Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this

I move, That the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I begin by thanking the various officials who have worked on this issue and on the bill that is now before the House. They have provided valuable support in ensuring that the Government’s priorities of ensuring public safety and providing value for money are reflected in the approach that is being taken. Those priorities are reflected also in the commitment the Government has shown to improving the provision of drug and alcohol treatment in prisons, and to improving the provision of education in prisons, particularly in literacy and numeracy.

In the long term, those measures—coupled with the various other initiatives in the justice sector being promoted, particularly, by the Minister of Justice—will reduce the growth of the prison population. Reducing the rate of growth of the prison population is the Government’s preferred long-term approach to the corrections portfolio. However, in the short term, measures to increase capacity in the prison system and the flexibility of the prison system, such as those in the bill currently before the House, are necessary to ensure that public safety is preserved.

This bill allows the use of court cells that have been gazetted as parts of corrections prisons, notwithstanding the provisions of local district plans. It addresses an anomaly that was identified by the previous Government, and provides increased flexibility in managing the increasing prison population. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I want to make a couple of observations about the nature of the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill. As I have said, Labour will support it. I thank the acting Minister for what has been the only semblance of a speech of substance and logic to come out of the Government thus far in the process. We had a rendition from somebody akin to a cross between Uncle Fester and Captain Mainwaring in the form of Mr Auchinvole talking about all manner of things, but he did not provide any justification, substance, or even any logic—

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

Is it any wonder that I tried to take a premature call after Clayton Cosgrove’s address? The previous Government never did do anything about the drivers of crime. This legislation is a new initiative from this new National Government, which will make—and is currently making—a difference, just by the fact that we have started that whole process of addressing the drivers of crime. While we are looking at the drivers of crime, we are also making sure that New Zealanders feel safe in their beds and in their homes.

This Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill is a sensible solution. You know, Opposition members think it is a sensible solution, because they are supporting it, so we have to wonder what on earth they are rabbiting on about in the House. They are raving on in the House when it is quite a simple, straightforward bill, and when they are supporting it.

I will cover a couple of matters in regard to the bill. Clause 3 states: “This Act amends the Corrections Act 2004.” Clause 4 amends section 32 by inserting new subsection (2A), which ensures that if a cell block is declared by notice in the Gazette to be part of a corrections prison, then section 9 of the Resource Management Act will not prevent that cell block being used to detain prisoners. That provision is pretty sensible, and the Opposition must think it is pretty sensible, otherwise it would not be supporting it. So that is great; everybody is in accord.

Clause 5(2) makes a consequential amendment to section 4 of the Resource Management Act, to signal that “Section 9 does not apply to the detention of prisoners in a court cell block that is declared by notice in the Gazette to be part of a corrections prison.’ ”. So I can see no reason why there is so much kerfuffle by the Opposition when it is supporting this bill. That kerfuffle is just bombast on its part.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

I will respond to a few of the claims that have been made by Mr Calder and Sandra Goudie with regards to increases in crime. The perception has been put out there by this National Government that under the Labour Government crime increased. Let us look at the facts. A report from the University of Auckland states that crime decreased under the Labour Government. A New Zealand Herald article in April 2008 stated: “The New Zealand crime rate remained flat in 2007, while police resolved almost 10,000 more offences than the previous year.” That article stated: “New Zealand recorded its lowest murder rate for a decade at 45, with 41 resolved before the end of the year.” It also stated—I touch on this because Mr Calder brought it up—that “Overall the picture was less rosy” with regards to violent crimes, but “This is not surprising when we take into account that there has been a huge focus on family violence with publicity and media campaigns designed to reduce tolerance for such offending,”.

It cannot be held against the Labour Government that we did something with regards to family violence and domestic violence. It cannot be held against the Labour Government that women all of a sudden decided that it was OK to come out and report to the police that they were getting beaten by their husbands. We cannot be accused of doing anything wrong when we did that over the last 9 years. Perhaps violent offences increased in terms of reporting, but it is not due to anything done wrong by the Labour Government; it is because of the work that we put into ensuring that women felt safe coming out and reporting against family violence.

