Sharples Pita: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sharples Pita: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6685] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 One does not have to go far in Aotearoa to witness the cruel inhuman face of torture. Torture—the infliction of severe bodily pain especially as a punishment or means of coercion—is a breach of the basic fundamental rights to life that we would defend for all citizens of Aotearoa. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act specifically includes the right “not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment.” Yet despite it being in legislation and regulation our performance to date is far from good. 
The Maori Party comes to this House knowing that our national crisis is also the focus of international shame. It is not as if this was the first time the international spotlight has identified our failings as a nation in the upholding of basic human rights. At Mangaroa Prison in 1991 and 1993 abuse and injustices of such magnitude were recorded that they were subsequently reported to the United Nations committees for human rights and torture. The reports revealed that some of our prisoners New Zealand prisoners were held naked in outdoor yards overnight and denied medical attention for injuries including bruising black eyes and cracked ribs. A later ministerial inquiry found that the prison used informal squads of guards known as “designated hitters” to restrain and beat inmates in a series of systematic beatings. Eventually 12 guards were sacked and the Government issued a formal apology to the prisoners involved. There was a disturbing implication that because the crimes these inmates had committed were so grotesque the behaviour of the prison guards was seen as almost acceptable. Such experiences indicate how vulnerable the state of democracy is in Aotearoa. 
It was as a direct consequence of the ghastly events at Mangaroa Prison that the 1998 report of the United Nations Committee against Torture on New Zealand stated: “The committee considers it important to strengthen the supervision of the prisons to prevent the misuse and abuse of power by prison personnel.” That is paragraph 177 of that report. How could it come to be that in the very same year 1998 the Paremoremo behaviour management regime was set up? That unit provoked nine inmates to eventually turn to the High Court taking their case against treatment that they described as constituting psychological torture and that included their being kept in inhumane conditions. The prisoners described being held as punishment for too long in small windowless cells in solitary confinement—some for a period of up to 2 years. The cells lacked adequate ventilation and natural light. The inmates were forbidden to exercise outside. How could it be that the recommendations from the United Nations Committee against Torture were breached to such an extent? 
But it gets worse—and Ron Mark has referred to this. One year later another unit was set up in a Canterbury prison supposedly to tackle crime in prisons. The unit infamously labelled the “goon squad” was scrapped in 2000 following the death of a prisoner while being moved by the unit and amidst claims that its unorthodox methods intimidated both inmates and other officers. 
What sort of system do we have operating in our so-called “corrections” department when year after year it is its own misadministration that needs correcting? How could it be that the behaviour management regime and the “goon squad” were set up after the 1998 report which explicitly directed New Zealand to “prevent the misuse and abuse of power by prison personnel”? Was it ignorance arrogance or simply a case of “didn’t care”? 
Other concerns raised by the United Nations Committee against Torture have been about some aspects of youth justice in New Zealand including children being held in police cells the mixing of young prisoners with adult prisoners and the low age of criminal responsibility. Yet New Zealand had already sought to make a reservation to article 37(c) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child about mixing young people with adults in prison. What this meant in practice was that at the end of 2002 there were 99 children under 17 years of age in prison custody. Eight of the boys were mixed with adults and all 13 girls under 18 remained mixed with adult women. 
 I have to ask what sort of experience we are looking for for our young children if we actually go out of our way by introducing a reservation to the convention to enable young people to cohabit with adults in prisons. Maori Party members do of course support the intervention that the Minister of Corrections made just 2 months ago following the tragic death of a young prisoner in transit to ensure prisoners aged under 18 are always kept separate from adults while being transported. But the crunch issue remains that the mixing of young people with adults remains a central problem in our prisons. The Maori Party supports the intention of this bill in that it will raise the heat on the need for transparency and greater public scrutiny of practices such as this. We are particularly supportive of the opportunity for greater monitoring of institutions where people are deprived of liberty and specially in the case of young people. 
In my research into this bill I looked through the accounts from the working group on youth justice which consulted 40 young people throughout 2002 and 2003 who had been deprived of their liberty and held in prison or specialist Department of Child Youth and Family Services facilities. The experience of the children deprived of their liberty included lack of access to whanau youth workers and support staff; lack of information about their basic rights in the justice system; lack of safety in prison including receiving intimidatory threats and stand-over tactics from other young people; lack of opportunity for educational support and restrictive obstacles created by tuition fees; lack of access to mental health care support or physical health care—long waiting lists harassment and delays were frequently cited—and few if any cultural or social opportunities being available. In fact to my horror I learnt that young prisoners had been prohibited from speaking chanting or singing in te reo Maori. As a result of these interviews the working group on youth justice concluded that slow progress was being made in meeting the needs of young people deprived of liberties. Slow progress—that is an oxymoron if ever I heard one. 
The shame of woeful compliance with international conventions is not a new occurrence in this nation. In March of this year the United Nations special rapporteur reported on the association of human rights abuses in relation to the indigenous people of Aotearoa. His report states that the Maori ancestral land base has been appropriated by a variety of historical processes including voluntary sale fraudulent purchase and confiscation or alienation of land through legislative subterfuge. The special rapporteur concluded that the inherent rights of Maori were not constitutionally recognised and identified that “underlying institutional and structural discrimination that Maori have long suffered” were still being inadequately addressed. 
To our great disgrace as a nation there has not yet been any sort of response that can serve to restore honour to the name of Aotearoa. Despite our great disillusionment with a Government that discredits the United Nations in the way that has been done regarding the report of Professor Stavenhagen the Maori Party will not deny the opportunity for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to be received. We are hopeful that the Government will this time take seriously the urgent need to eliminate cruel degrading or inhuman forms of treatment or punishment. We are hopeful that by the time of the next report by the committee against torture the events and crisis state of our corrections system will have been addressed in a way that is meaningful and sustainable and involves all parties. We must have hope. To not do so would be to admit the situation is hopeless and we will never ever concede that.