Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12957] 
1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has he decided to conduct a review of the Auckland Central Remand Prison; if so why? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The Department of Corrections has a plan in place to manage the incorporation of Auckland Central Remand Prison into the Public Prisons Service. All innovations and variations in practice at Auckland Central Remand Prison will be reviewed with a view to retaining them where they could bring a quality improvement to the Public Prisons Service. 
Marc Alexander 
: What is the point of conducting a review of the management of Auckland Central Remand Prison after the Minister has decided to revert it to State control; or is he just trying to help the Greens in their cynical attempt to pull a fast one over Maori who are genuinely saddened by the loss of the first genuine partnership between a prison and tangata whenua? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can reply to that in so far as it relates to his own responsibility. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member is not right. The review is being conducted before the management changes hands not after. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What is the rationale for the Government deciding to take the administration of the Auckland Central Remand Prison back into the public sector? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Labour Party made it clear in two election manifestos that the management of Auckland Central Remand Prison would return to the public sector. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right; we keep to our pledges. This is consistent with our belief that punishment and incarceration should be the responsibility of the Government and should not be contracted out to private operators for a profit. 
Ron Mark 
: Why would this Government hand over the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison to the managers of the State’s Department of Corrections when the Auckland Central Remand Prison under current management has not had one reported case of inappropriate relationships between prison officers and inmates and we now learn that the State system by the Minister’s own admission has had 17 such cases? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I have said in this House before the Auckland Central Remand Prison has done some good things and some not so good things and that is the purpose of the review. It has performed well in some programmes and that is why we are doing the review—to make sure that the good parts of those programmes are carried over into the State sector if and where appropriate. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is there a difference between the power to deny liberty and the job of carrying out those orders? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The power to deny liberty rests with the Government or the State. Therefore it is appropriate that the role of the State which incarcerates people— 
Hon Member 
: Whereabouts? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In prison. The Government sees it as a core role to incarcerate people and to take their liberty. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that a review of the Auckland Central Remand Prison was first raised with him many weeks ago by the Green Party— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. There will be no interjections during questions. That is the one warning today. I will ask the member to start his question again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason I said “No” is that every member of this House knows that that is demonstrably untrue. My colleague wrote to that Minister and to the Prime Minister a full year ago on this matter in June 2003. So for a member to say “weeks ago” is saying something that he knows not to be true. We all know it not to be true and someone should object—and I am objecting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is absolutely incorrect. I tell the member that there will be no interjections during question time while a question is being asked. That is because I believe that all 119 members—at the present time—have the right to ask his or her question freely. I do not mind a bit of interjection in the reply. I ask Nandor Tanczos to start again. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Frankly it is not good enough for the leader of New Zealand First to say that a question is simply not true. If he thinks that then he should have raised a point of order on the basis that all questions can be authenticated. I think we now have a situation where there has been a misuse of the point of order in that the House is left with the impression that Mr Tanczos who was asking the question was saying something that is not true and that is definitely out of order. I think that Mr Peters should be asked to withdraw that statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have dealt with the matter and I have warned the member that he is not to do it again or he will leave the Chamber. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that the matter of a review of the Auckland Central Remand Prison was first raised with him by the Green Party a number of weeks ago—and if the honourable member would care to actually listen to the question that is what he would have heard— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This member is stating something that is not true and now he seeks during his question to challenge me. If I was inappropriate in my behaviour then I apologise; but surely he should be stopped from going down the path he seeks to go down. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot make that assertion. However he is right on one point: I ask the member to ask his question and not refer to the comments I have already ruled on. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I raise with you is: when Mr Peters repeatedly questions the truth of my statement—when I am making a statement about the discussions between the Green Party and the Government without regard to New Zealand First—how am I supposed to assure this House of the truth of my statement if I cannot address it in my supplementary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s word as I accept every member’s word when he or she is speaking. I now ask the member to ask his supplementary question and I will have it heard in silence. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that the matter of a review of the Auckland Central Remand Prison was first raised with him by the Green Party a number of weeks ago and that a review was agreed to at that time? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I can confirm that as part of the discussions around the Corrections Bill the Green Party raised the issue of the review. As part of our general agreement we agreed that this would be a good idea and I want to thank the Greens for their support on this very important principled matter. 
