Corrections Amendment Bill

I move, That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

While the legislation governing—

💬 Matt Doocey: “Mr Slushy”.

He shouldn’t have said it. I knew someone from the National Party was going to raise the trigger word “slushies”. Why on earth Simon Bridges thought that he should inject himself into the slushy debate is beyond me. It goes to show that there is no passing car too small for Simon Bridges to start barking at. What an absolutely silly thing to do. I was going to let it go. I was going to let it go, but, no, as soon as I stood up, they had to raise the word “slushy”. David Bennett—he’s got more brains than Simon Bridges. David Bennett—he had nothing to do with the whole slushy debate. He decided to stay right out of it and, instead, Simon Bridges threw himself under the bus. What a stupid thing to do.

I was going to let it go, but no—I’d better get on with the second reading. Way to go, Matt Doocey, good start—good start.

Anyway, while the legislation governing corrections is working pretty well, the Corrections Amendment Bill will make a number of improvements to the safe, humane, and fair management of people in custody, to prisoner discipline, and to prisoner safety. It’s important to note that the Corrections Act and, therefore, these amendments relate to how prisoners are managed in prison, and it’s not about the numbers of people entering prison. As members will be aware, the Government is undertaking a broader reform programme to create a more safe and effective criminal justice system—[Interruption]—one that those guys over on the other side there are totally opposed to, and yet let me say that the prison population has reduced by 7 percent in 12 months, something that that side there never ever believed was at all possible.

As the members across the way there will be aware, the Government is undertaking this reform programme to create a more effective criminal justice system that improves public safety and better supports victims of crime, that meets our obligations to Māori, and that builds confidence in the criminal justice system. As first introduced, the bill contains 16 proposals covering a broad range of issues, and I would like to acknowledge the work of previous Ministers of Corrections because many of the proposals were developed under their stewardship. I would also like to thank all those people who made submissions on the bill during the select committee process. I believe that there were 17 submitters, which is fewer than usual, but the fact of the matter is, I believe, that that was more than made up for because of the quality of the submissions that were made.

Many of the submitters had very constructive submissions with suggested changes that I consider will have improved the bill. I also wish to take the opportunity to thank members of the Justice Committee for their work and their diligent consideration of the bill.

Unfortunately, consensus could not be reached on some important adjustments on the bill and, therefore, the bill in front of us is no different than what it was when it was introduced last year. One of these adjustments relates to prisoners vulnerable to self-harm, and I consider this to be the most important proposal of the bill.

We know that more than 90 percent of prisoners, at some stage in their lives, have a diagnosis of drug or alcohol addiction, or a mental health diagnosis and that many of them enter the corrections system with those undiagnosed illnesses or addictions. So the Government is committed to improving mental health outcomes for prisoners. Not only will the new build at Waikeria Prison include a new, specialised 100-bed mental health facility, which is the first of its kind in New Zealand, but the bill will improve the care and oversight of those who are vulnerable to self-harm. The bill will require prisoners to be assessed on arrival, have appropriate supervision, and have an individualised care plan that outlines the approach to address the prisoner’s risk of self-harm.

To support this approach, corrections is also investing $25 million into piloting new intervention and support services. That includes having a team of clinical specialists and a new model of care and taking a more therapeutic and long-term approach with vulnerable prisoners. Understandably, there were a number of submissions to the Justice Committee on this proposal, with significant support for its intention.

However, some concerns were raised over the use of strip-searching to detect items that might be used to self-harm and how we ensure it maintains a person’s dignity and self-respect, and these are legitimate concerns. Strip-searching can be distressing, particularly if a person has existing mental health issues or is, in fact, a survivor of sexual violence. The use of strip-searching, however, must be balanced against the consequences of actually failing to detect an item on someone who is vulnerable to self-harm or suicide attempts.

