Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12978] 
Corrections Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Corrections Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition will be leading an extremely vigorous debate against the Corrections Bill today. We want to highlight to the people of New Zealand a number of important deficiencies in this legislation. We want to highlight the ideological drive behind what is being proposed in this legislation and we also want to highlight the fact that this bill is full of potential litigation risk for the Crown. This Government knows that but it is continuing to push the bill through. 
In the next while numerous speakers from the National Party will be taking calls in this debate and will be covering a number of issues. We will be drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that the liberal people opposite are proposing to bring into this bill the woolly definition of “family”—which it tried to shove down the throats of the people of New Zealand with the Families Commission Bill—that provides that any prisoner is guaranteed visits from anybody he or she has a “psychological attachment” to. That means every gang member is going to have a right to be visited by every member of his or her chapter because that apparently is part of a gang member’s family group. Mrs Judith Collins from our side of the Chamber will be spending some time debating that as well. 
Led by Mr Brian Connell we will be spending some time talking about the purposes of the corrections system. The purposes highlighted by this Government are completely wrong. Where is the word “punishment”? Where is the word “incapacitation”? Where are the words “reintegration into the community”? Those words do not jump out from the face of the legislation because they simply are not part of what this Government is on about. Where is “prison to work”? Where is “punishment”? Where is “just desserts”? Where is “being incapacitated”? Where is “being off the street helps prevent crime”? None of that is mentioned in this legislation. 
Our other speakers in this debate including Richard Worth will talk about why the principles of this bill are all wrong. The principles of this bill are all wrong because they give lots of new rights to prisoners that they do not deserve. This bill gives prisoners the right to go to court and litigate their treatment by the Department of Corrections. I want to give one example of a provision that we would remove from the bill and we have tabled an amendment to do so. That example is the principle in clause 6(1)(c) which states that in order to reduce reoffending the sentence planning where appropriate has to take into account the cultural background ethnic identity and language of offenders. Well that is all motherhood and apple pie but what does it actually mean and what are the new legal rights that will be created because of what is in this legislation? That principle has never featured in the law before. What it means together with clauses further on stating that prison treatment has to be culturally appropriate is that prisoners on legal aid will be able go to the courts and say that they have not been treated in accord with their cultural background ethnic identity and language. 
Judith Collins 
: What about the victims? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Mrs Collins is right. What about the victims in these crimes? They get in this bill three lines’ reference in the principles. So we have a section of the bill that is over a page and a half—75 lines—and how many lines do the victims get? Three. That indicates what is wrong with this bill. Later during the debate on the other parts we will highlight the fact that the Department of Corrections is happy to have legislation that states it will tell the family of the offender when the offender is being moved to another prison but it will not tell the family of the victim if the victim wants to know whether the prisoner is being moved. This bill does not favour victims. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 As my colleague Mr Ryall has pointed out National intends to vigorously debate this legislation. We are vigorously opposed to it and we will make our position extremely clear through the course of this debate. 
I have to say that I am looking forward to going through this bill in some detail. This legislation is an absolute travesty beginning today when the Minister Paul Swain put on the Table a Supplementary Order Paper that has not just a few amendments but 45 pages full of them. Why could the Minister not accept from the outset that the legislation as drafted just was not a flyer? Why could he not listen to members of the select committee of whom I am one and take the advice that this legislation just does not stand the test of close scrutiny? 
I want to dwell in my first call on the purpose and principles of this legislation. There are a number of those set out under clauses 5 and 6. Clause 6(1)(a) deals with the maintenance of public safety. That is fine; philosophically I can agree with that. But then I see that the next principle in paragraph (b) is about victims’ interests. Who in this House—or in this country—believes that this Government puts victims’ interests first? The answer is no one. Time and time again we hear of the most horrendous offending yet the only thing this Government concerns itself with is the rights of those offenders. What about victims? When we look at the way the purpose and principles of this legislation have been drafted we can see that it is a nonsense. The principles provide for the “cultural background ethnic identity and language of offenders”. Who thought up that PC Chardonnay-sipping language? 
Judith Collins 
: The Minister did. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister in the chair Paul Swain did. He is totally and utterly out of date is he not? He is out of touch with hard-working New Zealanders who want justice. They want justice for victims they want justice for themselves and they want justice for offenders. They are not concerned about cultural identity or cultural background because they believe in one rule for all New Zealanders. If people break the law in this country despite their cultural background or their cultural identity they pay the price; or at least they should. Under a National-led Government they will. Under this Labour minority Government which I have to say with some shame is propped up by the United Future party and of coursethe Greens— 
Stephen Franks 
: I’m not responsible! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No no. I know Mr Franks is not responsible. I am not looking at him; he just happened to walk past. But I have to say with some shame that this Government is simply not concerned with what is right or wrong. 
Paragraph (d) of clause 6(1) deals with the role of the offender’s family in sentence planning and management. Why should the offender’s family be consulted? I could understand if it read “the role of the victim’s family” in sentence planning and management but no I am not misquoting it or misreading it. That is what it states. If this Government was really concerned about rehabilitation and sentence management it would not be—I repeat it would not be—doing away with the private management of prisons in this country. As this debate progresses I look forward to taking a call on that issue because the way those provisions are drafted is the greatest travesty in this bill. 
Clause 6(1)(e) concerns the fair treatment of offenders. On balance we would say that is fair. But why stop there? Why would the Government not also say that it is concerned with the fair treatment of victims? The Government should talk to the families of the victims of the Returned Services Association murders. It should talk to them about the rights of offenders and see what sort of response it gets. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have seen withering attacks in this House before and I am not looking at one just at the moment. Looking at a couple of things the speakers have raised firstly there is an issue about the importance of victims in this legislation. I want to point out that victims have their own Act. It is called the Victims’ Rights Act which was introduced by this Government. It is specific legislation that was not in place when the previous National Government was in power. 
I come now to clause 6(1)(c) which is about the issue of rehabilitation and I see that the National Opposition spokesperson made a speech recently about the importance of drug and alcohol rehabilitation. But some issues were raised at the Law and Order Committee as I understand it about risk and that is why clause 6(1)(c) has been amended in Supplementary Order Paper 213 on page 5 to include the words “… where appropriate and to the extent practicable within the resources available …”. That phrase is specifically designed to address the issues that that member raised so I hope the debate will be a little bit sharper more focused and more withering—honouring the promise made by Mr Ryall at the start. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I will look at this stage at the issue of family in the Corrections Bill and in particular at the extended definition given that term by this Minister. With regard to clause 3 not only does Supplementary Order Paper 213—50 pages long—deal with a constant revision of the term “prisoner” and referto him or her now as being any “person” or occasionally any “person under control or supervision” but there are definitions of “family” and “family group” that I am sure members of this Committee probably have not seen. Not only does the “family” include any person to whom the prisoner is related—or now the “person” is related—but the person’s spouse or de facto partner and the person’s family group. 
We have no particular issue with that but going on to what this “family group” is one finds it is anyone “… to whom the prisoner has a significant psychological attachment …”. 
Stephen Franks 
: Kylie Minogue. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: As Mr Franks said will it be Kylie Minogue next? Who knows? “Significant psychological attachment” as Mr Ryall correctly said means gang membership. That is exactly what it means. Many of us know that it is stated that prisons in this country run by the Department of Corrections are really run by the gangs. To survive in those prisons it is often found necessary for new inmates to become attached to gangs and gang members. Otherwise they are unlikely to survive in the worst conditions. 
This has not been the case until now at the Auckland Central Remand Prison which has been able to deal with the situation by using a very firm and fair method. But that prison is working so the Government has to get rid of it does it not? A Minister stands up day after day being asked the same questions from members on this side of the Chamber—and from United Future to give those members their due—and saying that the Government has to get rid of private prisons because of its policy and ideology. It has nothing to do with the fact that those prisons constantly outperform the Department of Corrections. 
So now there is this particular clause that states that family is any group “… to whom the prisoner has a significant psychological attachment …”. That has to be patched gang members. This group will now have all sorts of rights attached to being a family. What a travesty of the term “family” for those people who try to keep their kids on the straight and narrow! What a travesty to have families who are really trying their best often with very limited support to do the best by those prisoners who do still have families. Or is this simply a recognition that so many of the people in prison have no significant family involvement and have not had it for most of their lives? Is it simply a reality check from the Minister? If it is how will this be viewed? Prisoners will be asked what their significant psychological attachment is and whom they feel closest to and it will be to the gang. 
This is an absolute abuse of the terms “family” and “family group” and it is another example of this Government’s politically correct dogma coming all the way through and destroying something that works. Families for the most part work. Gangs for the most part are very good at involvement in methamphetamine production violent crimes bank robberies and the like. They are very good at controlling prisoners. 
This bill is simply giving them another step up and giving them—not just another sort of position—but the same position as fathers mothers brothers and sisters in the lives of prisoners who are not now referred to as prisoners but as “persons under control or supervision”. They cannot even be called what they are—criminals. The term cannot even be watered down to “inmates” or “prisoners”. No now they are “persons under control or supervision” which actually relates to all sorts of people including schoolchildren. They are all under supervision too. This legislation will now say that prisoners are the same as them. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 What balderdash! The suggestion that anyone in this Parliament would legislate so as to include gang affiliates in the definition of a family group is so ridiculous and absurd as not to be credible. The definition of “family” in clause 3 states: “(a) any person to whom the prisoner is related; and (b) the person’s spouse or de facto partner … and (c) the prisoner’s family group”. “Family group” is then defined to include “a family group or extended family” and gives situations where those people might be members of a family group or extended family. That obviously includes biological or legal relationships but sometimes a biological or legal relationship alone is not the defining characteristic. 
For example a person could have a stepbrother or a stepsister to whom they would have neither a biological nor a legal relationship. Therefore a person who is not biologically or legally related to a stepsister or stepbrother has to be included in paragraph (a)(ii) under the definition “family group” which is a family group or extended family to whom the person “has a significant psychological attachment”. The idea that that provision is intended to extend to gang members is a nonsense. If there were any doubt as to that being the position rather than it being just hot air from the Opposition benches we would amend that definition to make it clear. There is no need for an amendment because the provision is clear already. What the Opposition says is an absolute nonsense. It is the sort of tripe that members hear trotted out from Opposition members when they have nothing substantial to say about a very good bill. 
The idea that we in the Labour Government would define the family group so as to include members of gangs because of their gang affiliations is absolute nonsense and the concerns that that member raised can be safely ignored. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to put on the record that New Zealand First will be opposing the Corrections Bill in its entirety for a number of reasons. I will flip through briefly and point out some of those reasons. 
It is fair to say that the Department of Corrections is seriously in need of an overhaul. We in New Zealand First have been trying to make that clear to the Labour Government for the past 5 years. In particular I congratulate Tariana Turia—the honourable Tariana Turia—because she was one person in Labour’s ranks who truly knew what was going on inside the department and she had the tenacity to say something about it. On the other hand there are people like Mr Matt Robson who was the Minister responsible for allowing the activities of the “goon squad” to go on and on without investigation. That is quite ironic given that that member is such a champion of human rights and civil liberties. One might suggest that those qualifications are somewhat tarnished today. The high ground is not held any longer by that man—a man who has things to answer for. [ 
Interruption 
] Well Hungarian refugees and immigrants will be treated in prisons run under New Zealand First in the same way as everyone else. They will not be given any special cultural privileges catering to their language or special needs. If “they’re crims and they’re in” they will be dealt to like everybody else. No special treatment for Hungarian immigrants—as Mr Robson seems to be requesting from the other side—will be allowed. 
So what does New Zealand First object to? We object to what has proven to be an outstanding prison facility when compared with the State-run organisation being gotten rid of wound up and handed back to the State simply because of ideology. New Zealand First has taken a quantum shift on this issue on the basis of evidence. Our party had a similar policy to Labour’s—State penal institutions should be run by the State not by profiteers. But the facts are the facts and after 3 years one cannot in all conscience ignore the track record of the Auckland Central Remand Prison when matched up against Paparua or Paremoremo. We opposed the ideological shift there. 
We oppose the definition of “statutory visitor” in clause 3 because it is too wide. We have our fears but these issues will be dealt with and canvassed No doubt amendments will be proposed. For example does the Minister know that as a member of Parliament I have very tight constraints within which I can go and visit inmates? I can go into prisons and hear their complaints about their service but unless I register myself as a personal visitor I cannot go in and hear their concerns about their families and how they are coping out in the community. To do that I am required to sign a form that gives the Department of Corrections access to my personal confidential information. Well “Excuse me Minister!”. I am sorry but I do not trust some of the people in the Department of Corrections to handle my information confidentially. I have already had a bad experience in that regard with the military. I suggest to the Minister that it is right and proper for a member of Parliament to be able to go into a prison as a member of Parliament and see inmates on any issue pertaining to their families—in particular if their families are constituents of that member. 
I ask the Minister to talk to his officials before this bill finally passes through and to look at that issue. I think it is an area we can tidy up and at no great loss to anyone. Everybody’s rights are protected. Indeed I do not understand why a member of Parliament should have to sign a form that gives the Department of Corrections the ability to check out John Tamihere’s five drinking convictions Ruth Dyson’s drinking conviction or my conviction as a 17-year-old for carnal knowledge. What is the purpose of that? I suggest there is no purpose and there is no need. 
In terms of minimum entitlements for prisoners I would love to see something in the legislation about victims’ minimum entitlements. Any reference to the Victims’ Rights Act is spurious because that Act is already proving to be unenforceable or not enforced and victims are complaining about that every day. We will be studying the clauses on the information and education needs of prisoners very very closely because some information about prisoners should be handed from one area of the department to the other but that has not been the case. That is why the Parole Board often makes decisions it should not be making and I want to raise that issue in this debate. In my next call I will come back to the issue of a sentence planner. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before the next speaker I remind members to keep to the parts. The reference to the change of prison management is actually in Part 3 and we have had several references to that already. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I believe that this bill and the credibility of this bill is undermined by the lack of support from every party in this Parliament except for the underwhelming Labour Party and the underwhelming Green Party—two parties that are certainly not noted for being in favour of supporting victims’ rights but that are incredibly—[ 
Interruption 
] Does that party even exist any more—the Alliance leftovers the Progressives? We are talking about parties that are not well known or well regarded as far as victims’ rights are concerned. In fact they are the very parties that are offender-focused more than anything else. 
I would like to have a look at the principles in clause 6. Let us have a look at the first one: “(a) the maintenance of public safety is the paramount consideration …”. Well we should tell that to Tai Hobson. Stephen Franks and I were at the court yesterday. I did not see any member of the Government standing there in support of Tai Hobson. If it were not for the Department of Corrections the probation service the issue of parole and the lack of common sense of this Government I can tell members that he would not be there trying to claim his rights in respect of the death of his wife. It is because of the failure of the Department of Corrections. 
If we look at subclause (b) in clause 6 we see that “victims’ interests must be considered”. How? What victims are being talked about? This Labour Government has turned its back on seven northern Maori iwi who want to take part and take ownership of the problem in prisons— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Ha ha! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The Progressives can laugh but they are immaterial anyway. There are the Greens who once championed the rights of Maori but who have now turned their backs on them. I tell members that Maori will not forget their betrayal at the ballot box. The Greens will be held to account as will the Labour Party. They have turned their backs on Maori and they have turned their backs on common sense. 