Heather Roy 
: Has the Minister visited the Auckland Central Remand Prison since becoming Minister of Corrections in May 2003; if yes what did he learn that concerns him; if not what does he think his concerns might be? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I visited the Auckland Central Remand Prison a couple of weeks ago. I had a good discussion with the staff there and made it clear that this was not an issue around some of the programmes that were being run. It was a point of principle with the Government that locking people up and taking away their freedom was the role of the Government. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree with comments made by Mr Eru Thompson of Te Iwi Whanui Trust that the public service needs to have “direct and ongoing sustainable relationships with the local hapu of the respected areas” and can he confirm that the Greens’ negotiations with the Government in respect of the Corrections Bill have been at least partly to ensure a statutory basis for just such relationships? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly yes and yes. I do agree with that statement and if that person would like to have a look at what is happening in Northland he will see a formal relationship between Ngati Rangi and Ngawha prison. Secondly the ability for it to engage local communities in programmes and policies of a local prison are specifically incorporated in a Supplementary Order Paper negotiated between the Greens and the Government. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why on the one hand is the Minister ignoring the pleas of seven northern iwi not to change the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison when on the other hand he was prepared to approve the $1.5 million spent by the Department of Corrections to consult with Maori over the new Waikato prison—what is the point? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Taking away people’s freedom—locking them up in prison—is the role of the Government; that is the reason. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having put the issue into contention how many of the people in the management of the Department of Corrections have lost their job as a consequence of 17 inappropriate relationships about which the Minister spoke in his amended answer to Parliament today; and does he think that the Maori people have sunk so low that they need the help when it comes to the penal policy of some Hungarian immigrant? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question can be answered. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Of the number that I raised before one was formally dismissed. I am not certain about the last part of the question. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister making a decision to shut off the private management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison before conducting a review because it is run by a multinational as the Greens believe; if so will his Government also reject the views and work of other multinationals such as the International Labour Organization the United Nations Greenpeace and the Red Cross? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I say again the review will be conducted prior to the change of management not after. It is just a matter of policy and principle that the role of locking up people and taking away their freedom is the role of the Government. That is what the legislation will do. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation to the House as a result of the comments made by Mr Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I considered raising a point of order at the time but I thought that if the Green Party did not object then why should I. People can be members of Parliament only if they are New Zealand citizens. Every MP is an “honourable member”. I think it is deplorable that we are now setting the standard whereby a member can get up in a question and question another member’s right to be in this House and to make representations on the basis of his or her nationality—and I am making no derogatory remarks about someone being part-Hungarian or whatever. What I am saying is that members should be addressed as honourable members and I really think that you Mr Speaker should have pulled Mr Peters up at the time. Now Mr Peters does not allow a personal explanation. I think you should ask Mr Peters to withdraw those comments. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If you have the advantage of hearing the tape and reading the  
Hansard 
 Mr Speaker you will know that Mr Prebble’s protest is totally meaningless and is based on fiction. I said nothing of the sort in respect of any member of Parliament. However if some member decides the glove might fit then so be it. But I did not—[ 
Interruption 
] The  
Hansard 
 will not show anything of the sort and he is required to address the  
Hansard 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member a specific question. In his remarks did he refer to any member of Parliament sitting here? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened and I too heard the remarks although I did not quite catch them. However I could see they were not very flattering and I very nearly raised the matter. The member did not raise an objection at the time and Mr Prebble is perfectly correct in the point he made. But objection having been raised—leave having been denied to make a personal explanation—I now ask Mr Peters to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to know when it has become part of the Standing Orders that you have the right to pry into someone’s mind as to what he was thinking when he made a comment although his words did not specify in any way or in any clarity a personality involved in what he may have said and then demand in this House that he speak his mind on what is a private matter. That surely is not part of the Standing Orders or of any constitutional precedent. I understand that silence in this business is not to consent in the way you sought me to do so. I have told you what the truth was because it is part of my private feelings on the matter. 