The safety of both prisoners and the staff is paramount. As the bill currently stands, at-risk prisoners must undergo a strip-search when first placed in an at-risk cell and every time they return to the at-risk area from another area of the prison. That means that there could be a person who is at risk that has to have numerous strip-searches on any given day. However, officials advised the committee that recent operational improvements to the model of care provided to people vulnerable to self-harm means an individualised approach to strip-searching can and should be introduced instead. This seems a sensible yet safe approach that will reduce the impact of strip-searching on vulnerable prisoners.

As the select committee could not agree on this revision, it is my intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper ahead of the committee of the whole House. This would give effect to an individualised approach which outlines the occasions on which prisoners at risk of self-harm must be strip-searched to ensure their safety.

The second proposal I wish to discuss in more detail relates to police jails. The bill currently provides an authority for corrections to declare spare capacity within a police jail to be part of an already established corrections prison. This would allow corrections to operate such facilities with corrections staff that are appropriately trained in custodial roles. The purpose of this provision was to provide corrections with added insurance against unexpected stresses on prison accommodation—in other words, because under the previous Government the prison population was rising so quickly and so rapidly, under their regime they were at risk of actually running out of prison beds for prisoners, and they needed to have another option, which was spare police cells. The police cells aren’t actually appropriate. They don’t have the proper ablution facilities and there were a number of concerns about the use of them. However, because of the great work that this Government has been doing, the prison population has reduced, plus, with the builds that are occurring, we should have more than adequate capacity, and it will reduce the concern over the use of police cells.

This provision was originally developed as an option of last resort for short periods of extreme capacity pressures. However, like I said, because of the decline in the prison population, there is a decreased likelihood that prison cells will need to be used, and in the longer term, as I’ve said, the completion of the new builds will add the additional capacity.

Because of this, it’s my intention to remove the clauses relating to the police jails provision through a Supplementary Order Paper. There were also a number of minor revisions suggested by submitters and officials that I find compelling and, therefore, worthy of introduction via a Supplementary Order Paper as well. These—there are about half a dozen—relate to (1) placement decisions for prisoners with young children, (2) information provided to prisoners upon entry to prison, (3) the use of mechanical restraints during hospital visits, (4) particular search powers, (5) disclosure of recorded phone calls to intelligence and security agencies, and (6) the delegation of a health centre manager’s powers.

Before I finish, I want to address one criticism made by the National Party MPs in the committee’s report back. The National Party view outlined in the report to the House references a provision that placed an expectation on prisoners to participate in rehabilitation. This was a provision requested by the previous Minister of Corrections. There is no question that rehabilitation is an integral part of the corrections system, so to help—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why take it out?

If the member just waits, he’ll find out why we’ll take it out. To help prisoners live a crime-free life upon release, corrections allocates significant resources towards assessing offenders and providing programmes according to their risks and needs.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Isn’t that interesting? The Minister of Corrections could spend only 20 seconds on rehabilitation. The biggest thing that can be done for a prisoner is to rehabilitate them, and yet that Minister spent nine minutes and 80—nine minutes and 60—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Well, my maths might not be right, but there’s worse maths in this room—9 minutes and 40 seconds. There’s actually worse maths in this room, which we’ll come to soon, but that member could spend only 20 seconds on rehabilitation.

Why have they taken rehabilitation out of this bill? Why has the Minister done that? The Labour members have got plenty of time to now follow on from that member’s speech and answer that question: why have they taken it out? That was the fundamental part of the legislation that Louise Upston put forward, and yet this member has taken out the most important part of the legislation. He’s left all the other bits—all the rats and mice that people can see potential in and see some reasonableness around—but the rehabilitation was the actual core of this legislation, and that’s gone.

It just shows that there is no sense of wanting to rehabilitate prisoners, because we’ve seen a reduction in the rehabilitation budget in our Budget last year. That has been reduced from what it was projected to be. They reduced that rehabilitation funding in the Budget last year. We know that it’s going to be reduced again this year, because the member over there has to make savings within the system. Because he has to make these savings, he’s going to cut down on the rehabilitation schemes within the Budget—isn’t that true, Minister? We look forward to seeing that coming out in the Budget, because the Minister started his speech with one fundamental line—which is quite interesting, coming from the Labour Party—“It’s not about the number of prisoners entering prison.” It’s not about the number of prisoners entering prison, when their whole policy is to reduce the prison population by 30 percent.