If we consider the phrase “in order to reduce the risk of reoffending” in subclause (c) we can ask how the Government is going to do that with an 87 percent recidivism rate. We are not talking about a huge success rate for this Government are we. The only correctional facility that has a chance of actually stemming the tide and being the light that the rest of the corrections’ facilities can bathe in and take lessons from is being got rid of by this Minister. I have never seen him stand hand on heart and say he actually believes that this is the right decision. He always retreats into ideology or principles—ideology and principles that were made well before this corrections facility. The private prison’s management had a chance to actually succeed and show what it could do in contrast to the defective Department of Corrections that this Minister is supposedly in charge of. That is shameful! 
If we read further down in subclause (c) where it refers to “the cultural background ethnic identity and language of offenders:” again we see that this Labour Government complicit with the Greens is turning its back on Maori. We have something that works the Auckland remand centre and those parties are turning their backs on it because of a piece of paper they wrote before it even began. It is the “Flat Earth Society” in action. Its members had a policy to believe in the flat Earth and not to let the facts get in the way. 
Clause 6(d) states: “an offender’s family must so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances and within the resources available be recognised provided for and engaged in—”. We should tell that to Ken and Rita Croskery who never had the opportunity until intervention by members of Parliament to help them to go to parole hearings. But what of the families of offenders? Well they are catered for nicely and handsomely in this bill. It is pathetic and woeful and it is a slap in the face of the victims of this country. 
Clause 6(e) states: “the corrections system must ensure the fair treatment of prisoners and offenders who are subject to community-based sentences”. In the public system that this Minister is responsible for he is trying to delay the possibility of looking at the “goon squad” activities. Finally when push came to shove and he did not have a choice we have now an inquiry and there is the matter of 17 sexual liaisons between inmates and female corrections officers that he has finally admitted after misleading the House beforehand. We have high rates of suicide and drugs and alcohol in the corrections system but that is not so in the private system. But this Minister will not stand up put his hand on his heart and claim—and I want to see him do this—that shutting down the privately managed prison is the appropriate thing to do other than responding to principles that pre-dated and existed before that prison. This bill is a flaw from beginning to end. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on the Corrections Bill. This bill was introduced more than 2 years ago I believe. Submissions on it closed in May last year but were extended to June. They were all heard in order to allow the committee to report by the end of last year and since then the Minister has sat for nearly 5 months with absolutely no indication to this side of the Chamber or to the people that we would be hit today with 44 pages of fine-print amendment. 
 Why has the Minister decided to amend I think six of the definitions and the crucial principles and purposes statements in an amendment that could have been provided to the Law and Order Committee and could have been considered by the people? Instead he dumped it on the Committee just before we started to debate the bill. What are the reasons? It could be shame. It could well be that it minimises the time the public are exposed to the fact that this is the final nail in the Withers referendum voted for by 92 percent of New Zealand voters. 
Paul Swain thinks that the Withers petition is now back far enough in history that he can scoff at it and bring this bill through. He thinks that the Government has waited long enough that people who are stupid will have forgotten what they petitioned for in 1999. 
There may be another explanation for all these changed definitions for why in clause 5 our New Zealand corrections system is now subjected to United Nations rules and for why clause 6 has a series of silly amendments instead of those that are really needed. For example there should be an amendment to state simply that punishment is one of the purposes of a corrections system that denunciation of crime is one of the purposes of a sentence that prisoners should not be able to gamble on the rewards of crime exceeding the likely punishment cost to them and that obviously prisoners should be kept safe and provided with adequate food shelter and sanitation but that prison is a place is for punishment. 
My amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 208 would omit most of the Minister’s principles and replace them with five simple principles that would record that prison is supposed to be unpleasant. Prison is supposed to be a place that no one wants to go back to. Prison is not supposed to be a place of comfort or of all the statutory assurances of rights to protest and interfere to bring lawyers in and to tangle up prison officers. It is supposed to be a place where prisoners cannot be bullied or assaulted but where otherwise authority rules. It is a place where prisoners learn that the community is not a mug and that it cannot be tossed around by offenders who have learnt outside that rules are for other people. Prison is a place where rehabilitation is a proper objective but is subordinate to the other purposes of imprisonment. There is nothing in this bill to make it plain that rehabilitation is worthy but that no prison system in the world has managed to establish that rehabilitation can be successfully achieved. 
Rehabilitation is spontaneous. No one knows how to reproduce programmes that reliably rehabilitate. So to write an entire Act around the notion that rehabilitation is the primary outcome of imprisonment is simply madness. The amendments that I propose in Supplementary Order Paper 208 would protect the proper interests that prisoners can legitimately claim—that they will not be assaulted that guards will not abuse their lawful authority that prisoners will be kept safe and provided with adequate food—but show that prison is a place for punishment. There is nothing in this bill that records that prison is a place for punishment. Instead we have a new reference to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Those are 40 years old. Those rules state that going to prison is the punishment and that prison is not allowed to punish further. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 During the Committee stage of the Families Commission Bill the Government removed the definition of “family” which has been incorporated into this bill and replaced it with a phrase that was in no way akin to this “psychological connection”. Mrs Collins has official paperwork on that and she will seek a call later on to remind the Minister in the chair Paul Swain that the Government has recognised that because of concerns previously expressed by this party “psychological connection” is too loose a definition and facilitates gang members being considered part of a family group. 
The Minister needs to know—and he may have forgotten—that there are at least 830 gang members in our nation’s prisons. The last head count had 289 each for Black Power and the Mongrel Mob and coming in at third 51 from the Nomads. So there are a significant number of gang members in prison. Mrs Collins will talk about the fact that because of her concern about the interpretation of “psychological connection” that definition of “family” was removed from the Families Commission Bill. The Minister should listen to that contribution because I think it will be important. 
Members on this side of the Chamber are particularly concerned about the Minister’s poor drafting of the purposes and principles of the corrections system. We think it fails to clearly reflect what the community expects from our prison system. The National Party considers that prisons work most effectively in two ways. The first is that they incapacitate criminals. We know that most crime is committed by a hard-core group of repeat offenders. By putting those people away we remove the opportunity for those offenders to commit further crimes. By taking them off the streets the justice system punishes the offender and protects and serves the community. That is not reflected in either the principles or purpose clauses of the bill. 
The second reason prison is effective is that it has an important role in deterring potential offenders from committing other crimes. Most people who may be contemplating for example a burglary a car theft or violence will weigh up the costs or benefits of their offending to some extent. Like any other money-making activity that requires some sort of rational calculation and the greater the risk of being caught and punished the less inclined people are to commit an offence. Again that basic precept—that tenet that makes prison effective—is not mentioned in this bill so National has moved a number of amendments to better reflect that. 
What is mentioned time and time again in the principles and purposes of the bill is the one function of prison about which there is greatest debate—that is rehabilitation. The debate has been going on for years about whether prisons rehabilitate. From the New Zealand experience it is clear that some programmes lower the reoffending rate but as a whole the reoffending rate of people released from prisons under this Labour Government is appalling. Forty percent of offenders released on parole will reoffend within 1 year of release; within 2 years 55 percent will reoffend; and within 5 years 86 percent of people will reoffend. So the question is whether that indicates rehabilitation. No it does not indicate rehabilitation. 
The Government is spending $43 million a year on that and frankly I think that is ineffective. What has been shown around the world to be effective is the use of prison work and study to better prisoners. Neither of those is mentioned at any length in the purposes and principles of the legislation. If the Government wants to promote rehabilitation one would have thought that the bill would back that up. Instead the bill is full of a whole lot of woolly stuff about rehabilitation being based on cultural background ethnic identity and the language and religion of the offender. None of that stuff is important in terms of the principles and purposes of the bill. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want briefly to finish what I was saying before my previous 5 minutes’ call concluded. I was talking about the bill’s coverage of information sharing and I say most sincerely to the Minister—I plead with him—that the area in the Department of Corrections where information sharing needs to occur is in the department itself. Although we all know it is helpful to the community if the police are given information about offenders who will be paroled—be they dangerous people sexual predators or whatever—what is failing inside the Department of Corrections right now is that the very people who are designated sentence planners who write the reports and put together the rehabilitation programme that this bill puts into statutory law—the integrated offender management system—are also the jailers. 
There is a serious problem when a jailer feels that he or she can be intimidated or feels intimidated by an inmate. Will the jailer write a sentence plan that the inmate dislikes? Will the jailer write a report that goes on to the Parole Board—one that the offender dislikes? Not on your nelly! It is a fundamental fault and flaw to have the people who turn the keys responsible for writing the report that recommends whether an inmate should be paroled or released. It is a fundamental error. The keyholder needs to be totally separated from the responsibility of putting together the sentence plan and from the responsibility of writing reports to the Parole Board. What I know and what I am telling the Minister again—and today I was proven right; I have been proven right on everything I have brought to this Minister—is that the biggest problem with information sharing is within the Department of Corrections itself. The reason is that its processes are fundamentally flawed and this bill legislates them into being. That is what it does. 
I will deal with the notion of rehabilitation. I hope I have the time to read this: “The correctional rehabilitation ethic is a child of this century born with the rise of Progressive ideology and reform in the early decades growing strong with the development of social science in the thirties and forties reaching maturity in the fifties when the medical model was at its peak suffering a mid-life crisis and a loss of faith in the sixties and seventies and essentially gone and forgotten by the eighties. As we enter the nineties the rehabilitative ideal is showing signs of revival as some researchers employing a new technology called ‘meta-analysis’ believe they have detected life in the old body still. Were the rumours of the death of rehabilitation premature or is it time to give rehabilitation a decent burial and to consider a definition of penology without reference to ‘corrections?’ ”. This is an article from the United States written by some very learned gentlemen who would tell the Minister that rehabilitation does not work. I am sorry but the only inmate who will rehabilitate is the inmate who wants to. 
We are in a situation where we believe everything we are told. There are inmates who know that their one goal is to get out of jail and to get out as quickly as they can. They will sit there and say anything the sociologists want to hear. They will tell the sentence planner anything. There is a case of one released inmate who did five courses on anger management. He did the course five times so of course he puts the ticks in all the right boxes. When it comes time for parole it all looks good. One needs to sit with some inmates—those who are prepared to be honest and frank—and listen to the games they play. The situation has never been more evident than what is happening right now to female prison officers some of whom should never have been in the job in the first place because of being vulnerable to the manipulations of these people who have doctorates in manipulation. That is what got them into prison in the first place. These prisoners spend 24/7 figuring out how they can get over under and around the system. The whole country has been sucked into this idea of rehabilitation. We implemented rehabilitation based on spirituality and within the first month one of the people on the spirituality programme was murdered by another inmate on the programme who shoved a garden fork through his throat. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that to correct all the mistakes in a 158-page bill the Minister has tabled a 50-page Supplementary Order Paper. Given that we have to make so many corrections to correct the original bill I want to ask about the process that the select committee has just gone through. To me there is something radically wrong—and it is an insult to Parliament—when so many changes have to be made after the select committee has reported back the bill and when we now have to front up in the Committee stage to make the corrections that have been identified as being problems. 
Brian Connell 
: That is why it’s called the Corrections Bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: There we have it—the Corrections Bill. We are not on the title debate yet but I guess if it was the title debate we could say that it is aptly named. I will not put up an alternative to the title. 
What I will spend time on is the definition of “Visiting Justice” in clause 3 which states: “Visiting Justice in relation to a prison means (a) a District Court Judge; or (b) a person appointed under section 19(2) to be a Visiting Justice for that prison”. One of the concerns that has been expressed—and the Minister in the chair Paul Swain may like to take a call on this—is that justices of the peace have in the past been visiting justices. In this bill that provision is taken away. I do note however that an amendment to clause 19(2)—which is in Part 2 but still relates to the definition in Part 1—set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 states that: “The Governor-General may on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice appoint any Justice of the Peace or barrister or solicitor of the High Court to be a Visiting Justice for every prison.” The Minister acknowledged that that has now been brought back in and we applaud that. It is our view of course that it should never have been taken out. The Minister has acknowledged that justices of the peace are now back in the bill. That will satisfy the thousands of JPs around the country who have been quite concerned about the fact that JPs were excluded in the bill as introduced. That is certainly an area we support. 
I also note that if we were to look here in Parliament—I have here the parliamentary telephone directory for April 2004—for the justices of the peace who are MPs or who work here there are three Labour MPs and Madam Chairperson is one of those. The Hon George Hawkins Janet Mackey and Lindsay Tisch are mentioned here as well. There are also six other JPs who work in Parliament. 
While some members may carry out only ministerial duties which is a function that I have had for many many years as a JP there are many who have undertaken the judicial course and have sat on the bench in various courts around the country. The demise of JPs sitting on the bench came when the move to community magistrates came into force. I do not know how many community magistrates there are around but I know there are still some in Hamilton. There was concern when community magistrates were introduced that JPs who had done judicial training and who had experience in courts were sidelined. 
The point I bring forward for the Minister is that although his Supplementary Order Paper corrects what the bill states concerning visiting justices—who will now include JPs and barristers and solicitors of the High Court—it has to be asked who will pay for this service. JPs at the moment give their time voluntarily. They are the leaders in the community. They have got there because of their standing in the community but who will pay the barristers and solicitors? 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 David Parker who spoke after me in my previous speech said that no sensible Government could possibly expect anyone to believe that the definition of “family group” could include gangs and he quoted from the bill. I have just had sent to me a copy of the Families Commission Act which was passed by the House last year. The definition of “family group” in that legislation as introduced was exactly the same as that given in this Corrections Bill and it had to be changed because an awful lot of very sensible people realised that the words “a significant psychological attachment” could include gangs. The wording was changed to what appears in section 10(1) of the Act: “In this section ‘family’ includes a group of people related by marriage blood or adoption an extended family 2 or more persons living together as a family and a whanau or other culturally recognised family group. Subsection (3) goes on to state that “persons are not members of a family for the purposes of this section solely because they have as their common objective or 1 of their common objectives the achievement of some outcome of a community domestic professional recreational social vocational or other nature (for example the commission of offences against any enactment …”. In other words gangs and all other groups that could be called groups of a social nature were excluded. So the House in its wisdom amended the Families Commission legislation to take out the gang connection. However the Corrections Bill does not do that. 
I know that the Minister does not really believe in this bill. I can tell that because every time he stands up to defend it he comes out with lines such as: “Well this is Labour Party policy.” and “Nobody should do this other than the Government.” I just know that he does not believe in it. I would like to know whether he would consider changing the bill at this stage to reflect the changes brought about by the House in the Families Commission legislation. Quite clearly it is wrong when different definitions for the same things and for the same sorts of purposes are contrary. For a start it makes for very bad case law. Secondly it makes far better sense. It is just silly nonsense from Mr Parker to say that nobody could ever think that “family group” could include gang members. Of course it could. That is why he had to stop quoting during his earlier presentation. 
The Committee stage is an opportunity for the Government to try to fix some of this. Unfortunately the Minister has not looked further at the legislation. It has been floating around for a long time and one of the problems is that it has not had the benefit of the changes made to the Families Commission legislation. I would like the Minister to look at the bill in this regard. We would certainly facilitate whatever change needs to be made to bring it into line with the Families Commission Act. At the end of the day we know that the Government has the numbers on this no matter how few they might be; but we do want the law to be as good as possible given the appalling situation this legislation will render. 
