Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will respond to a few of the claims that have been made by Mr Calder and Sandra Goudie with regards to increases in crime. The perception has been put out there by this National Government that under the Labour Government crime increased. Let us look at the facts. A report from the University of Auckland states that crime decreased under the Labour Government. A  
New Zealand Herald  
article in April 2008 stated: “The New Zealand crime rate remained flat in 2007 while police resolved almost 10000 more offences than the previous year.” That article stated: “New Zealand recorded its lowest murder rate for a decade at 45 with 41 resolved before the end of the year.” It also stated—I touch on this because Mr Calder brought it up—that “Overall the picture was less rosy” with regards to violent crimes but “This is not surprising when we take into account that there has been a huge focus on family violence with publicity and media campaigns designed to reduce tolerance for such offending”. 
It cannot be held against the Labour Government that we did something with regards to family violence and domestic violence. It cannot be held against the Labour Government that women all of a sudden decided that it was OK to come out and report to the police that they were getting beaten by their husbands. We cannot be accused of doing anything wrong when we did that over the last 9 years. Perhaps violent offences increased in terms of reporting but it is not due to anything done wrong by the Labour Government; it is because of the work that we put into ensuring that women felt safe coming out and reporting against family violence. 
I will touch on just how safe this bill is with regards to our courts. “Just how safe is it in court?” is an article that came out in the  
Manukau Courier 
 in April 2009. It discussed the fact that “PSA national secretary Richard Wagstaff says there aren’t enough officers to cover the three courts at all times.” He discussed the fact that the shortage is “mirrored at courts across the country and threatens the safety of the public”. He said: “They need an extra three security staff to enable them to cover the three courts at all times.” The article goes on: “Mr Wagstaff says public demand is increasing yet the government has put a cap on staff which is ‘a recipe for disaster and in the case of our courts and our probation service threatens the safety of the public’.” This is an issue. 
We support the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill because the Government is in crisis and crime is on the increase. We know that a big part of that increase is due to poverty. Due to the high unemployment rates under this Government we are seeing an increase in the number of people committing crimes. Prisons do not have the capacity to deal with them. We support this bill but only because this Government is in crisis. Therefore there is no other option with regards to the safety of the public. However that does not mean that this will be smooth sailing for the Government. There are huge issues here with regards to the numbers of security officers in our courts and also with regards to the unrest that has arisen in recent months amongst the justice staff members about their working conditions. If the Government does not address those things then we will be in serious trouble when this legislation goes through. We will see an increased number of prisoners pushed to the cells in the courts because they cannot be held in our actual prisons. 
I pointed out earlier and I point out again that last night what we may just as well call the “Privatisation of Prisons Bill” went through. The National Government was saying that the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill would result in safer better and cheaper prisons. How can they be safer and better when anticipation of a huge overflow results in the need for this Government to push this legislation through quickly so that it has cells to house the prisoners because the prisons will not be able to hold them? I cannot see how the private prisons that it says will be the remedy to what it perceives as all its problems will be any sort of remedy when we are seeing more legislation to deal with the overflow. The prisons that the Government is talking about improving will not be able to cope with the sheer numbers. 
I will go back to the issue of our court staff and our justice staff. There was a  
New Zealand Herald  
article. Again it was not long ago at all—it was only Tuesday 17 November 2009. Our court staff were out on strike arguing for better pay. They were pointing out the fact that they would no longer “continue to accept the ministry’s unjust pay system that’s responsible for their underpayment.” and the fact that they are working in very poor working conditions. It is this Government’s responsibility to ensure that our public servants are taken care of so that chaos does not erupt in places like our courts. It will be our public whose safety is put at risk and also that of the security officers who are working these courts. 
My colleague Mr Cosgrove brought up the fact that there was an absence of a regulatory impact statement in the bill that we were handed. He also pointed out that this is highly unusual given the fact that usually it is in the bill. He was advised that it was unusual for a bill not to have it. We looked it up on the website and got a copy. We thought that perhaps there was something there that the Government was a little bit worried about. When we went through what is reported in the regulatory impact statement we found that a couple of things should be brought to the attention of the public. No one would deny that holding prisoners in court cells is not a new thing; there was a way in which that could be done in the past. Now the Government is going to extreme measures to introduce this legislation because it is in crisis. 
One of the things pointed out in the regulatory impact statement is that “The preferred option”—this option—“carries litigation risks in that prisoners housed in court cells may claim that their treatment does not comply with provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or other legislative requirements. It is also possible that New Zealand’s compliance with international conventions could be challenged. In this regard the Chief Ombudsman has indicated that the Ombudsmen may issue adverse reports under Part 2 of the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 if their concerns are not addressed.” Putting prisoners in court cells was done sparingly under the previous Labour Government; it was not done on a regular basis. We did not feel we needed to legislate for it. 
When we were in Government—for the past 9 years—we were not in crisis. This Government is in crisis so it is forced to legislate for it and we have to support it in that but this Government will have to face that issue. With the increasing number of prisoners whom they are planning to push into courts cells there will be a much higher risk that their rights as prisoners and their treatment do not comply with the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is especially so given the fact as I pointed out before that there is a shortage of security staff at the moment. There is unrest amongst the justice staff because of poor working conditions imposed by this Government. It needs to be highlighted that there are concerns about this that have been pointed out in the regulatory impact statement. 
To end I want to say that last night we saw a bill pushed through stating that private prisons will apparently be better safer and cheaper yet here we are today—and this is ironic—pushing through a bill that will legislate to allow for prisoners to be held in court cells because the Government is anticipating an overflow. It is anticipating that its prisons will not be able to hold the sheer numbers. This is an issue. It is ironic. It contradicts what the National Government discussed last night. Mr Mallard discussed the “h” word before; I will not bring it up. We support this bill because the Government is in crisis but we have a few concerns that the Government will have to address.