Prasad Rajen: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 The Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill started out as a seemingly simple measure—[ 
Interruption 
] That is all right; the members will hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. Could I ask members to be a little reasonable. A member has been given the call; I ask for a little more reasonableness. The members had a fair bit of fun in question time and I ask that they show some courtesy. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: This bill started off as a seemingly simple measure to continue a current practice one that members opposite opposed bitterly when they were in Opposition. They opposed it many times. It is quite ironical that they bring the same measure back at this time. They have received support from this side of the House but what has surprised me is the lack of generosity the lack of acknowledging that what they are now regulating for is precisely what they criticised not many months ago when they were in Opposition. 
We find that a number of elements in this bill still need ironing out and need to be worked out. I hope the Minister of Corrections will get those matters sorted out in a reasonably quick time. In particular we need to know quite clearly whether this measure is a temporary provision or a permanent provision. Certainly from the way the debate proceeded this morning we got the sense that this measure is a temporary measure. But when we look at the regulatory impact statement we see that it says the opposite—that this bill is a long-term measure and it is expected that it will apply on an ongoing basis. So which one is it? It needs to be clarified: is it a short-term measure just for now while the Government does whatever it needs to do to address its policy goals or is it a long-term measure? We have sought an answer to this question but the Ministers in the chair have not provided us with that answer. How long it will last is something that ought to be clarified. 
There is a provision that there is to be an agreement between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections. A number of the questions that have been raised by our colleagues could well be answered by that agreement. Indeed all of the matters could be brought forward and included in it and I would certainly advise the Minister of Corrections to proceed in that way. What about the costs? How are the costs to be met? What about the processes? Many of the speakers from the Opposition side asked about the processes for managing prisoners held in cells that are in court buildings. How are those processes to be managed? The answer given by the Minister in the chair defies credibility when we take some of the examples that my colleagues—members from this side of the House—have posed. The way that the Minister was saying it might proceed just would not work. Opposition members have also raised safety questions—that is the safety of those who look after the prisoners. What are the rules? If this agreement is to have standing and to be useful then all of those things need to be brought together. For the sake of clarity then these matters must be addressed in that document. 
It became clearer as the debate on this—as I said earlier—seemingly simple bill proceeded this morning that the Government is underperforming in terms of its focus on violence and offending. That certainly became clearer as the discussions went on. Throughout the morning it turned the provisions in the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill into a violence and law and order issue. Members contributing from the Government’s side of the House have displayed their own ignorance in many— 
Simon Bridges 
: Come on. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: If the member was here he would have heard examples of ignorance. If the member was here he would have heard. I do not think it would have been possible for him to do that— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why? Why? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Because the member would not have followed it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What are you talking about? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: If the member was listening he would have heard— 
Simon Bridges 
: Rajen! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: —Mr Bridges would have heard as well—that much of what the Government is doing today was started by the last Government and the current Government has added very little to that. Those measures are directly related to the very area of violence that has given rise to the recent increase in the number of violent incident reports. Most of it is to do with domestic violence and family violence. If the member was listening this morning and was following the debate he would have heard Shane Ardern for example use information very selectively. He remembered only a small piece of what I told him and forgot the additional information that I had given in the debate this morning. 
It is clear that this Government has milked the community’s concern about violent crime and about violence generally. It has milked it for its own reasons. It has passed some new provisions. 
Amy Adams 
: No no. We’ve done something about it. That’s the difference. We’ve done something about it. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member should consider that her Government has indeed milked that concern. Very few real provisions have come through. Most of the provisions—but not all of them—that are currently doing the work are provisions that the previous Government put in place. There are very few new provisions. There is some tidying-up but nothing of a major nature that is going to turn round the performance of this country in the area of violence. Mark my words time will show that to be the case unless something more dramatic is done. Members will see the work started by the previous Government gaining traction and indeed providing results. I am sure the Government will take credit for that but that work was started by the last Government and that is what members who were not listening this morning missed. 
The mistake the Government made was turning this very simple provision into a law and order issue. That shows me that the other side of the House has run out of steam in addressing what was its flagship policy in the area of crime and violence. Yet we know that the bulk of the violence that is happening is happening is our homes. The figures are now showing that. Programmes started by the last Government are being supported by the present Minister for Social Development and Employment as her officials reported in the Social Services Committee earlier this week. That is to her credit and I acknowledge that; I commend it. She is funding those programmes and supporting them and that is well done. But there is nothing new. Much of that work was started by the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families and by the Families Commission. I say to the members opposite that it is a mistake to always turn anything to do with tidying up a simple provision into a law and order issue. Members do that at their own peril. It does not do credit to those members. It simply demonstrates to us that they have lost their way in this particular debate. 
Many matters to do with this provision need to be resolved and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to do that. In the end what has replaced good evidence of the Government’s thinking about where it will take the issues of crime and law and order is a chant that Labour did nothing for 9 years. I challenge every member of the Government particularly the Ministers who repeats that chant to demonstrate that he or she is not intellectually dishonest. If those members were intellectually honest they would go to their Ministers and ask them what the last Government did and those members would be told that many many of the previous Government’s provisions are indeed the provisions that this Government is utilising today. When we see that happen we will move forward. 
Finally there is one provision that needs to be tidied up. The bill does not define the limit of 4 days or 96 hours and that needs tidying up. At the moment it appears only in the regulatory impact statement. That ought to be clarified far more directly and made well known.