I would like to take up the issue of the purpose of this bill. The purpose of prison should be first and foremost to punish. Second it should keep people out of society locked up in prison so they cannot offend against society and victims. Rehabilitation will not work unless a person wants to be rehabilitated. That is the truth first and foremost. One cannot take any adult and say: “I’m now going to rehabilitate you and take you out of the criminal environment.” That will not happen until the person is ready to be rehabilitated. When I looked at the purpose of the legislation I asked myself what it says about the people who signed up for tougher sentencing It says to the 92 percent of people in this country who signed a referendum for tougher sentencing that they are not important. As we have said and we all know rehabilitation does not work. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I intend to take a fairly short call on Part 1 for the simple reason that many of the substantive issues that we want to address come up in the next part. I wanted to raise and address some of the questions brought up by previous speakers because I find it really curious that so many members have such a strong aversion to the concept of rehabilitation—an issue that was brought up by Mr Franks Judith Collins Ron Mark and Marc Alexander who is interjecting to the side of me. I found that curious and I have two points to make. The first is that the hero of all of those members—of the “privateers” of the prison service—the General Manager of Auckland Central Remand Prison Dom Karauria said that rehabilitation was his central focus. In fact he pointed to that focus on rehabilitation being the success of what he has been doing at that remand prison rather than punishment.I find it curious that the members in this Parliament who are the champions of Mr Karauria are the very same people who ditch the basic assumptions that underpin his work. 
My second point is that members who call themselves the friends of the victims of crime are so focused on punishing people after the fact that they seem to have absolutely no interest in stopping future victims. The only way we will stop people becoming future victims of crime and the only way to make it less likely that people are victims of crime is if offenders are rehabilitated. It is an obvious equation that seems to have escaped members of the National Party New Zealand First ACT and United Future. Of course that should not surprise us at all. 
I draw attention to two points in the Supplementary Order Paper that relates to Part 1. The first is a particular role in rehabilitation and I commend Matt Robson in particular for the amendment in clause 6(ca) which states: “offenders must where appropriate and so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances be provided with access to any process designed to promote restorative justice between offenders and victims:”. 
We know that one of the most effective ways to promote rehabilitation is through restorative justice. It tends to promote genuine remorse and a genuine desire to address and right the balance when offenders come face to face with the human face of their victim. We also know that in terms of victim satisfaction restorative justice is an extremely important and powerful way to meet the needs of victims and as I said a way of touching offenders and moving them to a rehabilitative impulse. 
The other amendment I would like to address is to clause 6(c)(i). The original bill clearly stated in clause 6(c) that in order to reduce the risk of reoffending decisions relating to sentence planning of management and the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into the community must where appropriate take into account the cultural background ethnic identity and language of offenders. 
It is absolutely vital that it do so and the Greens—in negotiations with the Government—are keen to ensure that not just the individual management and sentence planning addresses those cultural needs and the ethnic identity and the like but also that in the development and provision of rehabilitative programmes and other interventions those things were taken into account. It is not enough to address simply the cultural needs of offenders at an individual level. One crucial thing we can learn from the Auckland Central Remand Prison in Mount Eden—and the Department of Corrections is trying to do that as well and has had varying degrees of success depending on the place and the personnel involved—is that those cultural perspectives must be integrated at a systematic level through the institution. 
It is not something that is applied just to the individual but the way in which the facility develops has to address those questions of culture ethnicity and language. The two amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper are extremely useful and ones that I would draw the Committee’s attention to. I cannot wait to move on to the next part. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Whip—Progressive) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Initially I was not going to take a call on this legislation but when I came into the Chamber and spoke to our spokesman on the issue Ron Mark and went up to the Table and looked at the amendments—I was looking for a small piece of paper perhaps a couple of amendments from the Government and amendments put in by the National Party and Marc Alexander—I thought there would not be many amendments to this bill; after all it has been around for a while and the Government’s policy keeps on being stated. But what did I find? I found 45 pages of amendments which is quite amazing. Does this Government not know what it is doing? That is all I have to say on that particular issue. Where is this Government going? There are 45 pages of amendments! 
When we start to read the amendments we start to ask what they actually mean. First of all can the Minister take a call and tell us whether the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been contacted consulted and had these amendments discussed with it? What other groups in society have had the opportunity to be consulted on these amendments? The Greens are very strong on consultation getting together holding hands and having a little cuddle to decide what they will do. There is a name for that type of thing. Mr Nandor Tanczos laughs but I would have thought that if one had 45 pages of amendments and one was a Green Party member one would want to have one’s little group huddle to decide whether these amendments were satisfactory. However on this occasion Mr Tanczos laughs. 
This bill is supported only by the Progressive Coalition member who made his usual contribution just now and by the Greens. Again this bill is likely to get through this Parliament on the slimmest of majorities yet it is of vital importance to society in New Zealand. Of course it was Mr Robson who as a Minister was responsible for the “goon squad” cover-up. All he can do today is to jump up and move a closure motion. He was responsible for the “goon squad” cover-up. I would have thought Mr Robson of the Progressive Coalition would have stood up and given us an explanation as to how this bill resolves that problem. But no all he can do is repeat a few words from the Labour Party which just wants to ram this legislation through. 
I have looked at these amendments in so far as the first part of the bill is concerned. I looked at the meaning of “offender”. There did not seem to be any meaning of “offender” in the bill originally and I would have thought that to put in the meaning for “offender” would be particularly important. If one has a Corrections Bill then the people who will go into prison are offenders; therefore one must make sure that if one is to define them one defines them clearly. 
The bill refers to a person who is under control or supervision. It states that a person who is dealt with is liable to be dealt with for non-payment of a sum of money disobedience of a court order or contempt of court but it does not include a person who is under control or supervision by reason only that the person is in custody awaiting trial. That is the sort of person who should be called an offender. If people are being dealt with in a Corrections Bill and are put on remand in a corrections facility surely they must come within the definition of “offender”. Maybe I have read it the wrong way round because it has only just been put in the legislation. If that is the case then it suggests that we need more time to consider these amendments. Can the Minister explain why it is that on the face of it people who are on remand in terms of this amendment are not offenders in terms of the bill? They are the major types of people in the Auckland Central Remand Prison whom we are dealing with. Are they to be excluded from this particular legislation? Is that the reason for the view the Labour Party is taking on the closing down of the Auckland private facility? 
Again an “offender … does not include … a person who is detained solely as a consequence of a warrant or other order issued under the Immigration Act 1987”. Perhaps this is the “Zaoui” amendment. Although Mr Zaoui is being held in prison does this bill not apply to him? What do the amendments to the definitions in paragraphs (c)(i) and (c)(ii) mean if people who are on remand are not included or people who are detained solely as a consequence of a warrant or other order issued under the Immigration Act are not included? Are these people not offenders? Do they not come within this legislation? That is a very important issue that the Minister must give consideration to. 
In so far as rehabilitation is concerned in my experience as a lawyer—and I have dealt with hundreds of criminals—they rehabilitate only when they get tired and slightly older. They cannot do it any more. That is the rehabilitation. We see them coming through at 18 19 20 21 and 22 years of age. It drops off at about 24 or 25 years and apart from the hardened criminal they rehabilitate because they do not have the energy and have given up as it is too much for them—and that is rehabilitation. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I want to draw to your attention a concern I have and ask for your indulgence. I know that this is a very comprehensive bill and right now I know that you are looking for new material. A lot of people are seeking the call. We are all seeking to have an opportunity to take a call. However I am struggling with the time frame that we have had with the number of these Supplementary Order Papers the complexity and the detail to get through this Part 1 and to get through every amendment and their implications. I ask your indulgence to give us the time. I am mindful of the Government’s attempt by taking closure motions to shut this down but seriously I have got only to page 2 of the Supplementary Order Papers and the changes and deletions of definitions there are substantial. I ask you to give us the time to debate this comprehensively because some of us simply will not have the time to read through this Supplementary Order Paper if a closure motion is taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There will be ample time for debate. There are three parts to the bill and I am also mindful of the proportionality of the Committee. I am giving that very serious consideration each time I take a call. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This part is just dripping with political correctness. We can tell when we have both the Green Party and the Labour Party backing this sort of corrections legislation what we can expect. Is there anywhere in this part which deals with the principles that uses the word “punishment”? As a common-sense New Zealander I say the reason we send people off to prison is to punish them for a crime that they have committed. However nowhere in this part are we allowed to use the word “punishment”. I ask the Minister whether it is Government policy that we now are not to punish people who offend and break the law of the land. Is that the Minister’s position? We on this side of the Committee take a balanced view. We are not unhappy with the Department of Corrections having a rehabilitation role but we should be up front and say: “Corrections is about punishment.” I know that it does not suit those politically correct types sitting on the Government benches to dare use the word “punishment”;we should be up front. It should be there. 
Darren Hughes 
: Like your nuclear-free policy! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The young member from otaki Forks who has just woken up thinks that there is no role at all in regard to crime for punishment. People can rape pillage or steal but under Darren Hughes’ corrections policy there is to be no punishment. We are to have a touchy— 
Darren Hughes 
: Don’t be silly. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Where is the word “punishment”? We have the principles— 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s the maintenance of public safety. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is not the word “punishment”. That is not there. Our corrections system is about more than just public safety. It is about punishment. We then come to the political correctness around family. I commend my colleague Judith Collins for exposing the politically correct dogma that we see in respect of family that is now to be recognised by this Government. The Government’s definition of family is absolutely infinite. If one has any sort of psychological attachment with anybody one is now defined as family. So much has the Government thrown out this most basic institution that founds our society— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: No it doesn’t. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That would be typical of the politically correct party that he represents. They do not have any respect at all for the family; neither does Minister Judith Tizard. Thus we have the sort of woolly silly presentation in the bill around that particular issue. I say to members opposite that family is important. We need to have some common-sense definition of family yet every single statute that this Government puts through the Parliament with the endorsement of the Greens just further erodes families in this country. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What drivel! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am pleased the Minister has at long last recognised the drivel that one must take into account in the Corrections Bill—such as “cultural background” “ethnic identity” and “language of offenders”. That politically correct drivel is being put into our corrections legislation. Are we saying that somehow because of someone’s ethnic identity he or she will have different rights? Members on this side have a very clear view: we say there is one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders. 
Darren Hughes 
: The Opposition has been telling us how good the Maori programmes are. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Absolutely. I started some of them and I am very proud of them. But the Opposition will not support the sort of thing that Mr Hughes wants to see—that is a corrections policy that is very focused on cultural background and ethnic identity but not interested in punishment. We say that people who murder pillage and rape deserve to be punished and they deserve far more than the politically correct— 
Hon Member 
: Which boarding school did you go to? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I never went to boarding school. The member should get his facts right. There needs to be some firmness in corrections policy. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (h) from the definition of  
official agency 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to omit and substitute the definition of  
sentence of imprisonment 
 in clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 3 is out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of the definition of  
Visiting Justice 
 after the word “prison” the words “and is a Justice of the Peace.”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “contribute to the maintenance of a safe and just society” and substitute the words “improve public safety and reduce criminal offending”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(aa)incapacitating criminals and thereby preventing reoffending; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(d)deterring potential offenders from committing crime. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(e)delivering punishment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d) of subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (g) of subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (h) from subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw attention to the foot of page 2 of Supplementary Order Paper 213 and to the spelling of “adviser”. Is the Minister really seriously expecting us to spell it “adviser”? It should be spelt “advisor” surely. Perhaps the Chair should take a look at that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell Mr Jones that that is hardly a matter for a point of order. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is nonsense. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The matter can be debated. It is a matter for the Minister and he has just told me that he will fix it up. I just tell honourable members that when we are voting I would like them to look at Speaker’s ruling 61/2. There is to be no comment at all during the taking of a vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of the definition of  
family group 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to:  
to omit proposed new paragraph (ab) of subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to:  
to insert in proposed new paragraph (ab) of subclause (1) after the word “matters” the words “and as is appropriate in the opinion of the Minister”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new paragraph (c) from subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new paragraph (ca) from subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Corrections system 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of brief comments relating to Supplementary Order Paper 213. The issues considered in the Supplementary Order Paper were considered at the Law and Order Committee and are the result of a number of submissions that were made. The reality is that those matters were not able to be read into the bill simply because of the tied nature of that committee so they have come back to the Committee as a Supplementary Order Paper. They have had considerable discussion at the select committee I understand. 
The second issue I want to bring to members’ attention is on page 7 of the Supplementary Order Paper and it concerns the powers and functions of the chief executive and managers. That matter is part of the discussion that the Progressives and the Greens had with the Government. I want to acknowledge the work of the Green Party and of Nandor Tanczos in coming up with some smart wording about how we could engage both the chief executive and the managers with local communities in ensuring that those communities are involved more in some of the programmes and processes that go on within prisons and also extending beyond that. If we are to do something about rehabilitation and improving the resettlement and recidivism rates in New Zealand then it is really important that we have greater community involvement. I think the amendment is a step forward and an improvement in the bill as it came to the House. 
Finally I say there will be a lot of excitement agitation concern outrage and anger at clauses 185 and 186. Those particular provisions relate to ending the private management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison and placing it back into public hands. That has been a well-intentioned well-signalled policy plank of this Government for some considerable years. We consider that incarceration—that is taking away people’s liberty—is a fundamental core function of the State and that is why we are doing that. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 This part of the Corrections Bill will make it illegal for the Government to contract prison management to private enterprise. As we know since 1999 the company Australasian Correctional Management has run New Zealand’s only privately run prison the Auckland Central Remand Prison. During that time it has been able to manage the incarceration of individuals for the cost of $43000 a year per prisoner compared with an average cost across comparative prisoners of $54000 a year and $72000 a year for high-security prisoners. That information will be disclosed even further by members on this side. 
But I want also to highlight—and this is the reason why the Opposition will be expecting a generous amount of time—that besides our opposition to the cancellation of the private prison contract there are at least four other areas that we intend to cover. First is the ridiculousness of legislating the integrated offender management programme into legislation. There are different ways of operating prisons. Penal policies do come and go and the philosophy of the prison system should reflect that of the elected representatives of the day as conveyed through the Government. It should not be enshrined in legislation. We have moved a number of amendments to remove from this part of the bill those parts that are administrative and purely the realm of those involved in management. 
Secondly we will also be opposing the new rights for prisoners that are enshrined in this legislation. These rights are now in law. The Government’s advisers were unable to tell the Law and Order Committee what new risks to Treasury these new requirements would provide. We simply believe that they are an invitation for prisoners to take the Department of Corrections to court. Under this law prisoners will be entitled to access further education. They will be entitled to have that access—not as a privilege but as a right. We think hard-working New Zealanders will be furious if criminals can get better educations than their children can courtesy of their taxes and that is possible under this bill. 
Thirdly we want to talk about the fact that this Government is passing legislation that says that the families of the offender can know when the offender is transferred from one prison to the other but not the victims or their family members. In the case of Mr Mark Lundy who was moved from Paremoremo prison to Kaitoke prison Mr Lundy’s family was informed but the family of the late Mrs Lundy was not informed. That is outrageous. We heard every excuse from the Government’s apologists as to why the law could not provide that those victims who want to know whether the offender is being moved should be informed of that. I have moved an amendment that will facilitate that. 
Fourthly we are going to talk about the role of probation officers. This part of the bill identifies that probation officers will enforce the Government’s parole orders from the Parole Board andwill enforce community sentences. What we do know is that the Government’s officials are not enforcing parole orders. The Government has agreed that a third of people on parole can actually violate their parole. The Government has agreed that that is an acceptable standard. We also know that with community work less than half the people are turning up. So we are going to talk about those issues. 