Their whole policy is a numbers policy. It’s not to see a reduction in reoffending. It’s not to see increased rehabilitation. It’s not to make sure that those prisoners will actually have a full and rewarding life outside of prison and actually contribute to our communities and to keep people safe. The Labour Party is only concerned about numbers, yet the Minister, when he stands in his speech here, says “It’s not about numbers.” when that’s all they are talking about.

The Minister says there’s been a 7 percent reduction in the prison population. Now, my maths before wasn’t great, but this Minister’s maths isn’t great either, because that 7 percent isn’t taken on the number of prisoners there were at election day; this is on a date sometime in the past since then. If we want to go back to what the Labour Party actually promised, it was a 30 percent reduction of prisoners on election day. On election day: 10,400 prisoners. That was the briefing to the Minister: 10,400. It’s not some much higher number that the Minister uses to come to his 7 percent reduction.

Isn’t it convenient that there’s suddenly been a reduction? But when we go back to what the Minister promised when the Minister promised it pre-election: 30 percent—

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Yep, 7,300 in 15 years.

Over 15 years now. We’ve got plenty of time. Well, he’s had a year and a half, and what’s the prison population? It’s over 10,000 again—it’s back over that. He’s tried everything he can to let people out. He’s let them go out on bail at their first hearing. He’s made sure that—

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: I don’t make those decisions.

Pardon?

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: I don’t make those decisions; a judge does.

Oh, you don’t make those decisions. Have you ever talked to anyone in the bail centres?

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: No. The judge—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually—

Never? Oh, I’m sure he has.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I don’t need to talk to anyone, and could you please come back to the bill.

Well, part of the bill—and the speaker before me talked about this—is around police jails. They’ve taken that out, and the rationale for taking that out is that they don’t need it because the prison population is reducing—that’s their rationale. Well, the reality is it’s now over 10,000. It hasn’t reduced by 7 percent, as that Minister said, and he’s tried all the easy things he can do.

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Yeah.

Yeah. He has tried all the easy things. Now the tough stuff has to be done. At some point—that’s right; he’s agreeing. Well, how are you going to reduce it by 30 percent if the tough stuff needs to be done? The tough stuff is letting more prisoners out, changing the bail laws, changing the sentencing laws—all those things that Andrew Little will not admit in this House to doing.

They will not admit that they are going to do those things. They’ve had a year and a half, they’ve had hui and they’ve had meetings, and they haven’t done it. The Minister has agreed that the tough stuff’s still to come. Well, the public out there need to know what that tough stuff’s going to be. We don’t want to go to the next election and have the Government hiding behind what it plans to do after the election around sentencing and bail. We want to know up front what that tough stuff’s going to be, because if there’s this magical promise out there that can be achieved about numbers—as the Labour Party has said—then be honest with the public. What have you got to hide?

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Who’s hiding?

You are. You won’t actually give the legislation. Now, come forward and tell us that tough stuff. We want to see it. The reality is that there has been nothing done to stop reoffending once prisoners get out of prison, and that is still very, very high. There has been a reduction in rehabilitation within the prison system, which is a key thing for prisoners and keeping our community safe, but there has been—and we admit this fully—all this work about reducing numbers. It’s not actually about changing people’s lives and it’s not about making our country safer for the victims out there. It’s all about numbers, and what’s actually happening—

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: The crime rate’s going down.

Well, if the crime rate’s going down, you should have a lower prison population anyway, Minister. The crime rate’s been going down for a while, but the other thing, Minister, is that what is happening now within our prison population—which has been increasing in the last few months—is that we are actually getting tougher prisoners in there, and l. Look at what that means for corrections officers—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: This relates to the bill—how?

