Cosgrove Clayton: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1513] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). I would do that of course because it was authored by the previous Government. I listened carefully to the Minister of Corrections and I must say that she made an interesting contribution which was rather measured in stark contrast to the rather colourful tough-person statements she has made both in this House and outside this House. These statements may well lead to her and the taxpayer’s dollar being in jeopardy. 
Hon Member 
: Never mate. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not cost the taxpayer money mate unlike the member’s colleague. It is interesting that the Minister entered the fray on this bill only in the Committee stage—her colleague Simon Power took it through the first and second reading stages. She made some rather uncharitable and factually incorrect comments if I can say that tactfully so that I am not in breach of the Standing Orders. For instance I recall in the Committee stage that that member said it was outrageous that members of the public were charged a fee to visit Spring Hill Corrections Facility. 
Hon Member 
: Were they? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes they were. She paraded this fact as some sort of outrage but as usual it was a little half-truth. She never told the New Zealand people why. It is true they were charged. Why? Because the Department of Corrections decided to have a charitable event—and without bringing the Deputy Speaker into the debate he has acknowledged that; I think he knows the area well—to raise money for a charity. So members of the public could visit Spring Hill and the money they paid was donated to charity. But charity is a word that does not come easily to that Minister. She is not charitable in nature from the bile she puts upon this House from time to time. 
She gives little half-truths like on the issue of telecommunications which she waxed so eloquent about in terms of how long it took. I read the transcript of what her colleague Simon Power said about the telecommunications issue. Quite rightly he pointed out that the technology had not advanced to the point where say one could block out just the telecommunications of prisoners in Mt Eden without taking out large portions of the telecommunications of the surrounding residential area. But oh no! Charity and charitable words do not come easily to Ms Collins. She gave us a little half-truth to try to justify her position. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: This is a very personal speech. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No it is not a personal speech. I am laying some facts on the table unlike that member who tells little half-truths and is very slippery with the facts. I am pleased to support this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Of course the Government members do not like it; they are on a wee skewer today and they do not like it. This is a good bill because under the previous Government which proposed this bill— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Keep the level of interjections down please. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am indebted to you Mr Deputy Speaker. But actually you can let them go because the inane way in which they make their contributions somehow bolsters Ms Collins’ position as a person who has very little charity— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to bring the member back to the bill. He is giving a rant of personal abuse but to get back to the bill would I think be helpful to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is some fairness and equity in what the member is saying but this is a robust debate and these are debating points. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Let us be very clear. It is not personal to point out half-truths by that Minister in regard to Spring Hill and the communications issue. But I do say that under the last Government which authored and introduced this bill there was an 84 percent reduction in prison escapes. We know that very clearly. We know also that in the 3 months that this Minister has ranted and raved around the country there have been more escapes especially in relation to her police portfolio than in the last 3 years. So her credibility now totters on the edge of the knife. 
The last Government of course reduced drug taking in prisons. Drug taking in prisons was less than half what it was when the National Government left office in 1999. But this Minister stands up and takes credit for this legislation as she stood as the Minister of Police and took credit for the opening of the Counties-Manukau police station. She said the station was an illustration of the Government’s commitment to law and order when of course it was built paid for and allocated under the last Labour Government. It is great to take credit for the last Government’s provision of services! Also fewer inmates were returning positive drug tests. Labour put in place something that I think was very practical. We put in 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing so that we did not have cases— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They used to have an open door at Wanganui Prison. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says they used to have an open-door policy at Wanganui Prison. I do recall that the previous National Government’s Minister of Corrections Nick Smith presided over the Department of Corrections when a chap with a saline drip on a stand managed to outrun the prison guards and vault the fence. Actually I do not think there was any perimeter fencing around some of the lower-security prisons. 
I am very happy to support the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). It is robust and it also provides some technological future-proofing for our prisons. Indeed I will look with interest as we proceed to implement this legislation and as an Opposition we will hold the Government to account by the same standard with which members opposite held us to account when we were in office. 
I recall the words of the now justice Minister Simon Power when he said that two escapes in a week was a worry. I have asked Judith Collins what six escapes constitute and how she would characterise six escapes in a week under her watch. Her response was at first silence then to say that it was an operational matter and it was nothing to do with her and then to come out and bag the previous Government. When we were in Government we did not allow those six prisoners to escape but this Government does not provide any support for the victims or reassurance for the community. Her only action as she said in this House some time ago was to run around the country visiting prisons and to ask everybody else how she should do her job. I would have thought that after 9 years in Opposition she would come to this House with a plan. In effect she has; but it is our plan our bill—we authored it when Labour was in Government. 
Now Judith Collins goes to the Department of Corrections officials to ask: “What should I do? I have had six escapes in a week. My colleague Simon Power said two was a worry under the last crowd but what do you think I should I do?”. The Government does not like it. To use the  
Dad’s Army 
 expression: “They don’t like it up ’em the old cold steel.” Government members do not like it when we bring facts and when we prove that they tell half-truths. Then what they do is to characterise it as personal by saying: “Oh Cosgrove you’re making a personal attack on the Minister.” If it is a personal attack to correct the record over half-truths about Spring Hill and about the telecommunications technology then I say to colleagues that I stand guilty as charged. It is not a personal attack to bring that Minister to account. 
I support this bill the Opposition supports this bill and we support it because we authored it. I invite the Minister in her own unique “charitable” way to give credit where credit is due rather than as she has done as Minister of Police wander around the countryside taking credit for police stations that were funded and built by us and say that they were her commitment to fighting crime. If her only commitment to fighting crime is to congratulate herself on what the previous Government did then goodness knows what will happen to the safety and security of the community.