Auchinvole Chris: General Debate 
Auchinvole Chris: General Debate 
[Volume:637;Page:7989] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 What does the public want from the Department of Corrections? The public wants efficiently and ethically run prisons that provide security for the public from those who are locked up. The public expects safety for those who are imprisoned and whose normal rights have been removed. The public wants to know that those in prison will be engaged in activities that will result in a level of reform by the time they are paroled and released. Above all the public wants to know that a quality of supervision will be provided through the whole period. 
The only way the public can get that is through having a responsive and responsible Minister of Corrections. How frequently are these straightforward requirements being met? We do not know and we cannot tell because we have a Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections who has zero credibility attached to his public utterances. We also have a present Minister of Corrections who has become so pliant in the hands of his chief executive that it seems he has become putty-minded to the extent of brooking no criticism of the service beyond saying that there may have been mistakes or similarly denying any acknowledgment of guilt over events that led to the scandalous and totally avoidable loss of life connected with a convicted killer Graeme Burton. 
Has it occurred to the present Minister that he is becoming complicit in the chronic failure of that which he has responsibility for? Has it occurred to the present Minister that his obdurate refusal to acknowledge fault is starting to implicate his Cabinet colleagues in the same level of complicity? Is the Minister aware that he is actually supposed to be the public representative in this calamitous issue? 
There are two aspects of this dreadful episode in the department’s history that indicate that the Minister is complicit in denial. The first is the claim by the chief executive which was crowed from the rooftops: “there’s no blood on my hands.” and which was echoed by implication by the present Minister. The second is the assertion yesterday that it was Burton who pulled the trigger. That was an assertion by Dr Cullen in an attempt to deflect criticism of the Government. 
Last night I asked a person with considerable military experience what action he would take with any commander who used the expression “There is no blood on my hands.” in connection with a disaster involving loss of life under his authority. We agreed that someone in a command position making such a remark should in itself be sufficient cause for an independent inquiry. In the case of the Department of Corrections there should be an inquiry through a select committee. Has that happened? Oh no! Weasel words—wimpish woofty weasel words—have been used instead to say that although technically and legally it was a well-managed situation it had a regrettable and tragic result. I feel myself getting very angry inside even thinking about this so I will move on to the next point. 
We were told yesterday by the present Deputy Prime Minister Dr Cullen that it was Mr Burton who pulled the trigger. It was no one else; Mr Burton did it. It is as if everyone else is exonerated. The New Zealand public will not buy it. It is a bit like saying that if a lion is released from a zoo it is the lion’s fault for biting and killing someone and not the fault of the keepers who let it out of captivity. I guess in the parlance of Labour Government - speak—that endless lexicon of louche statements designed to deflect criticism—even there it would earn only four out of 10. So it was a disappointment to hear it come from Dr Cullen. 
It is also though a recognition that the present ministerial denial will only make bad things worse. I have had sufficient corporate experience to know that denial leads to no change and no change leads to repetition. The question I am asked as I tour the West Coast - Tasman electorate is how many people have to die before someone fixes this. What needs to be done? The public is little interested in the niceties of procedure; they want action. There are three things that have to be done. The Minister has to face it acknowledge that it is a mess and stop using the glib and redundant defence of “There is always room for improvement.” The Government has to factor in a select committee inquiry to restore some ethical confidence in the service. Finally the present Minister needs to fade out of the picture so that others can pick up the responsibility and develop an improving situation. Face it factor it and fade out. Thank you. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.