Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12513] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 One can always tell dyed-in-the-wool socialists who spend more time in university than on the streets getting their hands dirty because they stand up with the “pompicity” of people whom they normally call Tories— 
Dianne Yates 
: “Pomposity”. 
RON MARK 
: Same difference. That is the difference between academics and people on the ground. The pomposity they criticise is from people who come out of places like Christ’s College or St Andrews. They are the very people who swan around art galleries—while telling working class people they work for them—swan around the symphonies go to the opera and then call Opposition members infantile because we do not agree with their stupid nonsensical socialist philosophies that would not add one jot of credibility to a department that is in absolute chaos—namely the Department of Corrections. 
Who is partially responsible for the mess we are dealing with today? It is the member Matt Robson himself as a past Minister. If that member is to have any credibility at all in the debate on corrections I have one question for him. Why did he not do something about the “goon squad” when it was brought to his attention in 2002? I bet that I do not get an answer. Why did he not do anything about the abuse of inmates abuse of the law and what people alleged to be absolute corruption going on inside his prisons? Why did he not do anything about the Sheree Harris and June Skinner case? Those two women in the Department of Corrections were persecuted out of their jobs by men. They went to the Employment Court. 
This is the wonderful public corrections system that Nandor Tanczos is defending. Those two women did not get one jot of support from that Minister and what happened? It cost the taxpayer $400000-plus with the Department of Corrections fighting an injustice that it committed on two women prison officers and it lost. The women won. When I took that case to the Minister he was hiding under his table backing up his incompetent and—people say—corrupt department. He has nothing of value to add to this debate because he did nothing. 
 There are parts in this bill that New Zealand First endorses; and that probably explains what he just said. That is probably Clem Simich’s work from the time when he was Minister. But there is a lot in this bill that leaves New Zealand First in total opposition to it. If the Government is going to put more dogs in prisons we agree. If it is going to pass laws that protect dog handlers we agree. If it is going to tighten up on the abuses meted out to inmates then I need only to look right at Nandor Tanczos because he needs to explain to the great Maori community that he purports to represent why he is doing nothing about the death of Mr David Rere Haimona which happened in a State prison not the Auckland Central Remand Prison. It did not happen in a private prison. It happened in a public prison in a State-run prison and to sit here and tell me that this man will support this legislation and see the one bright shining star in our corrections service go under because “The State must have control.”—I am going to ask him what has he done to support the Haimona family as a result of what the “goon squad” did to that man. 
Evidence has been produced and people have testified that they killed him. That is what they say: “They killed him.” I am waiting with interest to see the result of the inquiry because it will all come out in there. But Mr Tanczos does not care. He just wants to see the State running it. What does he want to see? Does he want to see more inmates like the one in Dunedin who was paid out $40000 after smashing up the local barber breaking his face and failing to pay reparation? He got $40000 because our highly competent State-run Department of Corrections let him out a week later than his parole date. That is what Mr Nandor Tanczos supports. 
Do we want to see more inmates—like the ones we have read about in the newspapers today—suing the department? Well we have a doozy in this bill. Clauses 49 to 51 open up the doorway to lawsuits based on the fact that inmates will be able to argue in a court of law that the integrated offender management system that was put together for them or not put together in the way they asked it to be because of one or another reason failed to prevent them from reoffending. 
Mr Jarden has a case has he not? We know he abused and sexually molested children. We know he was out again on parole. He went on home detention and he did it again! Three more cases! A member opposite says: “Oh!” as though the abuse of three little girls means nothing. Well over here it does. If the member did not say that I am sorry but that is the way it came across in the House. She seemed bored with my whole speech. Members opposite should say that to the victims of Mr Jarden. Is that the type of Department of Corrections that Nandor Tanczos and the Green Party support? Because boy I am looking forward to the election—and it is coming soon. I am looking forward to standing up on the hustings and arguing this issue. Because there is no justifiable reason for the Department of Corrections to do what it did. 
At the end of the day there are victims. We will have people like Mr Isherwood the guy who just recently was convicted let out and within 2 weeks he had drug-raped a girl again. He could argue that the integrated offender management system failed him. I question whether he had a plan. I am now finding in talking to people that this management system that members opposite laud and applaud is not even working now. So many inmates are being transferred from one prison to another that no one has a tab on whether a plan has been put together. So these people are quite capable of going through the system not having a plan coming out reoffending and blaming the failure of the prison service to adhere to its statutory obligation of providing the inmate with a plan to prevent the person from reoffending. 
There has been a lot of criticism about the consultative process up at Spring Hill prison. Is it not interesting and so amazing that the one group of people who spoke so highly of the Auckland Central Remand Prison—the prison service we are going to see the demise of—was the one group of people who have since put out a press release saying they were never consulted as to whether that prison was doing the right thing as to whether it was a good competent prison service? 
Debate interrupted.