I will touch on just how safe this bill is with regards to our courts. “Just how safe is it in court?” is an article that came out in the Manukau Courier in April 2009. It discussed the fact that “PSA national secretary Richard Wagstaff says there aren’t enough officers to cover the three courts at all times.” He discussed the fact that the shortage is “mirrored at courts across the country and threatens the safety of the public”. He said: “They need an extra three security staff to enable them to cover the three courts at all times.” The article goes on: “Mr Wagstaff says public demand is increasing yet the government has put a cap on staff, which is ‘a recipe for disaster, and in the case of our courts and our probation service, threatens the safety of the public’.” This is an issue.

We support the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill because the Government is in crisis and crime is on the increase. We know that a big part of that increase is due to poverty. Due to the high unemployment rates under this Government, we are seeing an increase in the number of people committing crimes. Prisons do not have the capacity to deal with them. We support this bill, but only because this Government is in crisis. Therefore, there is no other option with regards to the safety of the public. However, that does not mean that this will be smooth sailing for the Government. There are huge issues here with regards to the numbers of security officers in our courts, and also with regards to the unrest that has arisen in recent months amongst the justice staff members about their working conditions. If the Government does not address those things then we will be in serious trouble when this legislation goes through. We will see an increased number of prisoners pushed to the cells in the courts because they cannot be held in our actual prisons.

I pointed out earlier, and I point out again, that last night what we may just as well call the “Privatisation of Prisons Bill” went through. The National Government was saying that the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill would result in safer, better, and cheaper prisons. How can they be safer and better when anticipation of a huge overflow results in the need for this Government to push this legislation through quickly so that it has cells to house the prisoners because the prisons will not be able to hold them? I cannot see how the private prisons that it says will be the remedy to what it perceives as all its problems will be any sort of remedy when we are seeing more legislation to deal with the overflow. The prisons that the Government is talking about improving will not be able to cope with the sheer numbers.

I will go back to the issue of our court staff and our justice staff. There was a New Zealand Herald article. Again, it was not long ago, at all—it was only Tuesday, 17 November 2009. Our court staff were out on strike arguing for better pay. They were pointing out the fact that they would no longer “continue to accept the ministry’s unjust pay system that’s responsible for their underpayment.”, and the fact that they are working in very poor working conditions. It is this Government’s responsibility to ensure that our public servants are taken care of so that chaos does not erupt in places like our courts. It will be our public whose safety is put at risk, and also that of the security officers who are working these courts.

My colleague Mr Cosgrove brought up the fact that there was an absence of a regulatory impact statement in the bill that we were handed. He also pointed out that this is highly unusual, given the fact that usually it is in the bill. He was advised that it was unusual for a bill not to have it. We looked it up on the website and got a copy. We thought that perhaps there was something there that the Government was a little bit worried about. When we went through what is reported in the regulatory impact statement we found that a couple of things should be brought to the attention of the public. No one would deny that holding prisoners in court cells is not a new thing; there was a way in which that could be done in the past. Now the Government is going to extreme measures to introduce this legislation because it is in crisis.

One of the things pointed out in the regulatory impact statement is that “The preferred option”—this option—“carries litigation risks, in that prisoners housed in court cells may claim that their treatment does not comply with provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or other legislative requirements. It is also possible that New Zealand’s compliance with international conventions could be challenged. In this regard, the Chief Ombudsman has indicated that the Ombudsmen may issue adverse reports under Part 2 of the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 if their concerns are not addressed.” Putting prisoners in court cells was done sparingly under the previous Labour Government; it was not done on a regular basis. We did not feel we needed to legislate for it.

When we were in Government—for the past 9 years—we were not in crisis. This Government is in crisis, so it is forced to legislate for it, and we have to support it in that, but this Government will have to face that issue. With the increasing number of prisoners whom they are planning to push into courts cells, there will be a much higher risk that their rights as prisoners and their treatment do not comply with the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is especially so given the fact, as I pointed out before, that there is a shortage of security staff at the moment. There is unrest amongst the justice staff because of poor working conditions imposed by this Government. It needs to be highlighted that there are concerns about this that have been pointed out in the regulatory impact statement.

