Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13002] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
I will start by looking at Supplementary Order Paper 213 put up by the Government and what an astounding document it is. It is no wonder that members are dealing with corrections to the Department of Corrections or corrections to the Corrections Bill when they have to put up with this sort of nonsense. 
Despite all the rhetoric from Green Party members about wanting to represent the tangata whenua in pursuance of tino rangatiratanga and giving Maori the right to determine how they will be treated in this nation in a sense of partnership I wasracking my brains today and wondering why the Green Party is supporting this bill. Having had the views of senior Maori leaders given to them through Nandor Tanczos and despite the opposition of Tariana Turia a former Associate Minister of Corrections to this bill and the objection of Pita Sharples—a man whom Nandor Tanczos tells people he admires and respects—why have the Greens supported it? Why have those members totally ignored all the recommendations from senior Maori leaders particularly those in the north to oppose this bill and ensure that the Government does not place the Auckland Central Remand Prison back within the State-run Department of Corrections—or as I have heard some people say the “Department of Corruptions”? It is a terrible thing to say but that is what people in the street are saying. Why have the Greens done it? 
I think I have found out why. If one looks at the proposed amendment to clause 8(1) in Supplementary Order Paper 213 for example the Greens’ influence is to be seen. The proposed amendment provides: “To omit from paragraph (b) the words ‘secure containment’ … and substitute the words ‘safe custody’.” Is that not nice? It is lovely is it not? It further provides: “To omit from paragraph (f) the words ‘prisoners or offenders’ … and substitute the words ‘persons under control or supervision’.” Is that not lovely? It is cute is it not? It is so sensitive so touchy-feely so cuddly and so typically Green. 
The amendment further provides: “To omit from paragraph (h) the words ‘prisoner or offender’ … and substitute the words ‘person under control or supervision’.” The proposed amendment to clause 9(a) provides: “To omit…the words ‘secure containment’ … and substitute the words ‘safe custody’.” The amendment to clause 10 provides: “To omit the word ‘person’ … and substitute the words ‘staff member of a prison’.” Is that not nice? One cannot have a person but must have a “staff member of a prison” instead. 
This is ridiculous—it just goes on and on. I ask the Minister how many amendments in this huge document are like those substitutions? It is no wonder that we are presented with rubbish like this at the eleventh hour but it has to go through because it has the things in it that the Green Party holds most dearly to its bosom and that is politically correct language that seeks not to offend label or stigmatise anyone. I am sorry Minister but the people out there want to talk about “offenders”. They want to talk about them in the terms and terminology that they know them as—crooks crims and offenders. People do not want them referred to as little touchy-feely persons because crooks crims and offenders is what they are. 
That is the problem with this bill. The whole rehabilitative programme which is legislated into being under Part 2 is a load of nonsense and a crock. Where does one go to find that out? One goes to the Department of Corrections’ annual reports for 2000-01 and 2001-02 to read what is said about rehabilitation quotients and the success of the department’s rehabilitation plans. I say to Nandor Tanczos that the department’s successes in rehabilitation are so pathetic that it fails to discuss them. In last year’s annual report it states: “The figures are statistically insignificant.” That is what the department’s comments are about its own rehabilitation programmes. 
If one puts Kia Maramara off to one side which is the only one with statistics of significance and every other programme— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Oh so you can do that? 
RON MARK 
: The member is saying that on the back of one programme all the rest are valid. That is rubbish!