Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13339] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise in the third reading which is our final opportunity to voice our opposition to this bill to urge in the closing stages those members of the Government who are sane and able logically to work their way through the issues to reconsider their vote on this bill. The decision that this Government is about to make is a wrong decision a bad decision an illogical decision and a decision that the Government is making on its own admission through adherence to blind ideology. I could be unkind enough to say that one would have to be an idiot to vote for certain parts of this bill. 
I will now re-emphasise a few points from the New Zealand First section in the report back. New Zealand First opposed this bill for a number of reasons. In terms of Crown versus private management of prisons we stated: “New Zealand First having seen the evidence submitted”—and having visited a number of prisons throughout New Zealand including the Auckland Central Remand Prison—“does not accept that there is any justification for the prison to be taken out of the ACM management and put back in Crown control.” All the evidence that was presented to us—everything that we saw everything that we heard from the inmates and the prison officers—told us that in comparison with State-run prisons Australasian Correctional Management had exceeded the State-run prisons’ performance. That is fact. 
With regard to the information and education needs of prisoners Australasian Correctional Management “was found to be a leader particularly in areas of its rehabilitation programmes (that is reading literacy computer training fork lift and heavy truck licences) that will assist prisoners’ self-esteem on their release.”—and their ability to gain meaningful employment. I will say that again: Australasian Correctional Management’s programmes will help prisoners and do help former inmates to gain meaningful employment. 
 I have visited Paparua Prison and one of the most disheartening things was to go into that prison and see a massive carpentry shop—fully equipped and fully tooled—empty. No one was learning anything. I think there were two men in that carpentry shop and when I asked why the prison was not teaching carpentry skills I was immediately taken through to the other side and shown where 25 inmates were doing carving. I asked them how many expected to get jobs carving and how many actually thought they had an opportunity to get a job as a cabinetmaker a joiner or a chippy’s labourer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s PC gone mad. 
RON MARK 
: The interesting thing is that a PC-driven Lf thabour administration was quite happy to keep these chaps busy carving bones wood and stones but it did not want them— 
Jill Pettis 
: The private sector doesn’t like any competition. 
RON MARK 
: That is a nonsense because on the other side I can go to the same prison and find two ventures running there that are in direct competition with local business. Jim Anderton refused to shut one of them down despite the fact that local businesses wanted to employ inmates. 
The inconsistencies are a nonsense. I quote our report: “New Zealand First believes that the decision to return ACM to State control is ideology driven without regard to its performance. It is our view that ACM should be left to continue to run externally to the department as a private provider for a further four years reviewable at the end of that period against good business practice and its compliance with the 1995 Act. The intent to return ACM to state control without regard to its commendable performance is not we believe based on logic.”—nor is it in the best interests of the people who are contained there. 
Regarding notifying victims about the transfer of prisoners New Zealand First noted that the Government does not intend to make the Department of Corrections responsible for notifying victims of its intent to transfer prisoners to home detention. We believe that is wrong. We believe that it is wrong that a man who is in jail for stabbing a taxi-driver in the head with a carving fork be put on home detention in the community without the next-door neighbours being told that he will be there. We believe that it is wrong to put that man back out into the community without his victim Les Williamson being told that that is going to happen. This bill does that. 
Regarding the mental health of prisoners we stated: “It is New Zealand First’s view that mentally unwell prisoners should not be detained in a prison. They should be in a secure environment in the care of staff trained in the management of such patients.” Of all the prisons I have ever visited which prison has the best processes for identifying inmates with mental health and psychological issues? The Australasian Correctional Management - run Auckland Central Remand Prison. That is the only prison I have been into where there is thorough screening of inmates on day one when they walk in where mental health issues are identified and where their programmes and the management of them are immediately adjusted. I hear speech after speech from members of the Government about how appalling it is that mental health patients should be held in prison but it is taking the one prison that handles such prisoners correctly out of the control of its very good managers who are doing that. There is a word for that; I will not use that word which is banned in Parliament. I will just use “stupidity” instead because that word is not banned. 
Regarding considerations for temporary release from custody or temporary removal from prison we stated: “New Zealand First disagrees with releases made without first notifying victims. Victims should have the right to object.” Victims have a right to know. 
We concluded by stating that New Zealand First will be opposing a number of other aspects of the bill. I want to touch on one of those aspects and that is the integrated offender management scheme. That is the great con job of the decade. I put it on record that the integrated offender management scheme is Labour’s new INCIS. This computerised programme which will generate nothing of any worth is a “touchy-feely” feel-good fluffy nonsensical approach to managing prisoners that firstly is not being complied with now and secondly cannot be complied with given the problems that the Department of Corrections faces with musters and with not knowing what its musters in any one prison are from one time to the next. 
All the prison officers—the good staff whom Mr Robson will stand up and compliment—know that but their wonderful management here in Wellington has provided Ministers both former and current with inaccurate information. For example the Minister was asked about the number of inappropriate relationships between prison officers and inmates. He said there were three. Members asked again: “How many was that Minister?”. He said there were five. “How many was that Minister?”. He said there were 17. “How many now?”. He said there were 21. This department’s heads give the Minister such inaccurate information but he relies on it he stakes his reputation on it and he will not go and talk to the prison officers who would tell him to his face that the integrated offender management system is an absolute crock. It sets the department up for failure. 
Worst of all it imposes a fiscal risk on the Crown and future Governments. The fiscal risk comes when inmate Bloggs having asked to do a BA in Maori Studies at Victoria University a special advanced anger management course and a course in business management and having been denied all of those opportunities—contrary to what the bill states he should be entitled to—is released into the community and offends again. He will be able to put up as his defence that he was unable to get work and be reintegrated into the community because when he asked to do those courses which he was entitled to do he was denied them—he was denied them because there was a lack of resources and a lack of opportunity and that was why he offended and now he holds the State accountable for his reoffending. 
I have a Chapman Tripp legal opinion that states that is so and this Government will not believe it. Well be it on its head. Know this: New Zealand First will come back to this Act when we are in Government. We will not have private prisons from one end of the country to the other but we see value in the current private prison. We cannot ignore success and that prison is entirely useful as a benchmark for checking and assessing the State-run prisons for their deficiencies and weaknesses. On that basis New Zealand First believes that it is stupidity to let that prison go.