Connell Brian: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Connell Brian: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12979] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 As my colleague Mr Ryall has pointed out National intends to vigorously debate this legislation. We are vigorously opposed to it and we will make our position extremely clear through the course of this debate. 
I have to say that I am looking forward to going through this bill in some detail. This legislation is an absolute travesty beginning today when the Minister Paul Swain put on the Table a Supplementary Order Paper that has not just a few amendments but 45 pages full of them. Why could the Minister not accept from the outset that the legislation as drafted just was not a flyer? Why could he not listen to members of the select committee of whom I am one and take the advice that this legislation just does not stand the test of close scrutiny? 
I want to dwell in my first call on the purpose and principles of this legislation. There are a number of those set out under clauses 5 and 6. Clause 6(1)(a) deals with the maintenance of public safety. That is fine; philosophically I can agree with that. But then I see that the next principle in paragraph (b) is about victims’ interests. Who in this House—or in this country—believes that this Government puts victims’ interests first? The answer is no one. Time and time again we hear of the most horrendous offending yet the only thing this Government concerns itself with is the rights of those offenders. What about victims? When we look at the way the purpose and principles of this legislation have been drafted we can see that it is a nonsense. The principles provide for the “cultural background ethnic identity and language of offenders”. Who thought up that PC Chardonnay-sipping language? 
Judith Collins 
: The Minister did. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister in the chair Paul Swain did. He is totally and utterly out of date is he not? He is out of touch with hard-working New Zealanders who want justice. They want justice for victims they want justice for themselves and they want justice for offenders. They are not concerned about cultural identity or cultural background because they believe in one rule for all New Zealanders. If people break the law in this country despite their cultural background or their cultural identity they pay the price; or at least they should. Under a National-led Government they will. Under this Labour minority Government which I have to say with some shame is propped up by the United Future party and of coursethe Greens— 
Stephen Franks 
: I’m not responsible! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No no. I know Mr Franks is not responsible. I am not looking at him; he just happened to walk past. But I have to say with some shame that this Government is simply not concerned with what is right or wrong. 
Paragraph (d) of clause 6(1) deals with the role of the offender’s family in sentence planning and management. Why should the offender’s family be consulted? I could understand if it read “the role of the victim’s family” in sentence planning and management but no I am not misquoting it or misreading it. That is what it states. If this Government was really concerned about rehabilitation and sentence management it would not be—I repeat it would not be—doing away with the private management of prisons in this country. As this debate progresses I look forward to taking a call on that issue because the way those provisions are drafted is the greatest travesty in this bill. 
Clause 6(1)(e) concerns the fair treatment of offenders. On balance we would say that is fair. But why stop there? Why would the Government not also say that it is concerned with the fair treatment of victims? The Government should talk to the families of the victims of the Returned Services Association murders. It should talk to them about the rights of offenders and see what sort of response it gets.