We believe that the Government is putting ideology before common sense with the abolition of the private prison contract. It makes sense financially for the Government to contract out this service because we are getting a better service at a better price. If Government members put all their ideology aside surely they will see that the responsibility of the Government to the taxpayers is such that they should be continuing with the private contract. Australasian Correctional Management has met and exceeded the contractual performance standards that it was set by the Government. In fact the Government has even congratulated Australasian Correction Management on its performance. In Parliament today we have had the ridiculous situation where the Minister of Corrections stood up and said that the Government is the only— 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I know that we are debating Part 2 but I want to take a minute to congratulate the Labour Party the Green Party and the Progressive party on passing the addition of clause 6 which deals with restorative justice to the bill. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Sit down! 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was just yelled at by Dr Mapp. He told me to sit down. Is that in order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. But DrMapp should come to order. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: Very good. Clause— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just heard the speaker congratulate the other parties on passing clause 6. Clause 6 is in Part 1 and we are on Part 2. So would you please ask the member to come back to the part we are debating? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order—and the member is a longstanding member of this House; he has been in the political arena for some time. 
Dail Jones 
: With respect it is a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a debatable issue. 
Dail Jones 
: If I started speaking on clause 3 you would pull me up and if I started speaking on clause 6 you would pull me up and quite rightly. We are dealing with Part 2 beginning with clause 7. We are not dealing with clause 6. So I am absolutely right Mr Chairman with the greatest of respect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please be seated. The member had only just stood. If he had been going a little bit longer then I would have pointed him to the bill. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: My point is that clause 6 becomes operative in Part 2 and I note that most parties in this Parliament have said they are in support of restorative justice. I will be in Whakatane on Saturday at a restorative justice graduation ceremony. I will point out to the people there that one of the members of Parliament a member for the area near Whakatane Mr Tony Ryall for the National Party has voted against implementing restorative justice in our prisons. 
Part 2 has some of the most controversial parts of the bill in the view of the Opposition but it is not controversial if we look at the record of the Department of Corrections. I note that under successive Governments going back to the National Government of the 1990s support for programmes that dealt with the issue of the overrepresentation of Maori in prison has been a central focus of the Department of Corrections. So it is interesting to note the opposition of the National Party to programmes and an approach that focus on working with Maori—and by extension with Pacific Islanders—to reduce the rate of reoffending. 
Clauses 50 and 51 set out the management plans and the rehabilitative programmes. They are built on the work of programmes that have been successful such as the Maorifocus units Kia Marama Te Piriti the Straight Thinking programme the Making Our Drivers Safer programme the drug therapy programmes the bicultural therapy programmes and so the list goes on—including employment programmes. When this bill becomes an Act it will underpin the evidence-based programmes that we know do work. What we do have to work on clearly is extending the programmes that work and getting rid of any practices that do not meet the goal of reducing the rate of reoffending. The Minister has pointed out that with this bill we have a holistic approach so that we concentrate on not only what occurs inside prison but also reintegrative processes outside of it. 
I would also like to commend the fact that in relation to clause 109 there is now an amendment that includes members of Parliament among those official agencies to whom prisoners can write confidentially. This points to Mr Mark’s oft-noted concern about any ill-governed actions inside the prisons or any illegal actions that are occurring. Because inmates are able to get in touch with members of Parliament they have access to Parliament and can raise questions when they have concerns. I point that out to Mr Mark because he seems to be tremendously concerned—at least he has said so in this Parliament—when something goes wrong inside a prison. However the policy of New Zealand First seems to be that of the Iraqi model under both Saddam Hussein and the present United States— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will come to order. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are you going to allow that? Today we have seen offence taken because people were referred to as Hungarian immigrants. We now have a former Minister—the Minster responsible for covering up the “goon squad” affair—saying that New Zealand First supports the type of treatment meted out to Iraqi prisoners in a jail. That is not only ridiculous; it is offensive and disgusting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did call the member to order. The more I think about the comment the more I think it probably comes under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections”. I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: Clause 155 deals with the right of members of Parliament to visit prisons. Ensuring that that right remains is an important step. I myself know both as a former Minister in this area and as a member of Parliament that it has been an important right of members of Parliament so that they are informed. I do hope that more members of Parliament take advantage of it and actually visit prisons before they speak in these particular debates. 
On the question of the private prison it should be noted that the policy of the Labour Party and certainly the policy of Jim Anderton and myself at both the 1999 election and the 2002 election made it clear that revocation of the contract for the private prison would occur. That has also been the policy of the Green Party. I think it would behove members of this Parliament who claim to know so much about what happens in the Auckland Central Remand Prison to become informed about the other parts of the corrections system which actually deal with 99 percent of the inmates of this country not just the top end of remand prisoners. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am extremely concerned that the ideological nonsense in this bill will undo the good work of the previous Government in the area of corrections management. Every single Government that has come into office in the last 30 years has claimed it will make improvements in the prison system yet in every single term of office those promises come to naught—and so it is with this Government. 
In 1998 during my period as Minister of Corrections I was able to sign the contract with Australasian Correctional Management for the Auckland Central Remand Prison and I want to remind the members opposite who were then in Parliament of what they said the trial would show. Members opposite claimed that there would be record numbers of abuses. Were there? No. In fact the situation has been quite the opposite. There have been fewer abuses in that correctional facility than in any other prison. Members were told private prisons would be more expensive. Again I ask members opposite to look at the record of the last 5 years and to note that the private prison has been a less expensive prison service. Members were told that if the Government went for private prisons there would be complete neglect of any rehabilitation programmes. Yet official reports and monitoring of the Auckland Central Remand Prison show that its rehabilitation has been substantially better. We also know that in the experience of the Maori community Australasian Correctional Management which was privately contracted to run that prison has provided far better programmes for Maori. 
I want to know from the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain why after all the nonsense that was spoken in the 1990s and after all the predictions that were made by Labour have been categorically proved wrong by experience the Government wants to bring an end to private prisons. What is it in real terms that makes the Minister want to drive out innovation in our prison service? For all the debate about reoffending why is it that ideologically he wants to squash the good work that has been done at that Auckland remand prison? 
We National members are proud of our heritage and proud of introducing innovation into that particular prison and we want to expand it. We object to clauses 185 and 186 which will prevent that from being done. I challenge the Minister in the chair and ask him why he is allowing ideological blinkers to stop him from doing what is right. Why really does he want to shut out the innovation that has been provided by private prisons? His answers in the House today were a nonsense. He expressed the idea that only the State should be involved in restraining people’s freedom. What about all the private transport that is provided for prisons? Will the Minister knock that out as well? If it is an ideological view— 
Mark Peck 
: Good idea. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member pipes up from opposite. I ask the Minister if he is to be ideologically consistent—and consistently stupid—why he does not knock out the contracts for those who provide transport for prisoners. He should not pretend that a prison bus or van is not constraining the liberties of those people. 
I say to the Minister that it is ideological nonsense and he will block out the innovation in the sector. This Minister will proudly knock off the good rehabilitation being provided in that prison. It is a tragic step backwards and I ask members opposite to get on their feet to defend this change. [ 
Interruption 
] Darren Hughes pipes up. Why does he not make a speech to explain to the Committee why those members want to stop innovation waste taxpayers’ money and reduce the number of programmes for reducing reoffending? It really is a tragedy for New Zealand prisons. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
I will start by looking at Supplementary Order Paper 213 put up by the Government and what an astounding document it is. It is no wonder that members are dealing with corrections to the Department of Corrections or corrections to the Corrections Bill when they have to put up with this sort of nonsense. 
Despite all the rhetoric from Green Party members about wanting to represent the tangata whenua in pursuance of tino rangatiratanga and giving Maori the right to determine how they will be treated in this nation in a sense of partnership I wasracking my brains today and wondering why the Green Party is supporting this bill. Having had the views of senior Maori leaders given to them through Nandor Tanczos and despite the opposition of Tariana Turia a former Associate Minister of Corrections to this bill and the objection of Pita Sharples—a man whom Nandor Tanczos tells people he admires and respects—why have the Greens supported it? Why have those members totally ignored all the recommendations from senior Maori leaders particularly those in the north to oppose this bill and ensure that the Government does not place the Auckland Central Remand Prison back within the State-run Department of Corrections—or as I have heard some people say the “Department of Corruptions”? It is a terrible thing to say but that is what people in the street are saying. Why have the Greens done it? 
I think I have found out why. If one looks at the proposed amendment to clause 8(1) in Supplementary Order Paper 213 for example the Greens’ influence is to be seen. The proposed amendment provides: “To omit from paragraph (b) the words ‘secure containment’ … and substitute the words ‘safe custody’.” Is that not nice? It is lovely is it not? It further provides: “To omit from paragraph (f) the words ‘prisoners or offenders’ … and substitute the words ‘persons under control or supervision’.” Is that not lovely? It is cute is it not? It is so sensitive so touchy-feely so cuddly and so typically Green. 
The amendment further provides: “To omit from paragraph (h) the words ‘prisoner or offender’ … and substitute the words ‘person under control or supervision’.” The proposed amendment to clause 9(a) provides: “To omit…the words ‘secure containment’ … and substitute the words ‘safe custody’.” The amendment to clause 10 provides: “To omit the word ‘person’ … and substitute the words ‘staff member of a prison’.” Is that not nice? One cannot have a person but must have a “staff member of a prison” instead. 
This is ridiculous—it just goes on and on. I ask the Minister how many amendments in this huge document are like those substitutions? It is no wonder that we are presented with rubbish like this at the eleventh hour but it has to go through because it has the things in it that the Green Party holds most dearly to its bosom and that is politically correct language that seeks not to offend label or stigmatise anyone. I am sorry Minister but the people out there want to talk about “offenders”. They want to talk about them in the terms and terminology that they know them as—crooks crims and offenders. People do not want them referred to as little touchy-feely persons because crooks crims and offenders is what they are. 
That is the problem with this bill. The whole rehabilitative programme which is legislated into being under Part 2 is a load of nonsense and a crock. Where does one go to find that out? One goes to the Department of Corrections’ annual reports for 2000-01 and 2001-02 to read what is said about rehabilitation quotients and the success of the department’s rehabilitation plans. I say to Nandor Tanczos that the department’s successes in rehabilitation are so pathetic that it fails to discuss them. In last year’s annual report it states: “The figures are statistically insignificant.” That is what the department’s comments are about its own rehabilitation programmes. 
If one puts Kia Maramara off to one side which is the only one with statistics of significance and every other programme— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Oh so you can do that? 
RON MARK 
: The member is saying that on the back of one programme all the rest are valid. That is rubbish! 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 There is so much in this Part 2 that demands debate but I choose two short pieces before getting on to the amendment I have put forward and for which I hope there will be support across the House. Before I do I want to draw attention to the amendments to clause 12 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper dumped on us today which requires: “(ca) establishing and maintaining processes to—(i) identify the communities significantly affected by policies and practices at the prison;”. I think that means Maori and Polynesian communities. It could be the criminal gangs of course but prison management has to establish and maintain processes. It then has to “(ii) provide opportunities for those identified communities to give their views on those policies and practices; and”—wait for it—“(iii) ensure those views are taken into account.” 
We will now have to take into account the views of communities that have yet to be found but when communities that have actually rallied around a prison—and it is an astonishing achievement by a prison management to get that—and sent their representatives to Parliament to say: “We have been consulted. We have had an opportunity for input. We have seen our views taken into account. We believe that we at last have a prison management that genuinely respects us.” what did Minister Swain do? He said it was all irrelevant. 
Judith Collins 
: Is it? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Oh yes. He said: “It is irrelevant because we know that custodial services are solely a matter for us the Crown to deal with.” so we have a provision that is deeply cynical. I imagine it was probably stipulated in order to salve the conscience of the Greens. They have said: “OK. We will scoff at the communities at the moment but we’ll promise them that in future it will be better. We’ll ignore the chance for something to be confirmed that has been effective and we will simply promise ‘pie in the sky when you die’.” I say to Mr Tanczos that if that is the amendment promoted by the Green Party its members should be deeply ashamed of themselves. 
I want to turn now to the amendment in my Supplementary Order Paper that deals with clause 19. There is a safeguard that has been known for generations in prisons as the only effective safeguard against the abuse of power—that is visiting justices. They are people with independent status and dignity as judges. They visit prisons and inquire into complaints with the authority that comes from having outside status. What is this Government doing? It is providing that someone bearing the label “visiting justice” can be any toady with a law degree. He or she does not need to be someone with judicial experience or anyone with a record of judging between competing claims or of looking authority in the eye and saying: “I’m sorry. The law rules here not the boss.” The term “visiting justice” is now to extend to anyone the Minister appoints—as long as he or she has a law degree. Well I know plenty of people with law degrees who do not deserve that status. 
What we had was a system that was a genuine safeguard against abuse and we are replacing it with a huge mess of ridiculous words. What we have in this bill now is a great ream of red tape—procedures back-covering requirements for written reports and written statements to prisoners and involvement of families—but we are tossing out the main safeguard against abuse in prisons that is that there will be judges who will visit respond to complaints and investigate them. Instead the Minister is providing—here it is; wait for it—that there must be “a balance” between these new tame toadies and JPs. 
The Minister’s safeguard is acceptable to the Greens otherwise it would not be here. It is the product of Labour’s negotiation with the Greens. The Greens have been satisfied that it does not matter that we are getting rid of judges; instead we will have a balance between JPs and tame toadies. What a safeguard! What way is that to ensure that in future prisoners who are being bullied beaten or whose legitimate complaints are being ignored will have an independent person to go to? 
Ron Mark 
: This would suit the “goon squad”. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It would. It probably came from the magic pen of “Kiss and Cuddles Robson”. It really did. It looks like the sort of prison reform one has when— 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I am a newcomer to this legislation whilst perusing the contents of Part 2 my eye was drawn to a couple of clauses in that part pointed out to me by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall that are worth examining just a little further. It seems to me that the purpose of this legislation should be to provide broad guidelines as to overall governance issues in respect of prisons as opposed to finicky management administrative-type issues. So with that sort of background in mind I found my eye was immediately drawn to clause 71 “Bedding”. If a prison is to have a view on bedding—and presumably it would have one—why on earth is Parliament placing into law on the statute book references to bedding? For the benefit of the listening public who will not believe what I am about to read this is what clause 71(2) states— 
Ron Mark 
: This is Nandor’s amendment. 
SIMON POWER 
: Is that right? It is a Government bill. Members should listen to this: “A prisoner’s bedding must be laundered as often as is necessary to maintain cleanliness.” Now when did this Parliament become such a sad reflection of a lawmaking body that it includes that type of nonsense in legislation? But it becomes worse than that. Clause 71(3) states: “All bedding must be laundered before it is reissued to another prisoner.” Well one would think that that was pretty self-explanatory; one would think that most prisons would undertake that type of basic activity. Why on earth is legislation being drafted with that type of utter nonsense included in it? 
But worse than that not only is there a clause on bedding but there is also a clause on diet. Clause 72(2) states: “As far as practicable in the circumstances in providing food and drink to prisoners allowances must be made for the various religious spiritual and cultural needs of the prisoners.” That is fair enough. There may well be spiritual and religious needs for certain dietary offerings to be given to different prisoners but why on earth is legislation required to enact that type of policy? This legislation is not about 101 ways to run a good prison; that is not what it is about. This legislation is tearing away a very successful management arrangement in one prison and providing that the public sector will be the only group allowed to run prisons. I and the other members on the Opposition side of the Chamber do not believe for one moment that the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain believes that. I do not believe for one second that Paul Swain thinks that that is a good idea or that he can seriously sit there and hold the view that clauses about bedding and diets will make our public prison system better for the people inside it—who by the way actually gave up a fair few of their rights at the time they went out and committed their crimes. 