Well, it’s the police jails bit, which they’ve taken out, which relates to prison capacity.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to actually relate that to the bill.

OK. So when we look at what’s happening now with corrections officers, time and time again, they are being assaulted and taken advantage of because the prisoners that are in prison now are actually the tougher prisoners, because they’re letting out a lot of the easier prisoners and leaving the really hard ones in there, and that’s creating an environment which is not safe for people working in that environment. The corrections officers’ association has been to that Minister around that, and we are not seeing any response from that Minister.

We are in the year of transformational delivery from this Government, and yet the prison population is over 10,000, so why, then, did they take out the police jail cells from this legislation? If we are in a transformational Government that’s in its year of delivery, why don’t we see rehabilitation in this legislation? Why don’t we actually see the clauses that were there originally, which were in the best interests of prisoners, corrections officers, and victims and the community?

This Minister is passing legislation through today that has been the highlight of his ministerial role as the Minister of Corrections, but none of it is his work. It was all done by Louise Upston. He’s taken out the two major bits of this legislation. That’s all he’s done—he’s taken out the two major bits—and we are left with a rising prison population—

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Oh, God!

Well, the Minister cannot deny that the prison population is increasing. It has in the last few months and it will continue to do so, and we do not see any attempt to get to that final, end goal, because they won’t do the hard stuff. They took the hard stuff out of here, and they won’t do the hard stuff in Parliament.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The beauty, or agony, of listening to the contributions of the National members of the Parliament is that they’re willing to talk about anything but the bill. The Hon David Bennett is usually a good member, but—[Interruption] I am too kind—barking at every parked car has become a new normal. So that’s the reason.

Let’s get back to the bill. This is one of the 20 bills that the extraordinarily busy Justice Committee has considered. The Corrections Amendment Bill introduces a number of changes, and many of those changes are minor adjustments to the principal Act and do not fundamentally change the way people in custody are managed or how the prisons are operated. The purpose of this bill is to promote operational best practice or technology advances in the corrections system and also to clarify some legal ambiguities.

I thank the officials, advisers, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and, of course, the submitters. We received and considered 17 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and we heard oral evidence from eight submitters.

There are a number of issues that are worth noting: first of all, the powers and functions of health centre managers. Clause 6 of the bill provides the authority for health centre managers to delegate their powers and functions, but delegation can only be to a registered doctor or nurse. The current proposal in the bill was developed to address a particular situation where health centre managers are not on site, such as weekends and evenings—that part is reasonably easy to understand. However, the introduction of a new model of care for prisoners who are at risk of self-harm has highlighted the limitations with the current provisions for delegation.

For example, there may be instances where the regular health centre manager may not be the most appropriate person to provide mental health advice, and, instead, they may wish to partially delegate the powers and functions relating to mental health services to someone with a mental health background on an ongoing basis. Under the new model for care for prisoners who are at risk of self-harm, other mental health professionals such as psychologists or psychotherapists may be employed. However, as currently drafted, a delegation could only occur if someone is a registered doctor or nurse. This is, obviously, an oversight. The Department of Corrections advised the committee, and the Justice Committee followed their advice and recommended introducing new provisions to enable the health centre managers to delegate to a broad range of health professionals. Instead of the term in the bill as introduced, we are going to replace the reference to a registered doctor or nurse with the new term “registered health professional”. “Registered health professional” is already a defined term in the principal Act.

The second issue is with regard to the review of mother and baby placement decisions. Since September 2011, the Act has provided for mothers with children who are less than 24 months old to be able to apply to have those children with them in prison. The chief executive of the department has a statutory authority to approve a mother’s request to have her child in prison. However, if an application for such a placement is declined or if it is decided to end such a placement, there’s no statutory right to appeal the decision. The bill addresses this issue by introducing a statutory review process. We recommend amending the bill by requesting that the department tell a mother the reason why an application was denied or why a placement has ended, as well as the process for having such a review and for having such a decision be reconsidered.

