Prasad Rajen: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Boscawen might not have read the regulatory impact statement but Carmel Sepuloni was referring to the fact that managing the prison muster is in crisis hence the necessity to pass legislation to enable this to happen. Therefore there is nothing disingenuous about that; it is a fact. Why would we not support something when it is a reasonable thing to do and when it is something that we also find necessary to do? What is disingenuous is what members opposite used to do when this matter came up under the Labour Government. They would pillory this very kind of provision. What we do not see is a little bit of humility from them. Maybe they could apologise and say they can see why it was necessary. I know that Mr Ardern has had more experience of being in Opposition than we have. It is something he ought to think about. We do not intend to become as experienced at that as members opposite are. 
Members opposite have taken this opportunity to legislate a simple provision under urgency. It would have been easy to get through this without too much complication. Members opposite have taken this as an opportunity to say time and time again that in the 9 years of the previous Government it did nothing about violence and crime. I do not know where those members were when day after day year after year and term after term the Labour Government did bring forward many pieces of legislation and significantly resourced the addressing of crime. Mr Calder talked a lot about the increase in violent crime. As I said in my first reading speech he displays his own ignorance about the figures for violent crime. I want to spend a few minutes educating members opposite about the figures for violent crime. 
We indeed know that the majority of violent crime shown in those statistics emerged out of domestic violence; we know that to be the case. How did that happen? Did it happen because of 9 years of inactivity by the last Government or did it happen because year in and year out Ministers and their ministries were working very very hard to try to understand what some of the drivers were what needed to be done and how to bring everybody together and start a programme that in perhaps the next 10 years—because that is how long it would take—would achieve the necessary changes? 
Mr Ardern and Mr Calder might not know about the family violence task force and the work that it did to try to find out what New Zealand society should do about violence. It brought all of the information together. It joined up all the agencies possible. I know because I led the Families Commission at that time. We were key players and the member’s party exempted itself from the multiparty group. So I say to members opposite that they did nothing to assist in solving the problem when they were in Opposition. In fact they obfuscated it. They stood on the sidelines and criticised very very reasonable efforts. 
The task force started in December 2004 and it went through for a period after that. That task force comprising all of the Government’s social agencies plus the non-governmental organisation sector has spent a lot of energy effort intellectual ability and resources to begin to address those issues. I say to Mr Ardern that one of the major messages was that one must not live with violence in one’s domestic situation that one must report it and find assistance. That has caused the major rise in the reporting of domestic violence. The member might want to talk to Mr Calder and explain it to him so that members opposite can understand and stop this nonsense. It is intellectually dishonest. Ministers and members opposite ought not to do that because it does them no justice and it does this Parliament no justice. It is a form of dishonesty that is just incredible to behold in this age. 
I will go further and say that this Government has changed not one aspect of that programme. In fact the Government’s programme to address domestic violence is exactly the same programme that the Hon Ruth Dyson led as a Minister and other Ministers supported it at the time. At one point half the Cabinet Ministers were members of the ministerial group to which the task force was responsible. Maybe the next Government speaker can clarify for us whether that is still the case and whether the member’s Cabinet puts that much emphasis on it because nothing has changed. The task force works on the same programme. The It’s Not OK campaign works in exactly the same way. The community-led initiatives work in exactly the same way. The member’s Government has added nothing to it except for on-the-spot protection orders I think. Labour members supported that measure as well. It was a slight tweaking of something that was already there. 
Time and time again ethnic members in National—Mr Bakshi Melissa Lee and the Hon Pansy Wong are in the Chamber— 
Hon Pansy Wong 
: Good morning. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Greetings ni hao. Those members speak to ethnic audiences and what do they do? They tout their achievements in reducing violence in our society even though it is inappropriate to do so in many many situations where members of the audiences do not want to hear about the Government’s work on violence. They want to hear Government members celebrating those cultures. 
Hon Pansy Wong 
: They love the Government. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: But time and time again I say to the Hon Pansy Wong and her colleague that is what those members do and their audiences are just bored with it. It is time to stop doing that. 
Members opposite have also been criticising this provision which we used and which they now want to use. Of course members opposite want it for a purpose. We would like to hear for how long the Government intends to use this provision. Is it for the summer because by that time the Government will have solved the problem? Is it for another 6 months because by then it will have found the answers? Is it for only 1 year because by then all of the Government’s new systems will be in place and it will have resolved the violence issues in our society? Or will it be for all of the Government’s term? I ask whether members opposite intend that this will be their policy for the rest of their Government’s term—because it will be their last one—and if it is not then I ask what else they are putting in place. Members opposite have made this a violence issue. Members opposite have turned this into something that the Government is now guaranteeing. Members opposite are guaranteeing to New Zealand society that in your term you will have resolved this— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: My apologies Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Government members opposite have resolved this issue in this period of time? I would put money on there being no guarantee that they can give that this provision will still be there. 
Todd McClay 
: How much? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Mr McClay can take me on; I will see him in the lobby afterwards. I would put money on it that this measure will not improve the situation. This is a generational shift we are talking about. Our society is violent and there is much that we need to do about that. It is inappropriate for members opposite to promise that they can do much better. This will come to haunt their policies. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Ha ha! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Sandra Goudie may smile but what the Government is doing is explosive. It is appealing to the negative side of life.