But even worse than that not only are prisoners’ bedding and dietary needs taken care of in legislation but clause 52 which addresses the transfer of prisoners does not for one moment refer to the rights of their victims. It does not refer to the rights of victims to be informed when those transfers are going ahead and in no way are victims referred to with regard to the ongoing management of prisoners. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 First of all tena koe ki te rangatira kei runga ra. My acknowledgments go to Dom Karauria who is in the gallery and is the subject of much of our discussion this evening. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A member is about to say something and I did hear that. That is right; the member cannot refer to members in the gallery. Speaker’s ruling 44/5 deals with that so the member should come to order please. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: My apologies Mr Chairperson. I did not realise that the rules of the House forbade us from showing some courtesy. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has done the same thing again and he should think about it. He is supposed to be debating to you and to fellow members of Parliament and he should not involve strangers. He should not make adverse comments about your ruling. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am sorry but the Hon Richard Prebble is absolutely right. The member will come to the point and continue his speech. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I think that Mr Karauria who has been the subject of much discussion this evening is an example of good leadership in prisons. Like any good leader he does not put himself forward but holds up the team that he works with. He acknowledges the role of te iwi whanui and the staff in the progress that the remand prison has made. That makes it clear to us that it is not the shareholders of the company who determine whether a prison is good; it is about the relationships that the general manager has with the community. It behoves us in this Chamber to learn from that. Rather than trying to maintain a single institution we should look at how we can reform the public service so it can work correctly. 
I would like to make the comment that Mr Ron Mark was totally off the mark when he suggested that what he thought were Green amendments were included in Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain. Members will find that the things he pointed out had nothing to do with the Greens. I am sure Mr Mark will be relieved to know that. I would like to tell members exactly what some of our amendments were. Before I do so I also point out that the Greens have never said that we represent tangata whenua. I do not believe we can do that but we do seek to uphold an honourable relationship with Maori. I think that other members of the Chamber should be thinking about that as well. 
Ron Mark 
: What’s this? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I do not know. If Mr Mark believes everything he reads in the papers he has a lot to learn. 
I would like to address the question of the relationship between a prison and the community. I think that relationship is crucial to whether the institution works to rehabilitate offenders. I have already mentioned the amendment to clause 6(1)(c) which deals with taking the cultural background ethnic identity and language of offenders into account not just in the individual sense of planning and management but also in developing rehabilitative programmes and other interventions. We are talking about a systematic view of those issues. But it is important that those things are backed up with some specific functions. I am very proud that the Greens have managed to negotiate some amendments in that regard. As Mr Franks pointed out the first is to add clause 8(1)(ja) which states that the chief executive has the responsibility to ensure: “… that processes are established and maintained to—(i) identify the communities significantly affected by policies and practices in the corrections system; and (ii) provide opportunities for those identified communities to give their views on those policies and practices; and (iii) ensure that those views are taken into account.” At a national level that is the role of the chief executive. That is also backed up by a specific requirement at the local level as well whereby it is also within the functions and powers of the general manager of every individual prison to establish and maintain processes to identify those communities to provide opportunities for them to give their views and to ensure that those views are taken into account. It is important that specific responsibilities are attached to those obligations. 
I mention one last thing. In order to reinforce that clause 182(1)(aa) in the Supplementary Order Paper then requires the chief executive to “include a report on the way in which the chief executive has carried out his or her functions under section 8(1)(ja) and the way in which prison managers have undertaken their functions under section 12(ca) …” and to present it to Parliament. Other matters are to be included in that report as well. We have tried to make sure that there are specific responsibilities so that rather than just provide some nice words about treaty obligations which are a good thing we actually get down to some specifics. The communities that we are talking about are not just the Maori and Pacific Island communities. Although some people would like us to believe that they are the only people in prison there are people from other communities there as well. One thing we can say for sure is that if we are to rehabilitate offenders we need to make sure that we speak to them in a way that they understand both in terms of their language and culture. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I listened to a contribution from one of the National members about clause 71. 
Simon Power 
: That was me. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh right. The member said that we are to pass a law relating to bedding. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain whether it is the intention of the Government to pass a law that states all the mattresses in prisons must be laundered before being reissued to other prisoners. I often stay in hotels and I am unaware that even five-star hotels launder the mattresses between guests. I have had a complaint that our prisons are five-star hotels—this measure will make them seven-star or 10-star or something of that nature. [ 
Interruption 
] In case the member thinks I am making a frivolous point I say I am not. I am making a very serious point. 
When I listened to the comments about bedding I thought that bedding would include mattresses. I went to the current edition of the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 to try to find out how “bedding” is interpreted. I looked to see if there was an interpretation in the bill—there does not appear to be one. This issue will be litigated because prisoners litigate everything. 
Dail Jones 
: They have nothing else to do. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: They have nothing else to do. The  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 defines bedding as a mattress and bedclothes so we are to pass a bill today with a provision that mattresses and bedclothes be laundered before they are reissued to other prisoners. I say to the Minister that I do not think that is what he intended. It shows the absurdity of the approach taken in this bill and of us as a Parliament trying to legislate to such a degree as this. I say to the Minister in the chair—because it is his bill—that if that is what he intends then no doubt he will not make an amendment. If he does make an amendment I would expect the clause to state that it refers just to bedclothes. I think “bedclothes” is the word the Minister was actually looking for. 
This issue shows the ridiculousness of this bill and of the type of approach taken in it. The Government freely admits that it has an excellent private prison but says it is ideologically opposed to having an excellent prison. Then it says it can pass a bill that states prisons will somehow be improved by laundering the mattresses every time there is a change of prisoner. 
Ron Mark 
: By law. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: By law. This issue will be litigated. Someone will say that the issue was raised in Parliament so the provision is exactly what was intended and the politicians knew what they were doing. Someone will ask whether if the Minister did not mean to include mattresses he bothered to read the bill. 
This issue pointed out by a National member of Parliament is an absurdity. When I listened to Simon Power I could not believe it but I had a look and saw that clause 71(3) states that all bedding must be laundered before it is reissued to another prisoner. That is something that even hotels in New Zealand do not do. The Government says that it has a get-tough approach with regard to prisons. Perhaps it does but on whom does it get tough? It is certainly not tough on the prisoners. The Government is pretty tough on the taxpayers on the people who are victims of crime and on the laundry people but it is not tough on the prisoners. I say to this Minister— 
Ron Mark 
: What about the prisoners who work in the laundry? They will be working their backsides off. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do not think they will. I think there is probably a UN convention that prisoners cannot do any work. No some outside people will be coming in to do the laundry. But they will not be outside contractors. They will all be members of the Public Service Association and they will not launder more than a certain number of mattresses a day. Then we will have reports in the newspaper stating that judges cannot send anyone to jail because the prisons cannot launder the mattresses fast enough for the new prisoners who are coming in. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This issue seems to have taken on a life of its own. I too will make the point that clause 71(1) says: “Every prisoner must be provided with a separate bed”. Well do they share the beds today? What sort of bed do they have now if in the future they must have a separate bed? Is it to be a double bed queen-sized or king-sized? There is no definition of the size of the bed. It really is getting nonsensical. 
And these dear prisoners must have “sufficient bedding for warmth health and reasonable comfort.” That is sweet. We do not want them to feel cold unhealthy or uncomfortable while they are in prison. It would be a great shame if they were treated in the same way as they treated their victims—even marginally so. Then of course what must they eat? Mr Power has mentioned the diet. Clause 72 (1) states: “Every prisoner must be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and drink …”. That must have been a Green Party amendment surely. Is it organic food? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No GM. 
DAIL JONES 
: No GM food and surely it must be organically grown or it would not be wholesome. I can see prisoners saying: “This food is not wholesome. It’s not organic. It is possibly GE.” The food must also be nutritional according to “guidelines for the time being issued by the Ministry of Health”. Well if I were a prisoner I would be checking out what guidelines had been issued by the Ministry of Health. If the food did not comply— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: They will let them out. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes. Clause 72(3) states: “A medical officer may prescribe a particular diet for a particular prisoner.” That is nice too. I can see all the prisoners lining up to explain that they are on a fish diet and will have only the best fish. They will say they can cope with orange roughy only. This legislation is nonsensical. These provisions were in regulations and that is where they should stay. Parliament should not have been bothered with them. What is this Government getting up to by wasting Parliament’s time with such ridiculous legislation which now—because it is legislation—can be changed only by an Act of Parliament? In the past changes could have been done by regulation. These provisions will be litigated by prisoners. 
My main concern is this: what do the Labour Party’s Maori members of Parliament think about the views of say Tariana Turia on the retention of the private prison in Auckland? She has come out in support of retention of the private prison in Auckland and I presume that there are many other Labour members of Parliament of various extractions who support the continuation of that prison. Why must the Labour Party be so ideologically hidebound on the issue? New Zealand First members went there ourselves and had a look at it last year in about July. Eight MPs including the leader of New Zealand First went to the Auckland Central Remand Prison and had a look at the new facility for ourselves. 
Simon Power 
: Who didn’t go? 
DAIL JONES 
: Someone may have been away but there were eight there which is almost three-quarters of our caucus. I wonder whether three-quarters of other parties’ caucuses went. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So how were your party members? 
DAIL JONES 
: Well I can tell members of the House that it was quite shocking for some of our members of Parliament. I think it is shocking for any member of Parliament to go to a prison and see young men being locked up in the prime of their lives. It is quite a shock. I have been to many prisons over many years as a lawyer visiting prisoners and as a member of Parliament and one gets a bit immune to it after a while. But the New Zealand First MPs who had not been to a prison before were absolutely shocked at what they saw—young men in the prime of their lives wasting their time away in a prison. We also went to Paremoremo prison and had a look at three prison blocks there. I will not go further into who was there but that was quite shocking also. 
The point is that if Tariana Turia can now that she is no longer a member of Parliament say that she supports the continuation of the private prison and will raise it in her by-election if there is one— 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 What a weak Minister we have in the chair tonight! Paul Swain started off with fire and brimstone. He laid down the challenge that he wanted sharp debate he wanted members to come at him but he has not done a thing since—he has wilted like a violet. What he has done is sneak a Supplementary Order Paper—47 pages thick—in through the back door without giving anyone a chance to read it. He is a hopeless Minister who does not believe one iota of what is being perpetrated here today. When I railed about the cursory reference to victims in a bill that is 158 pages long he said they had the Victims’ Rights Act. What a cop-out! What a Clayton’s bill this is! If he continues to have his head in the sand like this then he deserves the polling result that his Government has. 
The Law and Order Committee’s Government members who worked on this legislation have not taken one call. Do members know why? Because they do not believe in this legislation any more than the Opposition members do—not one iota. 
In terms of fair treatment of prisoners clause 84 relates to the provoking of prisoners. What a nonsense that is! The Minister has steadfastly sat in that chair and maintained the management that released the “goon squad” on South Island prisoners. He has done nothing about it. He is having a Clayton’s review but there is nothing to that Clayton’s review as the decision is already predetermined. He is the Minister who for example has allowed a “goon squad” member who prevailed on one of the squad’s members to put his penis on a bar to be the sexual harassment officer. The same Minister has allowed the manager who allowed that to happen to be the ethics manager of the Department of Corrections. And the Minister wants us to have confidence in him and this bill! 
I will have a crack at clause 71 “Bedding” also. Other members have done it. In particular I want to look at clause 71(1): “Every prisoner must be provided with a separate bed”. Of course the small print should say “unless you are a female prisoner officer”! That is the bit that was not added and I have not heard this Minister get up and take a call on that. 
What really gets my goat about what is being proposed here is the decision to end private management of prisons. It is based neither on performance nor on efficiency criteria. It is purely driven by Matt Robson and his union mates and this Minister is too weak to stand up and say: “That is wrong. We will not do anything about this.” Had the Government looked at any criterion at all it would have discovered that the Auckland Central Remand Prison delivers a higher standard— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Green member who purports to be the champion of rehabilitation of prisoners is the very same member who representing his party is in conjunction with this Government bringing down private management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison. That is a travesty and that member should know better. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: It’s a remand prison. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I apologise; the member is right for the first time today so I congratulate him! But the fact remains that he knows that he is letting those people down. 
Taito Phillip Field was on the Law and Order Committee for a while. He knows—and his head went down when I started to mention this—that what is transpiring under this bill is wrong. Private management of prisons is the best model this country has seen. The problem is that private management has shown up the inefficiencies of the Department of Corrections and it does not like it. What has happened is that Matt Robson and his union buddies have got to the Minister and said: “If you don’t do this then we will withdraw our political support for you.” As a consequence the Minister and his weak-kneed Government are rolling over. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 In Parliament now and again we get absolutely fabulous contributions. One of the great contributions we have had— 
Brian Connell 
: This is not one of those. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Maybe not but I think the member should judge it at the end. One great contribution we had before the dinner break was from the Hon Richard Prebble who in an impassioned request pointed out that unlike hotels we were requiring people to launder the mattress. I thought he raised—in a witty and humourous way as is his wont—that that was perhaps somewhat extreme. After considerable pressure and thinking about it the Government has caved in. I point out to members that my amendment to clause 71 which is the clause the member talked about adds a further subclause (4) which states: “In this section—bed includes a mattress; bedding does not include a mattress”. [ 
Interruption 
] I think this will be his finest hour. It is a very sensible thing. I enjoyed the member’s contribution—it was witty and to the point and if he finally decides to go is the kind of contribution that we will miss very much in this House. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 There have been some very good contributions and I have to tell the Minister that a couple of contributions from the National Party have left me quite stunned. It really does appear of late that the National Party itself has had a bit of a road to Damascus experience. It is good is it not to hear the party that had the Government benches for 9 years—and 18 months along with New Zealand First—finally talking about punishment. 
If I recall correctly the word “punishment” featured regularly in the New Zealand First manifesto for the last two elections. It is very encouraging to hear the National Party now referring to the need to punish. Stealing National Party policy is not something New Zealand First is renowned for. In fact I suggest it is quite the opposite. One can always tell when one has got National Party members excited—they cannot stop chirping away like a bunch of parakeets on the sideline. 
What I want to talk about now are clauses 49 50 and 51 which contain an issue I have brought to the attention of the House before. I tabled in the House a legal opinion from Chapman Tripp. I warned the Minister and the Government in question time—and it was a further extension of the arguments put up by the National spokesperson and the Hon Richard Prebble—that there is a danger in trying to legislate the detail of what are operational matters. It is an operational matter whether barrack block A changes its bedding with barrack block B or barrack block C; whether they wash their undies at a certain time of the week or whether there are procedures and plans for rehabilitating inmates. The moment we legislate for that—the moment we make it a statutory obligation of the Department of Corrections to rehabilitate those people—we bring about a risk to the Crown. I have argued that and I note that the Government still says it is not a problem. However it has moved to make a number of changes to clauses 49 and 50 in its Supplementary Order Paper. 
My point is that—and I have made it before—the moment the State says that the Department of Corrections is responsible for putting in place a sentence plan designed to rehabilitate the inmate the moment a person’s time in prison is templated to say that he or she will do an anger management course or this or that sort of course all aimed at turning that person around is the moment we set ourselves up for failure. We all know that 80 percent of inmates who have been paroled have reoffended 5 years later. [ 
Interruption 
] It is around 79 percent after 5 years. 
