Ardern Jacinda: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1516] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to speak on the third reading of a bill that—as has rightly been pointed out by previous speakers—was drafted and introduced by the previous Labour Government. I am pleased to see that virtually the only criticism that has been aimed at the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) has been that it was not introduced sooner. I think that stands the bill in good stead in terms of its content. Generally the debate around this bill has been productive. I have to say that that held true until we reached the Committee of the whole House stage and what I perceived to be a most un-ministerial display by the Minister of Corrections when she made a speech on the bill. 
I think this debate is an opportunity for us to clarify a bit more of the context that surrounded the bill when it was first introduced. If we reflect back on the situation when Labour came into Government we see that beginning in the 1990s drug use in prisons was endemic. We have to acknowledge that drug use in our prisons in the 1990s was a massive problem. In fact by 1999 34 percent of inmates were testing positive for drug use. That is a fact that has been brought out many times before. It is not something that has been disputed by either side of the House. We also had a high rate of prison escapes. That is also something that has not been disputed by either side of this House. 
Labour did have a response. It was claimed during the Committee of the whole House stage that there were 9 years of inaction. That is an absolute half-truth and a “mistruth”. I would not go so far as to say it is a lie because I know that is outside the Standing Orders. Labour introduced the Corrections Act in 2003 in response to all of those issues. As a result drug use halved. That is not something this House can dispute; drug use halved. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: How would you know? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Because we have the facts the numbers and the drug tests to display. Unlike members on the other side of the House who think evidence is something to be bandied around at will we choose to use it to back up the legislation we introduce. 
We also saw the number of prison escapes drop dramatically. In fact prison escapes per 100 prisoners were just under one-sixth of the escape numbers under National so there was a dramatic decrease. But we recognised that more could have been done. That is why we introduced this amendment bill. I am pleased to see it now being progressed through the House. 
Those issues are not the only ones raised by the Minister that require correction—and I will pick up on a couple that were not mentioned by Mr Cosgrove in his address to the House. There was quite a significant rant by the Minister about prisons being luxurious. It is a myth that she has perpetuated in the House—and beyond. It is a myth that I notice seemed to stop circulating about 90 days ago when she took up the post of Minister of Corrections. Apparently the day Judith Collins took over as Minister of Corrections prisons stopped being these luxurious places. In 24 hours everything in those prisons changed apparently. Apparently prisons are no longer the luxurious places she claimed they were under Labour. Any member of this House who has visited a prison will know that—as the public described when they went to Spring Hill for a charitable event—our prison system fulfils its requirements. They described it as chilling. Our prisons have been described by that Minister as luxurious. If she still believes that to be the case then I would be interested to know what it is about our prisons that in that regard she plans to change. 
I will not reiterate any more of the finer details of the bill. There is something I want to highlight though—a statement made by Simon Power in his first reading speech before this bill went to the select committee. He stated that the select committee process would “determine whether these issues need the type of approach that the Government is offering or whether in fact we need to be tighter than the approach the Government is offering.” We have not seen any substantive changes made either by the Government or I would say by the select committee and that again demonstrates that this amendment bill got it right in its original bar 1 text. 
I will dwell for a moment on a couple of changes that were not addressed by the select committee. We were looking at trying to reduce the incidence of contraband in prisons. Two issues that this bill does not pick up on contribute to the problem of contraband: the size of the prison muster and the ability of staff to deal with it. We have seen several bills come through this House that will directly impact on the prison muster. We all know in this House that as a consequence of those bills we will see an increase in our muster. 
The Government claims it is putting forward ideas that will deal with our increasing prison numbers. The first one which we heard about just recently is the increased use of private prisons. I want to reiterate the Labour Party’s position on this issue. Labour’s position—as it has always been—is that prisons are a core public service. They are part of what the State and the Government provide. There is a reason that we perceive it to be that way. If private enterprise enters into the provision of prisons it will do it for one reason and one reason alone—profit. For what other reason would private enterprise enter into provision of prison services? We already know; we need just to look at the numbers. Under the public provision of prisons we are looking at a prison remand cost of $36000. If we look at the numbers under private provision we are looking at a cost of $42000. Profit is the No. 1 reason. And the State has other things it needs to achieve in its provision of prison services. One element is retribution—fulfilling society’s requirement that civil liberties are denied. The other is rehabilitation which is a core part of the prison service as well. 
We need to keep in mind that the prison muster will directly have an impact on contraband. But the second thing the Government is proposing is the use of prefab prisons or Lego prisons as I have heard them called in the UK. The UK imported them from China. I am not sure whether that is part of the Government’s vision as well. I am not sure whether there are Resource Management Act concerns. Perhaps to get round those the Government could turn those prefab prisons into mobile prefab prisons and circulate them around various communities so that there will be only a little bit of complaining every once in a while. 
We need to remind the Government that the wider issue of contraband is not about just the provisions in this bill; it is about the Government’s ability to deal with prison numbers it is about the staff working within its prison service and it is about the operational provision of prisons—whether they are private or public. These all impact on the issues that the Government is trying to deal with in this bill. I urge the Government now that we are soon to pass a bill that both sides of the House agree on to start considering the wider issues that will impact on contraband.