There are other matters that I wish to talk about more at some later stage of the debate, such as imaging technology searches to detect contraband, prisoners’ knowledge of disciplinary offences, and also the prisoners’ right to write letters and their potential implications for certain people—for instance, for those who have protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1995. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the Corrections Amendment Bill. It is unusual—and I just want to acknowledge the Minister—that in the Minister’s opening speech to the House we didn’t really hear much about rehabilitation. I know that he’s committed to rehabilitation. I think the whole House recognises that within our criminal justice system and within the corrections system, rehabilitation is a critical part of the solution—being able to get people out of prison and integrated and having successful lives back in the community again. I don’t understand at all—and maybe one of the speakers after me can stand up and explain it, because the Minister didn’t—why the clauses around rehabilitation have been taken out of the bill. This was a critically important part of this bill.

This Government’s funny. When this Government came into power, they very quickly congratulated themselves on a lowering of the prison numbers, and yet every other metric that goes wrong gets blamed on the Opposition. Now we’re starting to see the numbers rise again. I would put it to the Minister that they’ve become so obsessed on numbers and releasing people and getting them out of prison and transferring the risk back into the community that, actually, they’re losing focus on what really matters, and what really matters is around rehabilitation. It’s around identifying the best way to be able to rehabilitate people and get them back into the community.

The other puzzling thing about this bill is that they’ve taken out the flexibility that was going to be provided around using police station cells. You know, from experience myself, there’s a big cell block at the Auckland Central Police Station. It was always underutilised. It used to be staffed by police jailers, and it probably still is. But, actually, if you had pressure on corrections facilities, it gave you the flexibility to be able to treat that as a corrections facility—to actually be able to use cells and give prisoners their own cells. For whatever reason, you’ve decided with this bill to remove that and take away the ability to have that flexibility inside the system. Why would you do that? It seems counterintuitive, because what you’re saying is that you’re backing yourself to be able to lower the numbers. What if you don’t? What if you don’t lower the numbers?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d ask the speaker not to bring me into the conversation.

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You’re right, and I apologise. So I put this proposition to you, because the Minister, again, talked about criminal justice reform. We haven’t seen any indication yet in terms of where the criminal justice reform is going. We’ve had the conference that you put on that had a massive cost blowout and brought people together that were already actually talking with justice and the justice sector.

We’re now 18 months into this Government. We still have no indication as to what’s happening with these reforms. The only indications that we have had were very early on, with the repeal of the three-strikes legislation, which, of course, they realised was deeply unpopular with the public and they had to move away from that. Their own Labour justice Minister got thrown under the bus by their coalition partner. The only other indication that we’ve had is a weakening around sentencing, bail, and parole laws, and if that’s what’s going to happen, then, quite simply, you’re going to be releasing back into the community more people that should actually be in jail, that should be getting rehabilitated, and that are a risk to the community. We are going to have a tragedy. That’s going to happen. I can predict it right here and now, if that’s the road that you’re choosing to go down in your reforms to the criminal justice system.

The Minister actually admitted it—he said most of this bill was put together by the Hon Louise Upston. Could I acknowledge her and the work that she did as the Minister of Corrections. She was deeply passionate about the work that was undergone.

But if your idea of reform is to come back to this House and tell us that you are going to weaken our bail, sentencing, and parole laws and that what you’re prepared to do as a Government is transfer that risk back into the community, then we’re not going to support that. If you come back to this House and you show that there’s been some thoughtful reform done in our criminal justice system and we can see the benefit of it, then I assure the Minister that we will support that. But up until now we’ve seen no indications, we don’t know what work’s going on, and, like I said, we’re now starting to head towards the middle of the second year. So I’d expect to see something come through shortly. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Corrections Amendment Bill. I’d just like to concentrate on the departmental report summary and the main points that it brings up, but first I’d like to go into the comments made by the National Party in their minority view but also in the House tonight.

