Jones Dail: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12990] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Initially I was not going to take a call on this legislation but when I came into the Chamber and spoke to our spokesman on the issue Ron Mark and went up to the Table and looked at the amendments—I was looking for a small piece of paper perhaps a couple of amendments from the Government and amendments put in by the National Party and Marc Alexander—I thought there would not be many amendments to this bill; after all it has been around for a while and the Government’s policy keeps on being stated. But what did I find? I found 45 pages of amendments which is quite amazing. Does this Government not know what it is doing? That is all I have to say on that particular issue. Where is this Government going? There are 45 pages of amendments! 
When we start to read the amendments we start to ask what they actually mean. First of all can the Minister take a call and tell us whether the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been contacted consulted and had these amendments discussed with it? What other groups in society have had the opportunity to be consulted on these amendments? The Greens are very strong on consultation getting together holding hands and having a little cuddle to decide what they will do. There is a name for that type of thing. Mr Nandor Tanczos laughs but I would have thought that if one had 45 pages of amendments and one was a Green Party member one would want to have one’s little group huddle to decide whether these amendments were satisfactory. However on this occasion Mr Tanczos laughs. 
This bill is supported only by the Progressive Coalition member who made his usual contribution just now and by the Greens. Again this bill is likely to get through this Parliament on the slimmest of majorities yet it is of vital importance to society in New Zealand. Of course it was Mr Robson who as a Minister was responsible for the “goon squad” cover-up. All he can do today is to jump up and move a closure motion. He was responsible for the “goon squad” cover-up. I would have thought Mr Robson of the Progressive Coalition would have stood up and given us an explanation as to how this bill resolves that problem. But no all he can do is repeat a few words from the Labour Party which just wants to ram this legislation through. 
I have looked at these amendments in so far as the first part of the bill is concerned. I looked at the meaning of “offender”. There did not seem to be any meaning of “offender” in the bill originally and I would have thought that to put in the meaning for “offender” would be particularly important. If one has a Corrections Bill then the people who will go into prison are offenders; therefore one must make sure that if one is to define them one defines them clearly. 
The bill refers to a person who is under control or supervision. It states that a person who is dealt with is liable to be dealt with for non-payment of a sum of money disobedience of a court order or contempt of court but it does not include a person who is under control or supervision by reason only that the person is in custody awaiting trial. That is the sort of person who should be called an offender. If people are being dealt with in a Corrections Bill and are put on remand in a corrections facility surely they must come within the definition of “offender”. Maybe I have read it the wrong way round because it has only just been put in the legislation. If that is the case then it suggests that we need more time to consider these amendments. Can the Minister explain why it is that on the face of it people who are on remand in terms of this amendment are not offenders in terms of the bill? They are the major types of people in the Auckland Central Remand Prison whom we are dealing with. Are they to be excluded from this particular legislation? Is that the reason for the view the Labour Party is taking on the closing down of the Auckland private facility? 
Again an “offender … does not include … a person who is detained solely as a consequence of a warrant or other order issued under the Immigration Act 1987”. Perhaps this is the “Zaoui” amendment. Although Mr Zaoui is being held in prison does this bill not apply to him? What do the amendments to the definitions in paragraphs (c)(i) and (c)(ii) mean if people who are on remand are not included or people who are detained solely as a consequence of a warrant or other order issued under the Immigration Act are not included? Are these people not offenders? Do they not come within this legislation? That is a very important issue that the Minister must give consideration to. 
In so far as rehabilitation is concerned in my experience as a lawyer—and I have dealt with hundreds of criminals—they rehabilitate only when they get tired and slightly older. They cannot do it any more. That is the rehabilitation. We see them coming through at 18 19 20 21 and 22 years of age. It drops off at about 24 or 25 years and apart from the hardened criminal they rehabilitate because they do not have the energy and have given up as it is too much for them—and that is rehabilitation.