Power Simon: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Power Simon: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13005] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I am a newcomer to this legislation whilst perusing the contents of Part 2 my eye was drawn to a couple of clauses in that part pointed out to me by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall that are worth examining just a little further. It seems to me that the purpose of this legislation should be to provide broad guidelines as to overall governance issues in respect of prisons as opposed to finicky management administrative-type issues. So with that sort of background in mind I found my eye was immediately drawn to clause 71 “Bedding”. If a prison is to have a view on bedding—and presumably it would have one—why on earth is Parliament placing into law on the statute book references to bedding? For the benefit of the listening public who will not believe what I am about to read this is what clause 71(2) states— 
Ron Mark 
: This is Nandor’s amendment. 
SIMON POWER 
: Is that right? It is a Government bill. Members should listen to this: “A prisoner’s bedding must be laundered as often as is necessary to maintain cleanliness.” Now when did this Parliament become such a sad reflection of a lawmaking body that it includes that type of nonsense in legislation? But it becomes worse than that. Clause 71(3) states: “All bedding must be laundered before it is reissued to another prisoner.” Well one would think that that was pretty self-explanatory; one would think that most prisons would undertake that type of basic activity. Why on earth is legislation being drafted with that type of utter nonsense included in it? 
But worse than that not only is there a clause on bedding but there is also a clause on diet. Clause 72(2) states: “As far as practicable in the circumstances in providing food and drink to prisoners allowances must be made for the various religious spiritual and cultural needs of the prisoners.” That is fair enough. There may well be spiritual and religious needs for certain dietary offerings to be given to different prisoners but why on earth is legislation required to enact that type of policy? This legislation is not about 101 ways to run a good prison; that is not what it is about. This legislation is tearing away a very successful management arrangement in one prison and providing that the public sector will be the only group allowed to run prisons. I and the other members on the Opposition side of the Chamber do not believe for one moment that the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain believes that. I do not believe for one second that Paul Swain thinks that that is a good idea or that he can seriously sit there and hold the view that clauses about bedding and diets will make our public prison system better for the people inside it—who by the way actually gave up a fair few of their rights at the time they went out and committed their crimes. 
But even worse than that not only are prisoners’ bedding and dietary needs taken care of in legislation but clause 52 which addresses the transfer of prisoners does not for one moment refer to the rights of their victims. It does not refer to the rights of victims to be informed when those transfers are going ahead and in no way are victims referred to with regard to the ongoing management of prisoners.