Ryall Tony: Corrections Bill — Second Reading 
Ryall Tony: Corrections Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12509] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 If the House ever needed an example of a Government department that is completely out of control then the Department of Corrections is it. The department is bordering on the dysfunctional and is a complete and utter mess. The reason why the Government is now addressing this issue is that it wants to get it off the agenda before anything more befalls that hapless Minister in charge of the disaster of a Government department called the Department of Corrections. And this Government wants to give the Department of Corrections another prison to run! It cannot even run the prisons it has now and it wants to run another prison. That is absolutely hopeless. 
We heard from this Minister today an announcement that the gravy train we saw with regard to Maori consultation on the Spring Hill prison at Meremere will continue because we now find that under pressure from the Progressives the Greens and the Labour Party the Department of Corrections is to consult with communities on how to run local prisons. Well we know what consultation with the Department of Corrections means. It is an absolute gravy train and this Government has now decided to get a new set of tracks for it. That gravy train will be arriving at a prison near someone and other parts of the community will be able to enjoy the $1.3 million largesse that we saw spent in the Waikato. This party will be opposing that completely. 
This Government in its misguided manner has said that the only reason it wants to abolish the private prison is that prisons have coercive powers against individuals and it is inappropriate for the private sector to wield such power. As Professor Charles Logan a noted expert wrote: “Keepers do not take away anyone’s freedom; catchers and convicters and sentencers do.” There is an important difference between the power to deny liberty and the job of carrying out such orders. The power to punish someone belongs to the people embodied in the Crown and it is subject to the rule of law. The rule of law applies to both the public and private sectors and in short that means the State is free to choose who carries out its custodial responsibilities and obligations. It does not have to be the State—the Government—that does those things. It is not the keepers who take away people’s freedom. In fact it is the law that does that and the law is not being changed in that regard. 
The National Party in Opposition also strongly opposes this legislation because it will cost taxpayers heaps in legal costs. It opens up incredible levels of uncertainty and that will lead to litigation. Already some prisoners who had a hard time in the isolation block at Paremoremo have now had a ruling that will no doubt entitle them to compensation from the Department of Corrections. But that will get worse under this legislation. Let me give members a couple of examples of that. This bill requires the department to take into account the cultural background ethnic identity and language of offenders in managing their sentences. Now what does that mean? It will be an invitation to the courts to decide what happens in the running of the prison service—as we have seen today. What is the impact of the chief executive having to cater for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners? I ask the Minister what that means. The Minister does not know what that means which means that it will be decided in the courts—and that will be very costly. 
This bill also brings new rights to prisoners that they have never had before. Those rights will be costly. Prisoners will be entitled—not permitted but entitled—to access tertiary education that will help in their rehabilitation. The bill tries to limit the cost of that with some new wording about prison managers and poor literacy skills but the fact is that there will be considerable risk because of the uncertainty associated with that area. It is an invitation to the courts to rule that prisoners are entitled to expensive education at the taxpayer’s expense. Ordinary hard-working New Zealanders will be furious if they pay their taxes so that criminals can get a better education than those New Zealanders’ children can. And that is one of the uncertainties being proposed in this legislation. 
The National Party in Opposition says that the fact that the Government was unable to get this bill passed through the Law and Order Committee should be a lesson to it. The bill is premised on a liberal philosophy that will backfire on the Government. The bill seeks to import a philosophy that is not supported by the majority of New Zealanders. Do most New Zealanders actually want the prison service to be run by taking account of people’s cultural background ethnic identity and language in managing prison sentences? What does that mean? [ 
Interruption 
] Government members can chirp but they do not know what that means. And what does it mean that the chief executive has to cater for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners? What does that mean? This Government has absolutely no idea. 
Two weeks ago the Department of Corrections moved the double murderer Mark Lundy from Paremoremo prison down to Kaitoke prison after he had served only 2 years at the Paremoremo maximum security prison. Did the department bother to advise the family of the late Mrs Christine Lundy? No it did not. In the select committee the National Party together with the Opposition parties raised the issue of why this bill does not require the Department of Corrections to advise victims or their families when prisoners are transferred. What did the Government say? The Government refused to support that and the Greens refused to support that. They were convinced that it was too administratively difficult to tell families that. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Impossible actually! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Does Mr Robson know that the family of Mr Lundy was informed of the transfer? If the family of Mr Lundy was informed then why was it impossible for the family of Mrs Lundy to be informed? I would have thought that Government members would support victims being notified of the long-term or permanent movement of their offenders to another prison but the Government and the Greens decided that that was too difficult. They decided that victims should not be entitled to be informed of the movement of their offenders. I think that is outrageous. Victims have an entitlement to know that. I agree with the family of the late Mrs Lundy that they should have been informed of Mr Lundy’s transfer. 
In the Committee stage of this bill we will move an amendment which will be supported no doubt by other Opposition parties in this House to require the Department of Corrections to advise those victims of offenders who want to be advised of the permanent movement of their offenders. They have a right to know that. Surely women who have been subjected to violence by offenders would want to know about that. I expect our woman Prime Minister should support their right to know that.