Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he stand by his reported comments that he was comfortable with a focused inquiry on the controversial former emergency response unit known as the goon squad; if so will he instigate an independent inquiry by the State Services Commission into the corrections department’s handling of the goon squad affair? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I stand by my comments that I was comfortable about a tightly focused inquiry but went off the idea of a select committee inquiry once I heard members of the Opposition using this as a political platform to attack the public prison service. However I am currently considering whether there should be a further investigation of some sort. If that member has any new information on the matter I encourage him to bring it forward. This will help me in my deliberations. 
Ron Mark 
: On that basis would the Minister be interested in evidence from a prison officer that alcohol confiscated by the emergency response unit was drunk at various emergency response unit parties including at Mr Smith’s own home; that drugs that were confiscated from visitors to the prison simply disappeared and were never found again; that time sheets were falsified costing the department thousands of dollars; that some prison officers in the emergency response unit refused to take part in what they considered were illegal operations in Dunedin and have suffered the consequences since then in terms of their employment;— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. 
Ron Mark 
: One more. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One more. 
Ron Mark 
: —and that some prison officers were presented with affidavits regarding the death of David Rewi Haimoana that they were required to sign and refused to sign because they contained falsities? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I would be surprised if those allegations had not been looked into certainly in the reports that I have seen. But if the member wants to bring them forward formally to me with the evidence that goes with it then this is a good time to be doing it as we consider the options that we should take. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What should be done by anyone who has any further information on the activities of the now defunct emergency response unit? 
Opposition Members 
: He just said it! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: They should not pre-guess. As I have already said people can contact me or they can forward any such information to an outside agency like the State Services Commission the Ombudsman or the Controller and Auditor-General. This information could be passed on under the Protected Disclosures Act which provides protection to whistle-blowers. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: In the light of the revelations from Mr Mark today that many of those involved in this sad incident have come under all sorts of personal pressure to shut up and say nothing will the Minister give the House an assurance that should evidence come forward from prison officers it could be done on the basis of no prejudice so that their careers are not wrecked and they are no longer subject to the sort of internal bullying that appears to be going on in this case? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have heard those allegations before about bullying and they have been investigated. The vast majority as I understand have been declined. What I will say to the member though is that if information comes forward with evidence to back it up then I give that member the assurance that the people who bring it forward will be protected and their careers will not be affected. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister give his reasons behind his Government’s refusal to allow the Law and Order Committee to conduct an inquiry into the activities of the goon squad and do any of these concern the integrity of the Department of Corrections at a time when we are discussing the private management of prisons—the closing of them for ideological reasons—and given that there is a demand for a full and public accounting of the activities of the goon squad why is the Minister seemingly complicit in protecting the shenanigans of a Government department? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well it actually has nothing to do with the bill. This was a call for an inquiry—I think made by that member. I thought that member made it in good faith and he had the courtesy to come and talk to me about it. The major reason why I went off the idea was when I heard members of the Opposition try to use it as an opportunity to attack our public prison service. I object to that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have sat and listened to that spin line and we are at the point now where I am going to seek your assistance because I and that Minister are fully aware of a private conversation between him and me where I gave him an absolute assurance that that would not happen and by continuing to say that he is misleading this House and deliberately so. Also he is aware that 3 years previously I had gone to the office of the Minister of Corrections personally and in a closed-door session sought such an independent inquiry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: For him to continue that line is to mislead to deceive and to lie. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not having any further comment. That is not a point of order but the member made the point he wanted to make and that is all right. I just want to say that had I thought the Minister was referring to him in particular or anything like that I would have jumped on it—immediately. The Minister referred to—[ 
Interruption 
] He did not actually mention Mr Mark did he? 
Ron Mark 
: He said “that member” looking directly at me and numerous times publicly he has stated me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought he said “members”. If the member gives me that assurance I will accept it. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I said “members” but speaking to the point of order I say that the point that I have referred to in previous answers in this House was that member’s specific public appearances on television and on radio where he has publicly attacked the prison service of New Zealand. That is not the excuse in my view to do an inquiry into this. If there is another method or if there is new information then we can look into it but I have given him the reason why we decided we were not going down that track. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has a perfect right to say what he likes in this House on that particular issue and the member has a perfect right to appear on television and elsewhere. That does not in any way influence what happens in question time in this way and I do not think Mr Mark was committing any offence at that point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just heard the Minster repeat an alarming statement. I thought that select committees in this Parliament were their own masters and that when they have been authorised by Parliament they are subject to Parliament’s direction as to their terms of reference times of sittings and those matters. For a Minister to say that he is against a select committee inquiry that he went off the idea and that we would decide—namely his Cabinet colleagues—is a serious challenge to the proper functioning of this Parliament and its select committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just a moment. Just as Mr Mark is entitled to his opinion the Minister is entitled to his too. He can make that comment. That however does not mean the select committee has to take any notice of it. 
Ron Mark 
: Since last week’s question to the Minister has he seen the allegations made by prison officers that the reason the emergency response unit bosses—Smith Kelly and Bird—were not fired is that lies were told in the hostage-taking situation in 1997 and that “everybody had [bleep] on each other so there was no way Tony Bird was ever going to be fired because he would have turned around and blown the gaff on everyone and Smith knew stuff. Smith had it all over Tony Bird and Bird had it all over Rushton”; and are those allegations alone not sufficient cause for the Minister in the order of protecting the integrity of the department to order a totally absolutely independent inquiry into the goon squad? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The first point is that those allegations were made in 1997—2 years before the goon squad was established. Secondly those allegations have been investigated. I am happy to table the formal response from the department and for the member to have a look at it. If he has further concerns he should take them up with me. I seek leave to table the response to the allegations that were raised in the House last week. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: Given that those allegations implicate the very people who manage the Department of Corrections in Canterbury and the department here at the highest level why would the Minister place any credibility at all on an explanation given to him by those very same people which some would say was an attempt to cover their own backsides? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: A huge number of allegations have been made in this House and elsewhere about these issues. Those allegations have been investigated but it is not the first time that member has made allegations in this House that have been proved to be utterly false. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. These particular allegations have not been investigated. I seek leave to table a report in the  
Investigate 
 magazine dated September this year which outlines the whole sorry affair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister concluded his statement in his last answer by saying: “it is not the first time that member has made allegations in this House that have been proved to be utterly false.” That is not true. It should not be forming part of his answer but worst of all it is not true. So he should be asked to desist from that line of answer or put up or shut up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister said the member was doing it deliberately of course it would be out of order. I did not hear the word “deliberately” used. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Minister in his answer stated that these allegations had been investigated. As far as I and anyone else in the House am aware this report was made public only in September this year. There has been no investigation of this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member sought my advice. That is not really a point of order.