Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12982] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to put on the record that New Zealand First will be opposing the Corrections Bill in its entirety for a number of reasons. I will flip through briefly and point out some of those reasons. 
It is fair to say that the Department of Corrections is seriously in need of an overhaul. We in New Zealand First have been trying to make that clear to the Labour Government for the past 5 years. In particular I congratulate Tariana Turia—the honourable Tariana Turia—because she was one person in Labour’s ranks who truly knew what was going on inside the department and she had the tenacity to say something about it. On the other hand there are people like Mr Matt Robson who was the Minister responsible for allowing the activities of the “goon squad” to go on and on without investigation. That is quite ironic given that that member is such a champion of human rights and civil liberties. One might suggest that those qualifications are somewhat tarnished today. The high ground is not held any longer by that man—a man who has things to answer for. [ 
Interruption 
] Well Hungarian refugees and immigrants will be treated in prisons run under New Zealand First in the same way as everyone else. They will not be given any special cultural privileges catering to their language or special needs. If “they’re crims and they’re in” they will be dealt to like everybody else. No special treatment for Hungarian immigrants—as Mr Robson seems to be requesting from the other side—will be allowed. 
So what does New Zealand First object to? We object to what has proven to be an outstanding prison facility when compared with the State-run organisation being gotten rid of wound up and handed back to the State simply because of ideology. New Zealand First has taken a quantum shift on this issue on the basis of evidence. Our party had a similar policy to Labour’s—State penal institutions should be run by the State not by profiteers. But the facts are the facts and after 3 years one cannot in all conscience ignore the track record of the Auckland Central Remand Prison when matched up against Paparua or Paremoremo. We opposed the ideological shift there. 
We oppose the definition of “statutory visitor” in clause 3 because it is too wide. We have our fears but these issues will be dealt with and canvassed No doubt amendments will be proposed. For example does the Minister know that as a member of Parliament I have very tight constraints within which I can go and visit inmates? I can go into prisons and hear their complaints about their service but unless I register myself as a personal visitor I cannot go in and hear their concerns about their families and how they are coping out in the community. To do that I am required to sign a form that gives the Department of Corrections access to my personal confidential information. Well “Excuse me Minister!”. I am sorry but I do not trust some of the people in the Department of Corrections to handle my information confidentially. I have already had a bad experience in that regard with the military. I suggest to the Minister that it is right and proper for a member of Parliament to be able to go into a prison as a member of Parliament and see inmates on any issue pertaining to their families—in particular if their families are constituents of that member. 
I ask the Minister to talk to his officials before this bill finally passes through and to look at that issue. I think it is an area we can tidy up and at no great loss to anyone. Everybody’s rights are protected. Indeed I do not understand why a member of Parliament should have to sign a form that gives the Department of Corrections the ability to check out John Tamihere’s five drinking convictions Ruth Dyson’s drinking conviction or my conviction as a 17-year-old for carnal knowledge. What is the purpose of that? I suggest there is no purpose and there is no need. 
In terms of minimum entitlements for prisoners I would love to see something in the legislation about victims’ minimum entitlements. Any reference to the Victims’ Rights Act is spurious because that Act is already proving to be unenforceable or not enforced and victims are complaining about that every day. We will be studying the clauses on the information and education needs of prisoners very very closely because some information about prisoners should be handed from one area of the department to the other but that has not been the case. That is why the Parole Board often makes decisions it should not be making and I want to raise that issue in this debate. In my next call I will come back to the issue of a sentence planner. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before the next speaker I remind members to keep to the parts. The reference to the change of prison management is actually in Part 3 and we have had several references to that already.