To end, I want to say that last night we saw a bill pushed through stating that private prisons will apparently be better, safer, and cheaper, yet here we are today—and this is ironic—pushing through a bill that will legislate to allow for prisoners to be held in court cells because the Government is anticipating an overflow. It is anticipating that its prisons will not be able to hold the sheer numbers. This is an issue. It is ironic. It contradicts what the National Government discussed last night. Mr Mallard discussed the “h” word before; I will not bring it up. We support this bill because the Government is in crisis, but we have a few concerns that the Government will have to address.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

I had not been intending to take a call in this debate. I will be very brief. I will make three points. First, I have never heard such a load of rubbish in my life. Carmel Sepuloni has just said that the Labour Party is voting for the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill because the Government is in crisis. Well, I invite Labour members to vote against the bill. Because the ACT Party supports the bill, it will be passed into law whether or not the Labour Party supports it. The Government does not need Labour’s support. It is welcome to give it. It is a good bill. But I have never heard such a load of rubbish in my life. Thank you.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) Link to this

Following on from the comments made by my ACT colleague John Boscawen, I am reminded very much of how awful it is in Opposition when one is voting for something but one is required to give a 10-minute speech putting forward the reasons why it is not a good idea. That is the reason we fight so hard to get into Government; it is so much better to be on this side of the House.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the House who have debated the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill so far—the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, who have come up with all the reasons why this bill is not a good idea, but who are supporting it—that they have missed one point. This Government has now been in power for 1 year. They were in power for 9 years. They talked of the prisons that they opened during the 9 years they were in power, but they forgot to mention that they also closed some prisons.

The question that has not been raised so far, given the importance of this bill because of the overflow from our prisons and the crisis that has been created as a result, is why they closed Ōhura Prison in the King Country during their time in Government. When we drill into the reasons they gave for doing that, we find that they argued that they could not get prison officers to live out there. Well, in the end, that was true, but why was that? It was because a decision was made 12 to 18 months prior to the closure of that prison to sell off the prison houses. Of course, when prison officers apply for a job they look at the whole package. They have to consider where they would live, how they would get there, and what the salary was. They found they would have to go out to Ōhura and try to find suitable accommodation for their wives and families, and, of course, it was not available. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy! The selling of prison houses, making them unavailable, was a nationwide decision, and in Ōhura the one-size-fits-all approach did not work.

And it was a tragedy. When I look back at it, I realise that the kind of people who generally make themselves available as medium-security or low-security prison officers are the kind of people who like a recreational sort of life. They might be hunters, fishers, foresters, or have other, similar hobbies that they do outside of their hours of work, and Ōhura was perfectly located for that type of person and that type of lifestyle. However, the decision was made, the prison was closed, and now we are here debating a bill under urgency to allow court cells and other temporary facilities to be used to accommodate the overflow of prisoners.

I would be interested in comments from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, or from anybody else who wishes to take a call, to explain the merits of that decision. When Tony Ryall was the Opposition police spokesperson he identified a looming problem in terms of the growing prison numbers and a lack of construction of new prison facilities. So after 9 years of Labour we are now debating under urgency the need to allow the temporary accommodation of prisoners in facilities that could arguably be described as unsuitable for long-term corrections activity. The Government is aware of that, and it is moving to look at all options as quickly as possible. I am sure that the National Government will find a solution to it.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this

Mr Boscawen might not have read the regulatory impact statement, but Carmel Sepuloni was referring to the fact that managing the prison muster is in crisis, hence the necessity to pass legislation to enable this to happen. Therefore, there is nothing disingenuous about that; it is a fact. Why would we not support something when it is a reasonable thing to do and when it is something that we also find necessary to do? What is disingenuous is what members opposite used to do when this matter came up under the Labour Government. They would pillory this very kind of provision. What we do not see is a little bit of humility from them. Maybe they could apologise and say they can see why it was necessary. I know that Mr Ardern has had more experience of being in Opposition than we have. It is something he ought to think about. We do not intend to become as experienced at that as members opposite are.