The problem here is that it is quite conceivable—in fact very probable according to Chapman Tripp—that those inmates will then be in court blaming the Government. They will be saying: “I asked for this course and I didn’t get it. I wanted to do a course at polytech to get skills and I was denied. It was that denial over 4 5 or 10 years that led me into a situation where I couldn’t get a job and I had to revert to my former profession of burgling homes and stealing cars to survive. Had the Department of Corrections given me the course I wanted I would not have been in that situation.” 
I seriously challenge the Government. There is no need for those clauses and it should take them out. There is a method by which the Department of Corrections according to its own plans and policies and under its standard operating procedures can make certain courses available. They do not need to be legislated into being.  
I again remind the Minister and the Government that there is enough literature around internationally that states—in fact the department’s own annual reports themselves state—that rehabilitation in most areas is not working. Only the Kia Marama example can be held up. Even with straight thinking there is nothing out there that suggests or proves that all the work that has been done on straight thinking has been effective in the long term. This policy is setting up the Government for failure. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Before I begin to address some of the various amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper I shall address a comment by Brian Connell who criticised the Greens for supporting rehabilitation and the end of private management contracts. I remind him that the Auckland Central Remand Prison is a remand prison. It does not have convicted offenders so the question of rehabilitation cannot be compared. One would think that that member would understand the difference between a remand prison and an ordinary prison. 
I move on to some of the amendments negotiated by the Green Party with the Government. The first I shall address is the question of non-voluntary segregation which is particularly important in light of the real problems with the behaviour management regime that have come to light in the public service. The bill as introduced included in clause 57 the opportunity for the prison manager basically to direct the segregation of a prisoner for the purpose of security good order or safety. In the original bill the prison manager makes that order the prisoner must be given the reason in writing and the chief executive must be informed. That expires after 14 days unless before it expires the chief executive directs that it continue in force and the chief executive reviews the order at intervals of not more than 3 months. 
The Greens were concerned about that because we felt it left open the potential for some abuse. The amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper allow that when the prison manager makes the order it expires after 14 days but it must be reviewed by the chief executive at intervals of not more than 1 month and that it must expire after 3 months unless a visiting justice directs that it continue in force. The visiting justice must review the order at intervals of not more than 3 months. We felt that was important because it gave some independent outside scrutiny. It meant that the question of someone remaining in segregation was not simply left up to the corrections authorities. 
Another thing I would like to address is the protection for potential whistle-blowers. I direct the Committee to clause 140 in the original bill where it states that everyone who commits an offence is liable to punishment. Clause 140(1)(e) states: “holds any communication with or makes any sound recording of a prisoner:” and paragraph (f) states: “makes any visual recording of a prisoner (whether by photograph film videotape or otherwise):”. 
The Greens were concerned that this provision could potentially punish whistle-blowers and people who were aiding whistle-blowers within the corrections systems and we did not want to make it a punishable offence to bring to light or public attention real abuses within the system. As a result of our negotiations with the Government we now have a situation where before anyone is subject to any penalty the department will have to show that the communication might prejudice the maintenance of the law the safe custody of the prisoner the safety of any other person or the security of any prison. That means that if those things are brought to light for the public good and for the purpose of exposing abuses within the system they are not punishable offences. We think that is also important. 
Another thing I would like to address is the question of the complaints system. The Green Party would have liked to see a fully independent complaints authority but we recognise that there would be substantial fiscal burdens as a result of that so we negotiated an amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper by which the prison inspectorate reports to the chief executive and the chief executive in his or her annual report has to include the work undertaken by the inspector of corrections including statistical information about the disposition of complaints made by persons under control and supervision and comments and issues arising out of complaints or visits during that period. Again that relates to clause 182. 
The last issue I would like to touch on is a minor thing but we thought it was important. Under the bill as it was introduced clause 49 stated that prisoners must be assessed on entry. It now explicitly requires an assessment for mental health as well. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I wish to refer to clauses 185 and 186 headed “Management of prisons”. I have visited the Auckland Central Remand Prison which is managed privately. I have also visited Mount Eden Prison and Paremoremo prison in its various aspects—the most secure to the somewhat less secure. I would have to say that there was a marked and remarkable difference between the management of the prisons. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: One’s old and one’s new. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is exactly what one would expect the Government to say. The Government simply puts the issue down to “one old and one new”. There are new parts to Paremoremo prison as well. I guess we would not expect the Minister to know that because the Government never gets as close as that to what is happening in the real world. One wonders to what extent the Government has really looked at how modern prisons are managed. I can tell the Minister that if he actually went to the remand prison and saw the innovative programmes and more particularly the incredible spirit of the team members and the way they work together as opposed to the—frankly—dispirited and desultory crew that exists at the other prisons in terms of the management there is just an enormous contrast. 
That cannot be put down to the fact that one is new and one is old. It is not. It is actually about management technique. The public sector brings all the old public sector shibboleths with it and has an incredibly hierarchical approach to things. I guess the Government likes that sort of thing. Its mates in the Public Service Association want that kind of approach. It is what it is used to. It is the sort of Government that brings back unions through the current Employment Relations Amendment Bill before the House at present—that is very old-fashioned and lacking in forethought. 
The most serious criticism that one can make of the Government in this regard is that the Government bases its actions today on the basis of a promise—in the past ill-informed prejudiced and without any benefit of learning from what happens in the real world. Normally we expect people to say: “Well that was a promise but I’ll look at the evidence.”—that is an evidenced-based approach. This Government has completely failed to do that and has acted entirely on an ideological basis. 
I have to inform the Committee that it is cheaper. The cost per prisoner equivalent on a per annum basis through adult and community education is in fact $43000. Public sector costs are $54000. It has to be an ideological decision to say: “We would sooner spend $11000 more per prisoner per year simply to suit an ideological perception.” It is those kinds of decisions—bit by bit by bit—that add up to Government costs and of course higher taxes. It is a whole bankrupt philosophy that this Government cannot look past in its blinkered approach to contemporary modern management. We make an absolute commitment that we will bring back modern management to prisons. That means adopting best practice learning from real-world experience and involving the private sector. 
I want to briefly turn to the issues that have been greeted with some mirth and rightly so about bedding exercise and training. What is so disturbing about this is that this Government thinks it is important to spend hours of Parliament’s time putting these kinds of nonsensical provisions into legislation. It is again reflective of the Government’s habits—the socialist tendency to micromanage everything down to the finest possible detail. We live in New Zealand. New Zealanders know that we actually have to feed people. They know we have to give them bedding. Maybe I can understand the issue about exercise. It is a genuine issue of human rights as to whether a person should be detained 24 hours a day without any exercise or have an hour. I can understand that point. But food and bedding! Frankly this is just absurd. This Parliament costs tens of thousands of dollars per hour to run. We expect the Government in its occasional lucid moments to take some cognisance of that. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I wish to discuss a number of matters and also to draw attention to two papers on corrections that have come out of Britain. Interestingly the British Labour Government’s ideology does not prevent it from displaying common sense in the management of prisons. The report  
Managing Offenders Reducing Crime: A New Approach 
 is a correctional services review by Patrick Carter dated 11 December 2003. I shall quote a couple of points: “The benefits of competition from the private and voluntary sector could be extended further across both prison and probation.” The second point is: “The introduction of competition in prisons has provided a strong incentive for improvements in public sector prisons.” 
I had the opportunity of travelling to Australia with the Law and Order Committee and having a look at some prison facilities in Western Australia. The chair of the committee and I went to a centre for youth and noted that the prison was remarkably well run very clean and had everything that is good about a prison. Interestingly it was a public service prison and we were told by the director that had it not been for the private prisons in Western Australia the prison could not have existed. That is the point. We want a counter-balance to the public sector to ensure accountability and the best possible service to the taxpayers of this country some of whom strangely enough happen to be victims. So firstly they are the victim of a crime and secondly they are called upon as taxpayers to help pay for the offender’s upkeep in prison. 
I shall quote another point from that Carter report: “The introduction of competition has provided a strong incentive for improvements in public sector prisons. The introduction of performance testing has been successful in driving down costs changing the culture and enabling flexible staffing structures to be introduced.” Why is it that the only privately managed prison in this country is the only one that has met international standards? The public sector has had over 100 years to do so yet it cannot achieve it. But now this Minister shamefully is going to extinguish the one light in our Department of Corrections and he is going to be left in the dark fossicking for a match to light. 
The idea of a review after making a decision to close the private management prison is utterly absurd and shameful. With the disgusting complicity of the Greens one cannot but feel incredible contempt for what is about to happen if this bill proceeds. 
I turn now to the second corrections report from England entitled:  
Reducing Crime Changing Lives 
 introduced by David Blunkett issued in January 2004. “The Government is not interested in using the private sector for its own sake whether in prisons or in the community. We want the most effective custodial and community sentences no matter who delivers them.” Does that not strike us as common sense? I say to our Government: “Hello! Wake up!”. This is not about driving ideology; this is about seeking the best possible outcomes for the taxpayers of this country. But the Government is going to stick to a decision it made prior to the experience of the privately managed prison in Auckland. It seems incapable of a turn-round and treating the facts on their merits. Instead it will adhere to an outdated policy and in the process turn its back on the community on Maori on common sense and on the victims of this country who will have to pay for this ideology. 
This is a shameful day for this Government. It is sad. It is pathetic. I want the Minister to get up and tell me that he believes in this ideology—but he will not. He will not because he knows it is wrong. He knows it is fallacious. He knows that it is utterly crapulent. He will not stand up hand on heart and support the intent of this bill. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity of contributing to this debate on the Corrections Bill—which National opposes. The particular topic I would like to speak about relates to the provisions dealing with justices of the peace and the role they are to play or not as visiting justices. Before I do that I would like to comment—and it is unfortunate the Minister responsible for the bill is not now prepared to take a call—that there are in this Supplementary Order Paper 213 no fewer than 42 amendments and they are not minor amendments. They are described as substantive amendments. When were these amendments put before us? On Tuesday 18 May—today! It does not reflect at all well on the democracy of parliamentary process that we should be presented with so many substantial amendments so late in the day. 
I make those comments in the context of Part 2 because it contains the guts of this bill. If there is to be a true parliamentary process if there is to be insightful consideration of clauses in a bill then it can scarcely be said to be satisfactory that amendments of this character and quantity arrive just so very very late in this process. 
The issue I would like to talk about though relates to the role of justices of the peace because as members of the Committee will be aware clause 19 originally proposed that JPs would be ruled out of what has been for them a substantial role. They had had the role of being visiting justices or as I understand the jargon in their part of the world to be “VJs”. The proposal was in respect of the bill as it was introduced that they were to have no further role at all. Instead there were to be visiting justices in two categories: and District Court judges and barristers or solicitors. 
I read with interest the comments that were made in the commentary on the bill about the argument that apparently took place before the Law and Order Committee prompted by the officials to cut justices of the peace out of the action. This detail is set out on page 6 of the commentary which I am not going to read but I simply flag that there were three arguments that basically indicated that this particular role was not for justices of the peace. 
The three arguments were identified as litigation risk; the complexity of cases—the argument that JPs could not get their minds around the issues; and an issue related to legal representation. I would like to say in that regard that the role of JPs is a hugely distinguished and venerable one. In fact it is traced back to the unpaid posts of wardens conservators and keepers of the peace in the 14th century. So there has been a tradition of unpaid service dating back more than 600 years and in New Zealand we have had a particular tradition which saw the first justice of the peace appointed the missionary Thomas Kendall who was given responsibility in the Bay of Islands and throughout the islands of New Zealand. 
So why have justices of the peace been cut from the action? I think that was a proposal that was hugely ill-considered and it reflects an arrogance I would suggest on the part of the Government and its advisers that only qualified lawyers should exercise an adjudicative jurisdiction; only qualified lawyers should have any role in the judging process. The judging process of course takes many forms—judging issues in a prison judging issues in the raft of courts that JPs currently have jurisdiction in. I simply do not subscribe to that. I do not believe that lawyers have a monopoly on wisdom in the legal domain. What of justices of the peace? 
Hon George Hawkins 
: That’s a bit obvious. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am glad the Minister of Police has intervened because clearly he agrees with that view too. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like to speak to a couple of amendments that I have put in. 
The first amendment is to Part 2 and inserts a new clause 8(1)(ba). This clause is all about looking at the powers and functions of the chief executive. My amendment states that part of what the chief executive should be doing is “ensuring that the interests of the victims of prisoners are acknowledged and respected”. These prisoners are of course never going to confront their issues and problems until they acknowledge the wrong they have done and acknowledge the harm they have inflicted on their victims. I think that is a sensible provision and I would like to get support from the Committee on that. 
Clause 25 “Functions of probation officers” should be extended out so that breaches are quickly actioned. We do not want further instances of people committing more offences while they are on probation. We do not want to create a situation where they say that that does not really matter because they are going to jail anyway and as basically prisoners get a discount these days for more and more offences they might as well commit more crimes while they are out and get some more stuff put away because it will not matter. No one will give them a longer sentence because under Phil Goff’s new parole rules they will be out after serving a third of their term. All they have to do is con everyone into thinking they have done a few anger management courses ticked a few boxes gone along to a kapahaka group or something and everyone will think they are good guys now. These guys are not stupid. 
Richard Worth 
: No! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They are in fact very very good manipulators of people—extremely good manipulators. They understand the systems. The one thing they do understand is how to get round people and how to get what they want. They are people who have often committed many many crimes before they go anywhere near a jail because it often takes a long time to catch them. 
One of the things we want to change is in clause 55 which covers the information to be given to prisoners about transfers. The Hon Tony Ryall spoke before about the fact that at the moment the managers inform prisoners that they will be shifted and they also inform the inmates’ families—or under this bill the inmates’ local gang members with whom they have a bond. But no they do not inform the victims. We wish to insert a subclause that states: “(4) As soon as the manager informs the prisoner a copy should be sent to the prisoner’s victim(s) if those victim(s) have expressed an interest to be so informed.” That gives the victims an interest in the matter that goes beyond their simply hoping the Department of Corrections has this person locked away somewhere. It is so important that victims know about prisoners’ transfer. 
I would like to turn now to clause 79 which deals with the religious and spiritual needs of the prisoners. Some people would be very interested to know that the chief executive must ensure that in every corrections prison so far as is reasonable and practicable appropriate provision is made for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners. Well is that not fantastic? I have to say that if these people had any spiritual or cultural interests they would not be in prison in the first place. What has been put in this bill is absolute twaddle. 
I just compare that with the situation of schools kindergartens hospitals and other Government-run agencies. If we had a provision that said that the spiritual and cultural needs of children in our schools would be looked after that would be interesting. We would know that such a school was an independent school. It would be interesting if we had something like that for kindergartens. We cannot even have Father Christmas appear at kindergartens at Christmas time because that is considered to be culturally insensitive to somebody who is not a Christian. It is absolutely true; in my electorate of Clevedon we have had that happen. No wonder the private childcare centres are booming; it is because of the nonsense that is being force-fed down people’s throats by this Government. Prisoners get rights but ordinary decent law-abiding taxpayer people do not. The children do not. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I draw the Committee’s attention to a number of amendments in my name which I hope members will support. Among other things they will remove the legislating of the integrated offender management experiment because there are different ways of managing prisons and when the Government changes that will be changing. 
