Lees-Galloway Iain: Corrections Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Corrections Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7850. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I would like to pick up where my colleague Charles Chauvel left off regarding Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of Anne Tolley which amends the Corrections Amendment Bill. The history to this is that the Minister of Corrections at the time Judith Collins announced that she was going implement a ban on smoking tobacco in prisons. Despite warnings from the Opposition and from other groups that should she wish to effect such a ban it ought best be done with legislation Judith Collins knew best. Judith Collins displayed her usual level of arrogance and carried on and implemented the ban. Interestingly because she did not change the legislation she had no power to implement a ban. Miraculously all the prison managers across New Zealand simultaneously declared a ban in their own prisons. What the High Court determined was that it was those prison managers who acted outside of the law—that the Department of Corrections acted illegally at the behest of the Minister of Corrections. 
I stated in the debate last night that Judith Collins acted illegally. I actually think it is worse than that. Judith Collins required public sector employees to act illegally and that is what this Supplementary Order Paper 171 which Anne Tolley has brought to the House is attempting to clean up—that appalling mess that Judith Collins has created through her own gung-ho Judith-knows-best actions whereby she has required public servants to act outside of the law. Of course all that it has done is create a situation where a particularly notorious prisoner has been able to bring a case against the Government. That has subjected the New Zealand taxpayer to the possibility of having to pay out to this gentleman who has brought this case— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: He ain’t no gentleman. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well my colleagues say he is no gentleman. I use that term in the broadest possible sense. This all comes back to the way that Judith Collins and her National Party colleagues approach governing in New Zealand which is that they seem to forget that they are elected that we have a democracy that we have a democratic process and that we believe in the rule of law. Judith Collins in particular just acts as though she has the right to be a dictator in New Zealand and that she can just carry on and do whatever she likes whether the law allows her to or not. Of course that is not the case and when she acts in that way then a retrospective amendment like this has to be brought to the House. 
Even just looking at the way this Supplementary Order Paper operates—it actually seeks to amend part of the original Corrections Act. It amends clause 4 of the Corrections Amendment Bill. It amends the section that refers to the substances that are specifically banned in prisons and drugs and alcohol are specifically mentioned. Knowing that the only way to implement a ban on those substances was through legislation Judith Collins should have been acutely aware of the fact that the only way she could have implemented the ban that she wanted was through legislation. It was absolutely obvious to the Minister. It is obvious through the mechanism that is being used in this Supplementary Order Paper that legislation was always required. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is she the justice Minister? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I believe she is the Minister of Justice. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she know these things? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well you would think that the Minister of Justice a former lawyer would be aware of these matters but it seems that her arrogance got in the way of her knowledge and clouded her judgment in this case. My colleague Charles Chauvel outlined the reasons why we do not believe that this Supplementary Order Paper will be effective. Because of the fact that it is retrospective and because of the fact that it is an inadequate attempt to tidy up a mess caused by Judith Collins we are unable to support it.