Cosgrove Clayton: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8164. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of observations about the nature of the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill. As I have said Labour will support it. I thank the acting Minister for what has been the only semblance of a speech of substance and logic to come out of the Government thus far in the process. We had a rendition from somebody akin to a cross between Uncle Fester and Captain Mainwaring in the form of Mr Auchinvole talking about all manner of things but he did not provide any justification substance or even any logic— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Or any meaning. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —or any meaning to support his own case. 
I will turn to the regulatory impact statement. I have taken some advice having read the very brief six or seven lines that it appears to be. In that regulatory impact statement there is no regulatory impact statement. There is a reference to a website which is a very long-winded website; in fact it takes up 3½ nearly 4 lines. I am advised that that is quite unusual. Normally in a piece of legislation even a short piece of legislation one would expect a summary of the regulatory impact statement. One would expect some sort of summary of the facts around the regulatory impact statement. This bill is printed on one A3 piece of paper. I know we are trying to conserve trees in this environment but there is a little bit of space at the bottom actually where I would have thought the Government could have put some words in. When one goes to the website one sees an exhaustive three or four pages of regulatory impact statement hidden away. One has to ask why that is the case. I am advised that not 24 hours ago the URL link had not been inserted into the bill. That is how rushed this process has been. 
I raise that issue because it is more evidence that this Minister does not have a plan or a logical strategy to deal with the prison muster numbers. As I said in the first reading she has had the reports for 12 months. Prior to the election her party said that if it implemented all its law and order policies it would double the then prison muster—double it. So even before the election—over 12 months ago—this Minister and her party were planning for a doubling of the prison population yet there was no plan as to where to house them. There was—and still is I believe—a commitment to build at least one new prison though we have heard and seen nothing about it. This just provides further evidence with 7 or 8 parliamentary days to go of how rushed and unplanned with a lack of management a lack of foresight and thinking— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: A shambles. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a shambles my colleague says a bit like the emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Member 
: You’re voting for it! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes we are voting for it to get the Government out of a hole. It could have put up these proposals 12 months ago put in place a prison muster plan and a prison build plan—a proper prison— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Integrated strategy. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: With respect you could have done that yourself. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague is right. That is a big word for Mr Calder. He says we could have done that ourselves. Well I tell Mr Calder that the problem is that we did. We built four prisons. We were criticised by Mr Calder who I think was doorknocking for Judith Collins or something way back then. We were criticised by Judith Collins because Mr Calder’s party said we were not locking enough people up. Does he care to rebut that? No he will not rebut it because it is a fact. That is what he said as he doorknocked for Judith Collins: we were not locking enough people up. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I submit that the honourable member has no knowledge of what I said when I was doorknocking. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; that is interrupting a debate. It is unnecessary. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is OK Mr Deputy Speaker. It proves what a plonker he is so it is OK. What his party said before the election and what it says today are two different things. I love the Toastmasters. I have helped Toastmasters a number of times to set up little branches around my electorate. It is a fantastic organisation. I mean no denigration by what I am about to say but I have to say to Mr Calder that this ain’t stage 101; this is a debate of substance about a critical issue. Going through the dictionary late at night as Mr Calder did looking for words that start with the same letter and stringing them together does not actually add to the substance of this debate. 
I will raise a couple of questions about the shambles that we have and the lack of planning we have around this. I suspect that the member does not know where the regulatory impact statement is; he might be running away to ask his staff to get on the web and look it up. I am happy to give him a copy of the regulatory impact statement because he probably does not know what it means and he probably does not know where to find it but it is on the web. In that statement it says: “Cabinet has agreed that the maximum period of detention in court cells would be four days (96 hours).” 
As I said I was talking with a senior person in corrections. I will not name the person because Judith Collins will bring a machete down on that person if I do. The issues raised are ones of logistics for prison staff with regard to 4 evenings 4 days and 96 hours. I would like to know from the Government—and hopefully we will get to it in the Committee stage—what budget has been put aside for logistics of prison officers. How will they be fed through the court system for instance? How will prisoners themselves be administered to? What will the accommodations be like for prison officers if they require administrative support while they are there for their shift? What will happen in terms of the day to day interaction between court processes court staff and prisoners who are housed for 96 hours? I think those are quite important and germane issues to this debate because of course these provisions will effectively take away the right of people who may be living in that area to object. I am sure that they would like some assurance from the Minister as to just how those day-to-day logistical matters will be addressed. 
It is not a political point; it is a fair point that communities will want to know. I think it is also a fair point in relation to the security staff—that is the prison officers who will be charged with dealing with these prisoners and managing them day to day often in what can be described as very confined circumstances where they do not have the logistical support they would have had if this Government decided to start building a new prison as it promised to do. 
So there are some issues in here. As I say I find it very strange—in fact I am told it is unheard of—that the regulatory impact statement is not contained within the bill but is ferreted away and buried on a website. The URL was not even inserted in the draft that I have of the bill which I received somewhat prematurely before it came before the House. I just wonder why. Is there any devil in the detail? Of course when one finds the paper one sees that it notes and acknowledges that there are a number of risks in respect of use of prison cells. So I just raise those issues as a matter of course. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Talking of premature! I just raise those issues as a matter of course and I seek some assurance from the Minister. She or Mr Finlayson may be able to get some advice from the staff and explain to us without breaching security how in metropolitan areas without the logistical support of a prison itself these individuals will be managed day to day and what protections are in place for the staff. 
I hope as we progress through the second reading that we might actually get a speech or two of substance from the opposite side of the House. I would be very interested in some of them; I think Mrs Goudie is in the starting blocks ready to go. I wonder whether Mrs Goudie will address some of the points I have made like what she said before the election instead of getting up and saying that the Government of the day did nothing. No we built four prisons. Those members say that the Government of the day did not lock enough people up—well we did and now they say there are too many in there. I wonder whether they will address what the plan is going forward and why this bill which is pretty simple and has the support of most of the House is brought to us 7 or 8 parliamentary sitting days before the election incomplete though it is. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Before what? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Sorry before Christmas I should say. God willing there would be an election! After we have had the emissions trading scheme and the shonky deal with the Maori Party and others I think it would be a cracker to get on the stump and debate some of these issues. I can only live in hope. I hope we actually get some of those answers from the members especially the member who purports to be the chair of the Law and Order Committee.