Richard Worth 
: When will that be? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Very soon and hopefully soon I say to the member. When introducing this bill the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson gave only one reason for abolishing private prisons. She said: “Prisons by their very nature involve the use of highly coercive powers against individuals. This Government believes that it is inappropriate for private sector organisations to wield such powers.” The majority of parties in this Parliament strongly disagree. As Charles H Logan an American professor said: “Keepers do not take away anyone’s freedom. Catchers and convicters and sentencers do.” As I said in question time today—I had asked the Minister who was completely unable to respond—there is an important difference between the power to deny liberty and the job of carrying out those orders. The power to punish belongs to the people and is subject to the rule of law. That rule of law applies to the public and the private sectors alike. That means the State is free to choose who carries out its custodial responsibilities and obligations and as such it can use the resources that are freed up for priority areas like policing schools and hospitals. 
This measure is based solely on ideology. That is made even clearer when we consider that this same Government at the same time that it says it does not want the private sector involved in prisons is inviting the private sector to provide prisoner custody services between prisons and courthouses. So apparently it is OK for private enterprise to use coercive powers between courts and prisons but it is not OK in the prison. 
Let us look at the evidence of the cost and quality. Prohibiting private involvement in prisons is contrary to every international experience. The Australians the Canadians the South Africans the Brits and the Americans are all expanding the use of private prisons. In fact the Prime Minister’s close personal friend Tony Blair has announced that all new prisons under the Labour Party Government there will be built and operated by the private sector. Here in New Zealand the department’s budget has more than doubled in 10 years. Well over a billion dollars will be needed to build four new prisons in the next 5 years. The proposed prison at Meremere is going to cost more than $260 million compared with its original budget of $188 million. Members will be shocked to know but probably not surprised that the private company Australasian Correctional Management which manages the Auckland Central Remand Prison told Parliament’s Law and Order Committee that it could build the 650-bed Meremere prison for half the price. 
Research shows that internationally the private sector can manage prisons between 5 and 15 percent more cheaply than the public sector. Let us go to Tony Blair’s Britain again where Her Majesty’s Prison Service concluded that private sector prisons provided significant operational savings of between 13 and 22 percent over the cost of public prisons. Here in New Zealand the private prison in Auckland runs at $43000 a head per prisoner. It has a mix of low and high-security prisoners in a high-security environment. Public prisons cost $54000 a year for minimum-security prisoners and $72000 a year for high-security prisoners. 
Brian Connell 
: How much? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is $72000 for high-security prisoners and $54000 for minimum-security prisoners. If private prisons are cheaper Mr Swain says it is because the quality does not measure up. But Mr Swain’s own department has written to Australasian Correctional Management to congratulate it on its performance and to note that it has performed every contractual standard. Here is a point that I think Richard Worth made earlier in the debate. The British National Audit Office recently completed a major review of private prisons in Britain— 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 We are in the final stages of Part 2. I want to pick up on the point that my learned colleague Richard Worth OBE—soon to be Dr Worth—made about the role of visiting justices. This relates to clause 19. We note that in the bill JPs who have traditionally carried out this function are excluded. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Outrageous. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is quite outrageous. I spoke in the debate on Part 1 about the definition of a visiting justice. I am now carrying that through to talk about why I believe that justices of the peace should be included in the bill. We note clause 19 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 213 and that the Supplementary Order Paper landed in the House today. It has 50 pages of corrections. The bill is 150 pages and the corrections to the bill are 50 pages. One correction is clause 19 which states: “The Governor-General may on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice appoint any Justice of the Peace or barrister or solicitor of the High Court to be a Visiting Justice for every prison.” That is great because now we have back in the bill the inclusion of JPs who are leaders in the community. They are people of high standing. In many cases they are people who have undertaken judicial training. Some are only ministerial JPs but many have undertaken judicial training and are qualified in that respect. 
The point I want to bring forward and I have asked the Minister to take a call on it is that as his new addition in clause 19 allows for justices of the peace and barristers or solicitors there will be a two-tier system. JPs act in a voluntary capacity. They are volunteers. But when a barrister or a solicitor becomes a visiting justice who will pay? It is a very good question. The Minister may have an answer. I will be looking forward to the Minister taking a call on this point. Who will pay? Will the money come out of Vote Corrections when we hear the Budget next Thursday 27 May? Will we see something in the Budget that will allow for barristers or solicitors to be visiting justices? In my view there will be two levels. I am interested to know what the costs will be. It could also be that there will be conflicts of interest. A barrister or solicitor who has been involved in a case could be visiting as a visiting justice somebody whom he or she may have had a part in putting into prison in the first place. I say that would be a conflict of interest and that certainly is one of the concerns we have. The Minister may have an answer. While we support justices of the peace being included in the bill we certainly do not support the inclusion of barristers or solicitors. That is the reason why the Hon Tony Ryall moved an amendment along those lines earlier. 
I move now to clause 25 which talks about the functions of probation officers. It is interesting to note that clause 25(1)(b) states that the role of every probation officer is “to arrange and administer the sentences of supervision and community work referred to the officer for that administration and to ensure that the sentences are carried out:”. Well I have some statistics here about community work and they show that fewer and fewer people are turning up. In fact the statistics show that in places like Auckland and Manurewa—and these figures relate to 7 March of this year—of the 482 people who were meant to report 104 fronted up. That is 22 percent. Only 22 percent of those people who were meant to report under the community work programme actually fronted up. That is the sort of nonsense this bill is about—no accountability. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) from subclause (1) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(c)fixing the weekly rate of the cost of detaining prisoners at the cheapest competitive rate tendered for the purpose of enabling deductions to be made under section 68: 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(ba)ensuring that the interests of the victims of prisoners are acknowledged and respected: 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(l)ensure the delivery of services at a cost competitive to equivalent tendered services. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(k)the authority to appoint independent inspectors of corrections who are not themselves corrections employees. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(c)prison manager and other required employees who are not required to be State employees but contracted on the basis of ability. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in name of Stephen Franks to omit subclauses (2) (5) and (6) from clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Stephen Franks to add new subclauses (7) (8) and (9) to clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of subclause (1) after the word “out” the words “and breaches are quickly actioned”  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 31 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(c)the rapid response to breaches of community work. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ron Mark to clause 49 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 49. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ron Mark to clause 50 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 50. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ron Mark to clause 51 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 51. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendments to omit clauses 49 50 and 51 in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall are withdrawn. 
The question now is that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)Whenever a prisoner is transferred on the direction of the chief executive or an inspector of corrections for a period in excess of 7 days then the chief executive will advise the inmate’s victim(s) or families of the victim(s) if those latter parties have indicated they wish to be informed of the inmate’s movements and transfers in excess of 7 days. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 53 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 53. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 54. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 55 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 55. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 55 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)As soon as the manager informs the prisoner a copy should be sent to the prisoner’s victim(s) if those victim(s) have expressed an interest to be so informed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 69 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 69. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 69 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (j) from subclause (1).  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 70 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 70. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 70 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(3)That physical exercise where possible be directed to employment related activities whereupon all monies as the result of such activities will be given up to defray their costs of upkeep. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
70BSmoking 
Every prisoner in the interests of their health and well-being will be prevented from being permitted to smoke tobacco and/or other products. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 71 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 71. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
71BTV 
That every prisoner who has access to television will be restricted to educational programmes up to 1 hour per day. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That 
 the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 72 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)Every prisoner will be given food that complies with: 
(i)nutritional requirements; 
(ii)cost implications to taxpayers; and 
(iii)in line with public expectations of what inmates ought to receive. 
A party vote was called for on the question That 
 the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 73 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 73. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 76 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 76. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 77 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 77. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 78 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 78 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2).  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 79 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 80 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 80. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Tony Ryall to clause 81 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 81. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 82 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 82. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 104 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 104. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 105 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 105. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 106 be agreed to 
to omit clause 106. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 107 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 107. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 108 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 108. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 185 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 185. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 186 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 186.  
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of Marc Alexander to clauses 185 and 186 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of Marc Alexander to insert heading and new clause 186A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
New clause 186A not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new subclause (2A). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new subclause (2) the words “or barrister or solicitor of the High Court”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The last amendments are the Minister’s handwritten amendment and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213. All those in favour please say “Aye”— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. During the debate the Minister indicated an amendment to clause 71 which I have not heard called out. I would be in favour of that amendment. You said there was a handwritten amendment and if it relates to clause 71 I would like that put separately because I will support the Minister on that matter—in a reciprocal way you understand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It does. I will put that amendment separately. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to clause 71 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)In this section:  
bed  
includes a mattress;  
bedding 
 does not include a mattress. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Transitional provisions 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party Opposition remains firmly opposed to the transitional provisions in Part 3 not the least because it perpetuates the ridiculous ideological stance this Government is taking on the private prison contract to manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison. 
This is an appropriate time to draw members’ attention to the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement that features on page 18 of the commentary on this 150-odd page bill. In summing up the benefits and costs of this proposal I share with members what that Minister was never prepared to take a call on and admit but is prepared to state in the commentary. He did not take one call to confirm the following statement: “It is likely that there will be transitional costs at the end of the contract period” and that is referring to the Australasian Correctional Management contract. He then states: “It is also possible that the ongoing costs of these services to the Department of Corrections will exceed both the level of the funding transfers that occurred at the beginning of the contract and the level of payment to the contracted provider.” 
Government members would not admit in this debate that the Government’s decision to cancel the private contract to manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison will cost the taxpayer plenty. As we heard earlier it costs $43000 a year to keep an inmate in the Auckland Central Remand Prison and $54000 a year for the equivalent inmate in the public prison service. This bill is solely about ideology; nothing more. There is no good reason for making this change other than that the Labour Party made some sort of commitment to the public in 1999 to get tough on crime and the causes of crime. This Government has not kept that promise so why is it bothering to try to do something about these transitional provisions? 
Let us look at clause 206 dealing with the provision of escort services courtroom custodial services or both. We have the remarkable situation where the Government is saying the private sector cannot manage prisons because the private sector should not be allowed coercive powers over individuals in the prison. Yet clause 206 recognises that the Government is prepared to give those coercive powers to the private sector to transport prisoners between courthouses and prisons. So it is all right for the private sector to have those coercive powers while prisoners are transported in a van to the prison but it is not all right to have those coercive powers once prisonersare on the other side of the prison gate. So it is all right for the private sector to control prisoners in a van but it is not all right for the private sector to control prisoners in a prison. What complete ridiculousness and that is what this bill is all about. 
Throughout the Committee stage the Opposition asked the Minister to take a call and explain why his Government is giving away this opportunity to have significant amounts of money to spend elsewhere in the corrections sector; to explain some of the foolish proposals—such as putting the integrated offender management system in legislation legislating about how many times prisoners’ sheets will be washed legislating about what sort of food prisoners will eat legislating about whether prisoners can send letters and how much exercise they should get. Those things should not be in the law; they should be in the regulations. 
We still have not heard from the Minister about the litigation risk of the new rights for prisoners as proposed in the bill. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 3 and in particular clause 194 which makes it illegal for the Crown to extend the term of a private contract to run a prison. What the Hon Tony Ryall said about the financial cost is true in that the private prison is cheaper. However I say this to the Committee and to the Greens before they think about voting for this legislation: we know that private prisons are more efficient. We also know a terrible thing about prisons and that is that some people who go to prison become suicidal. We know that many people sent to prison are mentally unstable. We also know that the public service was very much opposed to this private prison and so when it first started they actually sent to the private prison people they knew from experience were the most likely to mutilate themselves or commit suicide. To the astonishment even of those who supported private prisons no such person has committed suicide. 
I have been told by prison officers that when this private prison is closed—and I would like the Greens to think about this—it will mean that some prisoners will die. The Greens are voting for ideological reasons and the member might think that is uncomfortable. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s a remand prison. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member might say that. What if I sent her the name of every prisoner who committed suicide following the passage of this bill and asked her what her ideology was worth? That is the reality and we ought to debate it properly. We are saying that it does not matter if unstable people commit suicide in prison provided that the prison officers all work for the Public Service Association. I just say that the Labour Party I used to belong to did not think that sort of nonsense. It was prepared to think past ideology and look at the practical reality. 
I just wonder what is going on in the Minister’s mind the mind of the Labour caucus and the Green Party when they know that every word I am saying is correct. That representation has been made not just by prisoners’ families not just by people who visited or by the private prison. I know that it is now conceded by senior managers of State prisons who now realise that when this bill and this clause go through those prisoners that the State system made a muck of handling will come back into the State system. Many of those prisoners will also be Maori—not all but many will be. When we talk about suicides and say how shocking it is in Australian jails we need to know that they also occur in New Zealand jails. However this is the first time I have seen a Parliament prepared to put ideology higher than people’s lives. I say to members opposite that even if it costs more to run private prisons but they were doing a better job I would be in favour of a private prison system. 
I am in favour of punishment but we do not send young men to jail to commit suicide or perhaps we do. Perhaps that is what this Minister meant when he said he was tough. I say to the Minister that he has a responsibility. When he said that the Crown ought to be in charge of jails he ought to be running a professional humane jail system. He says he is doing that but what is the reality? We all know that when we pass this part we are sentencing some of our fellow New Zealanders to die and I say that is disgraceful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Brian Connell. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. My colleague from New Zealand First has been seeking the call on this part for some time. You have now gone to National twice and ignored New Zealand First. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I say to the honourable member that it is not a race as to who stands up first. I look at the proportionality of the House and Mr Mark will get the next call. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 and like the other two members who have taken a call on this part I also want to focus on clause 194 “Existing management contracts must not be extended.” But before I do I want to respond to the Green member who made some extraordinary comments in respect of some comments I made. I want to clarify to that member that there are prisoners at the Auckland Central Remand Prison who have admitted their guilt. They are there on remand because they have done just that. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: He’s not listening. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He should be listening. Some of those people spend a long time there and if they did not go into some form of rehabilitation that management team up there would be ignoring its responsibilities. I say to that member that sometimes it is best to remain silent and have people think he is a fool than to open his mouth and remove all doubt. I also have to say that I am astonished to look across the House and see Government members who were on the Law and Order Committee with me and have not yet taken a call. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Name them! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Martin Gallagher is one of them and he is the chair of the committee. I ask Martin Gallagher and others what price principle? Mr Gallagher and I and others went to Auckland and visited a number of prisons. The difference between what we saw in Mount Eden for example and the Auckland Central Remand Prison was one that a bus could be driven through. He knows and I know that one of those institutions was being managed exceptionally well—the one managed by Australasian Correctional Management Ltd—and the other was not. 
He knows and other members of the select committee know that this is a miscarriage of justice. This should not be happening. The Auckland Central Remand Prison delivers a higher standard of service for both inmates and taxpayers and the Government bleats on about private prisons not being cheaper. How do we know that? We know that because the Minister tells us that the Department of Corrections told him so. If the Minister believes that he believes in garden fairies because of course the department will tell him that. 
This is the truth: with the cost of capital and overheads accounted for the cost per day under private management is $130 per inmate and under the Crown it is $270. I would like the Minister to take a call and respond to that. For his edification and for the Green member who is now exiting the Chamber because he cannot stand the heat let me repeat that. Private management costs $130 per day per prisoner and under the Crown $270 per day. That is a whopping $50 million that this Minister and this Government would have the taxpayers of New Zealand continually fork out. The reward for the private prison management team for outstanding performance is: “We’re going to get rid of you. We are terminating you.” The Minister is tough; he is the terminator. He says: “We’re going to terminate you despite how well you have performed.” 
