Worth Richard: Corrections Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Corrections Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12598] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The sooner we ban reading speeches the better. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I would like to pick up the words that Harry Duynhoven has just offered across the floor of the Chamber and say that that was an amazing speech. I commend the speaker for the care and trouble that he took in preparing those scripted words. 
 I just go back to this whole issue of reading speeches and express the hope that we might revert to previous Standing Orders which forbade that practice. 
Mark Peck 
: Hear Hear! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Mr Peck is interjecting. His contribution to Parliament in 2002 2003 and 2004 will always be remembered. The only thing he has done is move closure motions. He is a man of minimal contribution a modest man who has much to be modest about. 
I pick up the comments that Mr Alexander made about the impoverished Labour Party. He offered another phrase about Labour being in the dark—if I wrote it down correctly—“groping like a blind bat looking for a match”. This is the party that Labour has decided to join common cause with. Today we saw this Government come within an inch of being thrown from office and it was saved by Mr Alexander’s team. When the Greens had deserted it United Future—which I judged to be a centre-right party and a potential coalition party when the Government changes in 2005—sought to keep the current Government in office. 
I have come to talk about the Corrections Bill and that is what I will devote the balance of my time to. It is interesting is it not that this bill was introduced to the House in March 2003. It was referred to a select committee in April 2003. A date was set for the closing of submissions which is the normal practice. The date was then extended which is a little bit unusual. The select committee heard a whole lot of submissions. It spent hours—30 hours and 14 minutes—considering all this evidence. Then the committee did not know what to make of this bill. Why do I say it did not know what to make of this bill? The reason is that the report of this illustrious committee—the Law and Order Committee—states: “The Law and Order Committee has examined the Corrections Bill and was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill should be passed.” 
I suggest to Mr Peck that that is a great disappointment because the Penal Institutions Act which the Corrections Bill was planned to replace was passed in 1954—50 years ago. There is not too much substantive legislation on the stocks that has lasted for that period of time. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I don’t know I paid a pretty big bill for one last year. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Oh sure there are some examples of bills that became statutes in 1908 that float around—maybe the Pawnbrokers Act although we recently did something with that—but this is old legislation. It was to be hoped that a wise and caring Government would have had the wit to see that legislation should be implemented to pick up changes that are clearly due in respect of what is going on in the prisons. 
For a start any legislation needs to reflect modern policies and practices in prisons. Over the years there have been a whole lot of changes to the Penal Institutions Act since 1954 when it was passed. There have been powers inserted to drug test inmates to monitor inmate telephone calls and new rules relating to dungfunnel searching and that type of thing which have made the legislation complex and difficult to follow. I would also say that the law governing the administration of the corrections system needs to be compatible in its philosophy with both the Sentencing Act of 2002—much-flawed legislation—and also the Parole Act of the same year. New systems have been introduced for managing people on custodial and community-based sentences to effectively target certain outcomes. 
So there was a real case—and I do not think any of us would deny that—for updating this legislation. But the Law and Order Committee chaired by Mr Gallagher simply did not have the drive to see its way through to produce good outcomes. I am not really surprised by that because there are some hugely politically correct and inappropriate provisions in this legislation. Some of them are sort of hidden away. They emerge not from the casual reader’s gaze but rather from those who are tasked to study in detail particular provisions in the bill. Some of the worst and I would say probably the excrescence in this legislation are the transitional provisions in Part 3. Because there in very bald terms in clause 194 it is stated that: “Existing management contracts must not be extended”. The legislation is quite simple in this particular area but it brought to a close what I think has been a real highlight of prison administration in recent years—the management of the private prison. 
I am privileged to represent the constituency of Epsom which some say in numerical terms has within it the highest socio-economic grouping. I watch with bemusement as people fight against the location of prisons in their particular constituencies because in my constituency of Epsom we have three prisons and we seem to be able to manage that issue without rancour or difficulty. These are of course the great prison of Mount Eden—that forbidding stone castle—the women’s prison which is just next door and a little bit further down the road is the remand prison. I do not forget being sent as a candidate prior to my selection for the seat of Epsom to give a briefing on behalf of the National Party—ill-prepared as I might have been as a novice in these areas—to the prison guards at Mount Eden about the benefits of private prisons. I am not sure that they altogether accepted the argument. I guess I did not expect that they would but I hoped that they would be prepared to listen. They were and many moved across to be valuable contributors at the private remand prison. 
I will highlight National’s principal concerns in connection with this legislation. I have obviously foreshadowed the first point which is the whole issue of private prisons. National has made its position clear in the committee’s report as to where it stands on this particular issue. A series of questions have been asked in Parliament of the Minister and others as to what the objection is to private prisons. When this bill was introduced the current Attorney-General Margaret Wilson gave only one reason for abolishing private prisons. She said: “Prisons by their very nature involve the use of highly coercive powers against individuals. This Government believes that it is inappropriate for private sector organisations to wield such powers.” So it is an ideological objection. It is not in any basis well founded in science. In the context of what has gone on around the world I think it is fair to say that privatisation of prisons is one of the few illustrations where privatisation has truly worked. [ 
Interruption 
] It is really helpful to hear the interjections made by Mr Peck because I sense that in Mr Peck’s interjections there may be the faint possibility that he will make a contribution. I doubt it. He does not contribute but these early signs of interjection may hint at a substantive comment that may arise.