Members opposite have taken this opportunity to legislate a simple provision under urgency. It would have been easy to get through this without too much complication. Members opposite have taken this as an opportunity to say, time and time again, that in the 9 years of the previous Government it did nothing about violence and crime. I do not know where those members were when day after day, year after year, and term after term, the Labour Government did bring forward many pieces of legislation and significantly resourced the addressing of crime. Mr Calder talked a lot about the increase in violent crime. As I said in my first reading speech, he displays his own ignorance about the figures for violent crime. I want to spend a few minutes educating members opposite about the figures for violent crime.

We indeed know that the majority of violent crime shown in those statistics emerged out of domestic violence; we know that to be the case. How did that happen? Did it happen because of 9 years of inactivity by the last Government, or did it happen because year in and year out Ministers and their ministries were working very, very hard to try to understand what some of the drivers were, what needed to be done, and how to bring everybody together and start a programme that in perhaps the next 10 years—because that is how long it would take—would achieve the necessary changes?

Mr Ardern and Mr Calder might not know about the family violence task force and the work that it did to try to find out what New Zealand society should do about violence. It brought all of the information together. It joined up all the agencies possible. I know, because I led the Families Commission at that time. We were key players, and the member’s party exempted itself from the multiparty group. So I say to members opposite that they did nothing to assist in solving the problem when they were in Opposition. In fact, they obfuscated it. They stood on the sidelines and criticised very, very reasonable efforts.

The task force started in December 2004 and it went through for a period after that. That task force, comprising all of the Government’s social agencies, plus the non-governmental organisation sector, has spent a lot of energy, effort, intellectual ability, and resources to begin to address those issues. I say to Mr Ardern that one of the major messages was that one must not live with violence in one’s domestic situation, that one must report it and find assistance. That has caused the major rise in the reporting of domestic violence. The member might want to talk to Mr Calder and explain it to him, so that members opposite can understand and stop this nonsense. It is intellectually dishonest. Ministers and members opposite ought not to do that, because it does them no justice and it does this Parliament no justice. It is a form of dishonesty that is just incredible to behold in this age.

I will go further and say that this Government has changed not one aspect of that programme. In fact, the Government’s programme to address domestic violence is exactly the same programme that the Hon Ruth Dyson led as a Minister, and other Ministers supported it at the time. At one point half the Cabinet Ministers were members of the ministerial group to which the task force was responsible. Maybe the next Government speaker can clarify for us whether that is still the case and whether the member’s Cabinet puts that much emphasis on it, because nothing has changed. The task force works on the same programme. The It’s Not OK campaign works in exactly the same way. The community-led initiatives work in exactly the same way. The member’s Government has added nothing to it, except for on-the-spot protection orders, I think. Labour members supported that measure as well. It was a slight tweaking of something that was already there.

Time and time again ethnic members in National—Mr Bakshi, Melissa Lee, and the Hon Pansy Wong are in the Chamber—

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I will speak briefly on the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be opposing it. It is an extraordinary bill. We have court cells to house the people who are being taken to court, and suddenly these cells are to be used to house prisoners.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

I stand in support of the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to tell Dr Rajen Prasad that Indians do love this Government and really welcomed us. They were really disappointed that the last Government did not do anything about violence or anything about crime. This bill provides for the Department of Corrections to imprison prisoners temporarily in court cells. Court cell blocks have basic facilities, and an extended period of detention in such conditions would compromise prisoners’ rights to humane treatment. In order to ensure that all prisoners are treated humanely and receive the statutory minimum entitlement, it is proposed that an amendment to the Corrections Act limit to 4 days the length of detention in a court cell. Prisoners under the age of 18 years and disabled prisoners will not be accommodated in court cells. I commend this bill to the House.