Do members know why that is? It is because the Government’s buddies—the unions—have had their inefficiencies exposed. Members should listen to this as it will interest those who are really dedicated to best practice. Private management uses a ratio of two staff to 57 inmates. Crown prisons use a ratio of 18 staff to 60 inmates. That is the difference—that is what this Minister is trying to force on the hard-working taxpayers of this country. 
The Auckland Central Remand Prison does that because it uses better technology has better management and quite frankly employs better staff. I have met some of those staff and so have other members of the select committee which is why I say to Government members who have not taken a call that it is to their everlasting shame. This bill does not stand close scrutiny. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 What a sick and sorry joke this part is! This part is a very sick joke. Members should look at it. I will take clause 200 which deals with the transition as an example. It states: “Monitors—(1) There must be appointed under the State Sector 1988 as many monitors as are required for the purposes of this Act.” Essentially this gives the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections the power to assess and to monitor the management of a contract prison. For what? All of the evidence that the select committee saw and all of the debate tonight have pointed out one simple fact: all of the evidence that is available in every newspaper clipping from the past 4 years that one cares to go over suggests that if any wing of the corrections system is failing and needs monitoring it is the State side of the bill. It is not the private contractor. Indeed I suggest that the people who should be getting monitored on their track record to date are Mr Byers Mr McCarthy and everybody in the Department of Corrections including the Minister because the track record of the Auckland Central Remand Prison in terms of its operations its drug-testing regime the number of suicides the number of assaults on inmates and the number of assaults on prison officers shows quite clearly that it is outperforming the State-provided service. 
The sick sick joke of this part is—and it does not matter whether one looks at clause 200 clause 201 or clause 202 “Monitors to report on certain matters”—what aspect of the operations of the Auckland Central Remand Prison could the Department of Corrections possibly have a right to monitor based on its own track record and its own performance? I would suggest “Nothing!”. I would suggest that indeed the Department of Corrections would be far better off getting off its backside and going to look at the Auckland Central Remand Prison. 
I do not want to hear any more of this claptrap from the Greens that those prisoners are only remand inmates. Everything that Mr Prebble said is correct. The Auckland Central Remand Prison was set up to fail. It was given some of the worst cases possible—that is people who were not meant to be there long term. Can the Minister answer me this? Why was Ahmed Zaoui sent to Auckland Central Remand Prison? Is he not one of the greatest threats to New Zealand’s security that has ever touched our shores? Is he not a man against whom a certificate of risk has been issued because he is suspected of terrorist activities? Is he not enemy No. 1 and danger No. 1 in New Zealand today? Well according to the SIS and the Government he is. So why is he not in maximum security at Mount Eden Prison? Why is he in the Auckland Central Remand Prison? Some would suggest it was a deliberate move by people in the Department of Corrections who were thinking: “In case this guy is going to embarrass us in case Amnesty International is going to come and inspect our prison and focus on the way that this man is being contained we’ll put him in a place where it’ll come up with a clean sheet and a good report.” That attitude says to me that even the Department of Corrections has no confidence in itself. 
Things will get worse. The integrated offender management system that we have just legislated into being is not even working now. Where was the sentence plan for Mr Jarden? Where was the sentence plan for Mr Isherwood? I tell the Minister that people who have been transferred from one prison to another are going out of State prisons and landing up at the Auckland Central Remand Prison and they have never had a sentence plan done. Yet the bill says it will be done—that the integrated offender management system will work and that it will all be done within 20-odd days or whatever the figure is. The fact is it will not. If the Minister cares to have a look at the Ministry of Justice report he will realise that if the situation is not working now it will be worse in 2009 when inmate numbers will have risen—according to the Government report—from 5891 to 7340. 
The facts show that the Government has set itself up to fail and it has the audacity to tell everybody that the Department of Corrections will monitor the Auckland Central Remand Prison. I suggest it should be quite the contrary: the Government should use the management of that prison to sort out the Department of Corrections. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Firstly I have to apologise for members on this side of the Chamber being too soft on the Minister of Corrections. We have been sitting around saying: “Oh the poor old Minister; he’s trying to stand on principle.” Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! There is no principle in this bill; it is all ideology. It is ideology from a weak Minister who took over from Margaret Wilson—an even weaker more ideologically pure Minister—and who has not had enough gumption to stand up to that woman and say: “No I’m going to do the right thing.” The Minister knows very well that this is a stupid bill. It has been wandering around the House for 2 years and he knows why. The Minister has not had enough gumption to stand up to his party which is full of ideologues none of whom has ever done a decent day’s work—not one. He has not had enough gumption to do that. He sits there in the chair and does nothing. He has a giggle with little Darren Hughes the youngest person around Parliament who is here to organise Helen Clark’s handbag and that is all. The Minister sits there smiling like a Cheshire cat thinking: “This woman’s on to me. She knows I’m just an ideologue.” 
As for the Greens I have always had a bit of time for them—I know that is strange—but I will not feel that way any more. I actually thought they believed in a few things. They might be bizarre they might make totally off-the-wall comments but I have always thought they genuinely believed in what they were talking about. But I know they have visited the Auckland Central Remand Prison and have seen the great work that the private prison managers are doing. They have seen the results they have heard the evidence about the rate of suicide in public prisons compared with the private prison but they stick their heads down talk about something totally unimportant and say they are going to get rid of that prison because it is not ideologically pure. They are not Greens; they are socialists. They are leftist socialists and they even make this Minister look relatively moderate and that is a shocking thing to say. 
I wonder who is driving this measure. Are the Greens driving it or the Minister or the Minister’s bosses? We know the answer: it is the unions it is the Greens and it is the leftist vote in this Parliament. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s actually the Labour vote. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Labour is the leftist vote— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: And proud of it. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Those members admit they are proud of it. The next time they talk about being centre-left what do we say to that? We say they are totally left. They are ideologues. There is nothing in their argument except ideology. They do not care one scrap about any prisoner who commits suicide who goes through torment in the public prison system. They do not care. If any prisoners who are taken out of the private prison system commit suicide their blood will be on the Government’s hands and on the Minister’s hands because they knew that that would happen. 
What could they have done about it? They could have stopped this bill. The Minister had the opportunity to do that. When Margaret Wilson got shuffled out of this portfolio as has happened with most other portfolios she has been involved in—shuffled out as fast as anything—this Minister had an opportunity to do the decent thing but he could not bring himself to do it because he would have had to show a bit of spine. He could not do that so he likes to go around grinning like a Cheshire cat and making out he is friendly to everybody but he knows exactly what is going on. 
Where is the Maori caucus? Where are Nanaia Mahuta and John Tamihere? They are not here. Unfortunately Tariana Turia is not able to vote on this matter. We know she would be voting with us on it. We know she would. The Maori caucus which must have had every representation possible from Maori knows the truth of what we are saying. What are those members going to do? They are going to give in—roll over and have their tummies tickled. They are going to roll over and let the Government do whatever it wants. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It could not have been put better than it was by Judith Collins. This was an occasion when “Swainy” and the boys could have stood tough. Look at them—they are all here backing each other. They could have stood tough. Look at Clayton Cosgrove wailing that he stands tough. That is about as far as it goes. A bit of a wave—that is their tough stand. But in reality we know what happens. They are as weak as custard because as soon as the Prime Minister—and indeed those known as the sisterhood—says that ideology rules these boys cave in. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: That’s not far wrong! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister said that that was not far wrong. There are some remarkable confessions here tonight. The boys are not the boys we thought they were. Well perhaps they are the boys we thought they were. 
It is quite distressing to know that a large percentage of the Government knows that this bill is wrong. I know that Mr John Tamihere knows that this bill is wrong. He knows that the private prison works—he has actually said so. All these tough boys know that the private prison system works. They know that it is cheaper yet tonight they will vote to abolish it. That is the tragedy of what we are dealing with today. 
I think it is just an extraordinary comment as to where this Government is taking us. This Government came in 4 or 5 years ago saying that it would bring in a new way that it was listening to the people and that it would not let ideological blinkers stand in the way of common sense. Yet that is precisely what it has delivered us in this legislation. That will be the death of the Government. That is what New Zealanders hate about this Government. They hate the idea of political correctness. They hate the idea that ideology is ruling in the place of common sense. 
In a few minutes the Minister will have the opportunity to vote for sensible policy. If he did that he would be voting against clause 194 of Part 3 because it is that provision that prevents any further extension of the management contracts to private contractors. Yet the Minister is not going to—I was going to use a word that is probably unparliamentary so I will not—be committed to his convictions or to the inner truth that is in the soul of “Swainy and the boys” those tough boys who swagger around on the other side. Instead cravenly he is going to support an ideologically driven position that can only harm this country and that can only cost this country. 
In fact I heard one member earlier from a party that foolishly supports the Government—United Future—say that it would cost $400 million to take this blanket approach. It is a party that says that $400 million is a waste of money yet in 1 week’s time it will vote with the Government. Well the United Future party— 
Ron Mark 
: They will vote the money in. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is true. Its members will vote for the money to support this foolish bill. So it is all very well for them to get up and say “We are opposed to this” but they will vote in the money to implement the bill. These are the times when parties get judged on whether they have common sense. 
In 15 months’ time or less there will be an election. New Zealanders will get the opportunity to judge whether they want an ideologically driven Government that wastes money or whether they want a sensible practical approach that allows the private sector to do what it does best and in this instance that means managing— 
Hon Member 
: Move on! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Actually that is possibly one of the best comments tonight. It is time for that crowd to move on and let people who are competent run this country. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Earlier on in this debate on Part 3 I asked you about my colleague Ron Mark getting a call and you told me you were sticking to proportional party representation. I draw your attention to the fact that New Zealand First has had one call and the National Party who I think is guiding your proportions has had four calls. There has been no call from Mr Marc Alexander and he has several amendments. We took you at your word. We have been waiting to keep things in proportion and now you have closed the debate. I ask how fair that is. 
The ASSISTANT CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I have been looking for some time and most of the calls have been coming from my left. There has been no movement at all from the back. I point out Speaker’s ruling 59/2 and that is that Committee proportionality applies principally to fixed-time debates. I try to be as fair as I can but there does not appear to me to be enough support for continuing the debate. The reality is that I have now taken the closure and the Chair is the sole judge under Speaker’s ruling 58/8. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been part of this debate since it started at 3.30 this afternoon. I have kept note of the number of calls and the time taken on the various parts. It is interesting that when we considered Part 1 which has five clauses we spent an hour and 10 minutes on it. We started Part 3 at near enough to 9.10 this evening—there are 24 clauses—and we have spent 35 minutes on those 24 clauses. The point I make is that there are members on this side of the Chamber who have been part of the debate right from Part 1. Simon Power was our next speaker and he has taken part in the debates. Mr Mark has been a consistent speaker for New Zealand First. I also have spoken on every part. This opportunity was not afforded to us because of the closure motion. 
It is our view that the closure motion was unnecessary. There have been calls from all parties on this side of the Chamber. Although National has been proactive in seeking calls it does not discount that New Zealand First or United Future should be disadvantaged by it when they have been part of the debates right through. I make the point very strongly that we are disappointed that you accepted the closure motion. We ask that when you move to the title debate you give fair consideration to the speakers who have not spoken. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson you are absolutely right. Under the Standing Orders you are the sole judge. But I do think that you have made an error. The reason I say that is that as the debate was proceeding Mr Marc Alexander from United Future handed me a sheet which I notice he had put before the Committee on this part. I am counting up and I think there are 12 amendments. Maybe Mr Alexander should have gone for the call and maybe you judged that he did not want to make one. But then I noticed that he voted against the closure motion. 
I think in all fairness I would like to be able to ask for leave that this vote not be taken at this point. At least we could hear from United Future because if you look at this bill that party has taken a great interest. It has put in a minority report and has fully participated. Mr Alexander may not wish to speak to his amendment—but I hear from him that he does. I think it is fair to have at least one more speaker on this part. At that point at least all those parties that wanted to participate on the bill will have done so otherwise it is not fair. I know that you try to be fair but I think you have made an error of judgment on this occasion. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think there are two key points here. The first point is that Mr Alexander did not seek the call on Part 3. The second point is that having accepted a closure motion the Committee then voted on it. The Committee voted for the question to be now put. So the points that members are making are academic in that sense because the Committee has had the question before it it has voted on the question and now the appropriate thing to do is to put the question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to members that the closure has been agreed. I must now proceed with putting the questions on the amendments and the part. I recognise that there have been some concerns. There are other parts where this can be debated. There is the title debate as well. I will take that into consideration. But I have to say that not a lot of people were calling and I judged as I did. Regardless of how people take that the actual situation is that I have taken the closure and we must now move on. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be a new one because I have made a ruling. Under Speaker’s ruling 20/3 the member is entitled to raise a point of order. That is part of the way in which the Committee operates. However once I have made a decision that is it and if the member persists then I refer him to Standing Order 85/1 and it will be his first yellow card. 
RON MARK 
: I accept all of that Mr Chairman but the point of order I would raise is that the Hon Richard Prebble has sought the leave of the Committee through you in the submission he made. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that it is requisite on you to put the question as to that leave. I trust I am not out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Did the Hon Richard Prebble seek leave? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I was indicating to you that I think the way out of this is to seek leave to allow Mr Marc Alexander to be able to have a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Committee is the master of its own destiny. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: In that case I seek leave for Mr Marc Alexander to be able to make one speech and for the vote to be then taken. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Committee is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 194 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 194 is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment in the name of Marc Alexander. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 194 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 194. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to omit and substitute clause 194(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is just a point of clarification and you may be able to point me to the appropriate Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling. I note that the junior Government whip is casting two votes for the Progressives. My understanding is that—certainly at question time today and presumably it is still the case—Mr Anderton is not around and I just wonder under what rules the junior Government whip can cast two votes in that instance. If more than a quarter of the caucus is away one would think it would be only one vote being cast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As the Chair I have to accept the word of all honourable members. If the member has cause to believe otherwise then there are appropriate courses of action that can be taken. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 196 be agreed to: 
to insert after the words “ on and after the commencement of this section” the words “notwithstanding any other section in this Act” and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 196 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Stephen Franks’ amendment to omit paragraph (e) from clause 196 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 is out of order. It is the same as the previous amendment in the name of the honourable member Marc Alexander. The next one to be voted on is to clause 196 in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall. It is an amendment to omit paragraph (e). That is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment. Both of those amendments are out of order so they will be deleted. They were both the same. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 196 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (e) after the word “effect” the words “other than the management contract of Australian Correctional Management Ltd to manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison which is hereby deemed to have been extended”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 197 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a) of subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 197 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 197 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 198 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 198 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 198 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 199 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of subclause (2) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(b)the number and nature of complaints and inquiries made by the victims of prisoners at the prison the nature of those complaints and inquiries and what action was taken to address those matters:”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 199 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) the following new paragraph: 
(ea)the numbers of staff leaving the employ of the contract prison noting which have gone to the Public Prison Service:. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 199 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) the following new paragraph: 
(ia)the views of prisoners on the Public Prison Service:. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 204 be agreed to: 
to omit the figure “12”  and substitute the figure “6”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future . 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 206 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a). 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 206 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b). 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 206 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 210 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 210. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 212 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 212. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 212 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the word “section” the words “provided the Minister has written to that person advising that he no longer wishes that person to remain in office”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 212 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 212 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(2)Persons are entitled to compensation for loss of office as a Visiting Justice. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 217 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) the figure “5” and substitute the figure (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
The amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 217 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph (c): 
(c)Notwithstanding any other provision in this section any new strategy issued under section 123 must be consistent with an abstinence approach. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Procedure 
Progress reported. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Report agreed to.