The fact of the matter is—if you want to know what I mean—I get slightly upset when the “great white hope of the Maori people” happens to be somebody whose policies in my view are the direct enemy of the Maori people and that is why I said what I did in that way. But I did not specify in my  
Hansard 
 whom I was talking about; neither could I have said anything on which Mr Prebble could base a point of order and that is a fact. Now you are asking me to impart to the House what I was thinking privately and that surely cannot be what democracy is about in the 21st century. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am not quite sure whether I am the “great white hope of the Maori people”. I would like to think so. Speakers in the whole time I have been in the House have when hearing remarks regarding someone outside the House—if they are made under members’ free speech and they have been asked whether they were referring to a member of this House—will not pull members up on it. We all heard—not just you Mr Speaker. So I strongly support your right to make that statement of Mr Peters because if he was not referring to anyone outside the House then my objection would be overruled but if he was he is required to withdraw and apologise. I say to Mr Peters through you that I think it would be a good idea for him to stop before he makes matters even worse for himself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to rule on this matter. I want to thank Mr Prebble for saying almost precisely what I would have said. Ever since I have been in this House a Speaker has been perfectly entitled to ask that question and I have heard former Speakers many times do what I have often done myself. The point Mr Prebble made is exactly correct. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear that I in no way take offence at being called Hungarian or at my South African ancestry being declared because I am extremely proud of both. But I agree with Mr Prebble’s point that my right to contribute was being questioned on the basis of my ethnicity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and I think the member knows that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell Mr Mark that this had better be a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: Here is a second point of order. What right do you have before I even open my mouth to issue me with a censorship? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please give the point of order or the member will leave. 
Ron Mark 
: The point of order is this. Given that New Zealand First has a member in its caucus who is and can be described as a pommie immigrant and given that there is a member in this House who could be described as an Australian immigrant when do we suddenly take a negative inference at a person being described as a Hungarian immigrant a pommie immigrant or an Australian immigrant? Where precisely in the Standing Orders does it state that the joining of those two words is an offence and should be taken offence at and that a member who says those words should be held to censure? I did not hear anything in the drivel I heard on my left that justifies that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is wrong. I tell him quite specifically that members in this House should be referred to as members or honourable members. I do not care what a member’s ancestry is; that is his or her business. All members in this Parliament are properly elected because they are on an electoral roll and they are New Zealanders. That is where the matter ends. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How is it that you could find an offence in a reference to someone’s ancestry of which the member has just told us he is proud? If he is proud about it and he is not in any way offended about it why on earth are we wasting the time of the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was not wasting the time of the House; I think others were. People are entitled to be very proud of their ancestry and I hope they are. However that is it—when we are having question time let us get on with the questions. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to ask whether you were going to throw out those people who spoke during the point of order; but I guess that is asking a bit too much. My point of order is this: when I was denied an opportunity to make a personal explanation in this House not too long ago why did I not receive the same degree of defence that seems to be apparent here today? Can you answer me that Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take that as a personal reflection. To the best of my knowledge I have never denied any member ever the right to make a personal explanation. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why is the Minister bothering to conduct a review of the Auckland Central Remand Prison when he has already predetermined a decision when we already know that the prison has consistently surpassed the required standards of the number of assaults drug tests and complaints in monthly audits is cheaper to run than a State prison and has received performance bonuses for every quarter since it opened yet under public management we have witnessed the disgrace of suicides sexual liaisons between guards and inmates and the infamous “goon squad” as well? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Because if there are good things going on there we should make sure they continue. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not already clear to the Minister that the selection processes that the management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison use to identify people who are suitable for service in prisons must be far superior to those selection processes used by the State’s Department of Corrections; if not we would not have the 17 cases of inappropriate relationships that he refers to and if it is clear to him that the selection processes are more superior will he not consider transferring some of those people who manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison into the Department of Corrections to manage the department and replace some of those who currently do? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The selection process is one of the things that will be looked into. If there are things to learn from that then yes they will be transferred across. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister explain in detail exactly in what respects the private management of Auckland Central Remand Prison is failing the terms of its contract; if not what is the harm in rolling over this contract for another 2 years; or is this a sop to ideology and to the Greens? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may answer two. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Hopefully for the final time I will try to explain to the member that this is not about the management; it is about a question of principle which says that people who are locked up should be the responsibility of the Government not of the private sector.