the prior period. Drug taking fell to less than half of what it was in the period prior to 1999. Fewer inmates returned positive drug tests. Those are all very positive developments. But we need to meet some of the challenges that face us, in particular by cracking down on illicit drug use and on the illicit use of cellphones to conduct criminal enterprises from behind bars. That is one of the things that this bill seeks to achieve. It is a sensible bill, as I said. It is a practical bill, and I think it is patently self-evident to the New Zealand public that the conducting of illicit drug use and criminal activities within our prisons is utterly unacceptable.

I lend my support to my colleague Rahui Katene for her comments about the kind of problem that substance abuse poses in our corrections system. It is clearly a problem for the management of good order within prisons, but it is also a major factor in the high rate of recidivism. I am very proud that the previous Labour Government made big strides in the last 9 years in setting up additional drug treatment units within our prisons. I think that is very creditable. As far as recidivism goes, I think everybody knows that, along with high rates of illiteracy, high rates of substance abuse are among the factors that drive people on the road to crime. If we are serious about reducing reoffending, then helping people to get off drugs in prison is one of the best things that we can do.

In order to tackle the whole problem of contraband, the legislation has a number of very reasonable and very practical initiatives. It enhances provisions for the searching of staff lockers, amends the definition of “strip search” to allow a more comprehensive approach, provides for retesting of drug tests, and generally gives prison staff the tools that they need.

I noted with some amusement that both Caritas and the Catholic bishops made substantial submissions to the Law and Order Committee about their concern that the Act prohibited prisoners from consuming alcohol, even small quantities of wine, in connection with the celebration of Mass or Holy Communion. That iniquity has been addressed by the legislation. I do not know whether any of my colleagues can put me straight on this, but I wonder whether any Rastafarians made similar submissions to the select committee. It would be interesting to know the select committee’s response to that.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.