Franks Stephen: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13003] 
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—