Franks Stephen: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4702] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Like the speaker who has just resumed his seat I would like to talk about something that was happening in 1954. I wonder whether it might induce a little bit of humility. In 1954 we were three-quarters of the way through 40 years in which the average murder rate in this country was two per year. It may be that they were doing something right back then and that this nonsense appeal to change the law because it is old is something that Labour ought to think about. I want to read something that has had more support from New Zealanders than any other document in this country. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A continual barracking I understand is not consistent with Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is right and the member will notice that I actually did call “Order!”. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry; I did not notice. Just on 4 years ago 2 million New Zealanders signified their consent to a single-sentence document. I do not think any other document has ever had that level of support. It read: “Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?”. This Corrections Bill is the final trashing of Norm Withers’ referendum with its 92 percent support. This Corrections Bill says explicitly that hard labour cannot even be contemplated. This bill says expressly that that part of the referendum must be ignored. 
This bill has also been said to form the final part of a trilogy with the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Those Acts and this bill together say that the only punishment of imprisonment is the deprivation of liberty. This expressly reflects the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners that the Government has signed up to. They include among other things that the conditions may be no more restrictive than is necessary to keep people in custody. In other words depriving people of privileges and telling them that it would be a good idea not to be in prison because it is nastier and less pleasant than being outside is not to be lawful any longer. This bill makes no reference anywhere to punishment. It is not a permitted purpose of imprisonment or of a prison officer’s supervision that prison denounce deter or punish. None of those words appear anywhere in this bill. This bill is the triumph of the politically correct justice Ministers who have done nothing on the justice portfolio for 3½ years. 
Let us go through some of the detail. The Hon Matt Robson referred to victims’ interests. The bill states that prisons 
must have regard to victims’ interests. The Government has been very careful never to define those or even to answer questions in this debate as to what victims’ interests might be. This bill says that each offender—and there are 5000 of them—must be given an individual plan that meets his or her needs. The plan does not meet the needs of the community or the needs of the sentence or the needs that the judge thought were being satisfied when he or she sent the individual to prison to punish to deter and to denounce. There is nothing in this bill about meeting those needs—only the needs of the individual prisoner. This bill is utterly cynical. 
One unusual feature is that it does not have the normal treaty provisions. What is going on over there? I think this is the first bill we have seen for some time that does not draw open discrimination on the grounds of race which is fortunate because the rules that the Government signed up to say there can be no discrimination on the grounds of race colour sex language religion or political or other opinion in a prison. However that is not the practice. As we know the practice in our prisons is in some way to elevate tikanga Maori into a magical potion. In a way it is patronising and insulting. 
An upstanding member of the community who has been deeply involved in prison matters for many years called me in distress just a month or so ago. He had been to the opening of the new wing at the Rimutaka Prison. Around 1½ hours of the opening ceremony were spoken in Maori and around a quarter of an hour in English but he was not offended by that. He could see that most of the people there were Maori and the intention was obviously to be respectful. He said he does not mind New Zealanders adopting welcoming and other Maori ceremonies because they are more colourful than Pakeha ceremonies. What he was offended by was the fact that no one took any time to explain what that prison was trying to do or what those facilities were setting out to do. Even worse he said that one of the kaumatua said to him afterwards that it was comforting to be able to come and see that their mokopuna were going to feel comfortable in prison. What a response! What an objective—to set up a system that so identifies Maori culture with prison that consciously and subconsciously it normalises prison! What an idea—that we simply expect Maori to be in prison to such an extent that tikanga Maori becomes a motif for every prison opening! 
Exactly the same thing happened when new units were opened down in Rolleston. When I heard Mr Perry’s speech I was really comforted to hear that it was as offensive to him as it is to me to see a culture being so closely associated with criminality. 
What else do we find in this bill? Bodily samples cannot be taken from prisoners. One can take fingerprints but one is not allowed to take DNA. No that would be far too modern. It might enable criminals to be caught and we do not want that because then the criminals would just have to be put back inside. It would appear that prisoners cannot be stopped from having computers. The bill expressly bans other electronic equipment but it cannot ban computers. 
Then there is the matter of appeals over security classification. One of the things that the UN rules state is that there should be segregation of prisoners to ensure that they do not in effect cross-infect each other. The imprisonment rules state that those prisoners who by reason of their criminal records or bad character are likely to exercise a bad influence should be separated from others. In this bill segregation is subject to such tight restrictions that I do not think a prison can actually take that rule into account. The bill also states that transfers cannot be used for punishment. Segregation cannot be used to break up gangs. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that reflects the common sense of the old non-association order. There is nothing in this bill that says that security classifications should be made in order to improve the prospect of rehabilitation. Instead security classifications are just that—to ensure against the possibility of escaping. I take it that that is because prisons are paying such a woeful degree of obedience to the rule that says prison cannot be made any more uncomfortable than is strictly necessary for the deprival of liberty. 
Prison is a community. Prisons have become places where the offenders in this community—that is the 2000 to 5000 families whom the police tell us commit 80 percent of the crime—can go and feel at home. This bill confirms that the prison officers are simply hosts. When members read through the disciplinary procedures they will see that they give the lie to it. 
Adjudicators have to have a hearing on whether prisoners are to be given a lawyer to defend them when they are involved in a disciplinary procedure. What are the outcomes of disciplinary procedures? Seven days’ withdrawal of privileges. I can find no definition whatsoever of privileges. Another fierce penalty that can be awarded is 7 days’ cancellation of earnings which may not exceed $100. It is only earnings that may be cancelled; prisons cannot access other amounts in prisoners’ accounts. Prisons carefully provide for the setting up of accounts but they cannot access anything else in them for the purpose of paying fines. The fine for an alcohol or drug offence appears to be potentially cancellation of 7 days’ earnings. What about those who are not bothering to earn? There is nothing here to force prisoners to work. There is nothing about that. As far as I can tell they can be fined only if they have earnings. 
The provisions do not allow segregation or restriction and they make all those bows to the welfare of the offender. The victims the courts and the judges are forgotten.