Alexander Marc: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Alexander Marc: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13015] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I wish to add to some of the comments that I previously made. I have a Supplementary Order Paper with a few things that I would like to address. If we are going to micromanage the prison system to the point where we are talking about the prisoners’ exercise their bedding as has described before and their diet etc. there are a few other measures that I think ought to be mentioned. I suggest that we insert a new clause—clause 70B—on smoking to read: “Every prisoner in the interests of their health and well-being will be prevented from being permitted to smoke tobacco and/or”—for the benefit of Nandor Tanczos and the Greens—“other products.” 
The point of this is quite simple. We have passed legislation that takes effect at the end of this year that says that individuals in the privacy of their own investment will be denied the ability to smoke. But it is OK in the public investment of a prison that the inmates are allowed to smoke. Let us have one rule for all. I suggest that if we are going to micromanage the inmates we at least give them the same consideration that we are giving to members of the public who decide with their own investment in their own hotels private clubs or restaurants to smoke. So let us deny prisoners the ability to smoke. It is a health benefit surely. 
I also suggest inserting a new clause 73 stating: “Physical exercise where possible should be redirected to employment-related activities whereupon all moneys as a result of such activities will be given up to defray the costs of their upkeep.” At least in that way taxpayers will be getting something for the money that they have invested in keeping these people at the overblown prices of the State corrections facilities. 
Because as has already been told the one privately managed correctional facility in this country saves taxpayers—guess what—$27000 per inmate per year! If one translates that right across the board we would save close to $400 million a year. I tell members that that will buy us an awful lot of police. That will buy us an awful lot of equipment for police so that they can do the job better and we will have fewer victims. Ultimately is that not really what the criminal justice system is supposed to be about? But no we want to spend the extra $400 million. Why? Because Labour has an ideology that it has stuck to closer than superglue; it is time that this Labour Government decided that experience and outcomes ought to matter more than ideological blindness. It should take the bandages off and finally see for once what this bill is actually doing and what it is telling the public of this country—the victims of this country. 
I also suggest that we insert a new clause 71B regarding television. Guess what? I actually got this idea from information I gathered when I went to the prisons and talked to the inmates. One of the things they told me was this. Why on earth are the inmates allowed to watch television including Sky television like everybody else? Why? These individuals ought to be watching television if at all that will be educational or help them to become so-called “rehabilitated”. I do not believe that inmates should be allowed the luxury of watching the same television that law-abiding citizens are sometimes denied because they cannot afford it. 
I also suggest that we include a new clause 72(4) that states: “Every prisoner will be given food that complies with nutritional requirements”—who can argue with that?—“and also that meets the cost implications to taxpayers and in line”—and this is the important bit—“with public expectations of what inmates ought to receive for their food.” There are plenty of law-abiding individuals who do not get any Government subsidy for decent food but if they commit a crime and go to prison they will. That does not make any sense to me. Why are we advantaging inmates against many of the law-abiding citizens who are also victims? 
This Government has a lot to answer for when it talks about victims and it does very very little. It is offender-focused. If we really wanted to talk about victims’ rights and the interests of the public we would at least address the concerns of the 92 percent of people who voted for the Norm Withers referendum who are not being treated well by this legislation.