I can’t believe how rich it is, coming from the National Party, talking about how important rehabilitation is—in fact, Mark Mitchell said, “What really matters is rehabilitation.” Over the almost decade that that party was in Government, they didn’t spend one second on rehabilitation—not one second on rehabilitation. Not only that, but every single year they were in Government, the prison numbers went up and up, to a point where they went to a record level, to a point where they got this country into a place where we have to spend over a billion dollars on a prison. When the reoffending rate was skyrocketing, when the prison population was skyrocketing, they didn’t want to mention one little bit about rehabilitation. Now that this side of the House has got the prison population going down—they don’t like that, because it’s working over on this side of the House—they want to stand up and start talking about how important rehabilitation is. It’s just a bit rich, coming from the National Party.

One of the issues with their minority view—and, to be fair, I wasn’t sitting on the Justice Committee, so I’m happy to be corrected, but words matter in this House. They’ve made two points. One of them is around rehabilitation, which we’ve spoken about. The other one’s about police jail cells. They’re saying that both these provisions have been removed from the bill. But if those members over on that side of the House want to actually read the bill that’s in front of them, nothing has been removed from the bill, and they should know that—Mr Mitchell should know that, being on the Justice Committee. I’m not actually sure how the National Party minority view got submitted and got accepted, because the words matter. Nothing has been removed from the bill.

The other thing that I wanted to mention—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: The Minister doesn’t look so sure about that.

Read the bill, Mr Mitchell.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Ask the Minister. Check with the Minister.

Read the bill—just read the bill.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: He’s right there.

Read the bill—read the bill. One of the other things that the National Party members who have stood up and spoken tonight have been talking about is rehabilitation, and they said that all we’re worried about is the numbers, but what they don’t understand is that the prison system and the population of the prison and the prisoners themselves are the end of the justice system. If the National Party had any inkling about the solutions to reducing the prison population, they would know that it doesn’t hinge on just one piece of legislation in regards to rehabilitation within the prison itself; it’s everything that happens before that.

There are a number of very important areas that the National Party failed at in Government, and their most important ones were the youth justice system, the unemployment issues that this country had under the National Party, the addiction issues that weren’t treated in communities and that led to the prison population, and the mental health issues that were not treated or focused on by the National Party and that increased the prison population under that Government. So I think it’s very rich, the attitude from the National Party about the way that this Government is tackling the prison population. All we hear is criticism from that side of the House when we’re trying to reduce the prison population in more than just one way—in more than just one way.

The use of prison cells was the second point that was brought up by the National Party in the minority view, and I think that it’s important for the members opposite to understand the purpose of why that provision was there in the first place—and it still is in the bill—but why the Minister has indicated that he will be putting in a Supplementary Order Paper to remove it. The question is: do we still need that provision in the bill as it stands?

The minority view that the National Party has submitted—and they have said it tonight in the House as well—is all about the Minister of Corrections having the flexibility, if needed, to make the jail cells come under corrections. But do we still need that provision, and what’s the purpose of the provision? In the departmental report it states that that provision’s purpose is to provide the department with extra capacity, so it’s got nothing to do with the ability of the Minister to have flexibility. It’s about the extra capacity. What’s already been explained is that the prison population has already reduced. We are being very successful, on this side of the House, at reducing the prison population—by 7 percent—and that trend will continue.

I think that it’s important also to look at one of the submitters on this very issue, and it’s the Independent Police Conduct Authority. They argue that while the practice in a previous term was necessary, including it in the bill would actually serve to normalise the practice. That’s a very important conversation that needs to be had—and the National Party need to understand this—about the purpose and what the unintended consequences of doing that and including it in the bill would be.

It’s already been said that there are a number of main changes in this bill, and all it is is allowing the prison management and prison guards to do their job with certainty in legislation, mostly. I think that one of the important changes is the new disciplinary offences that have been created. One of the most important ones is that it would create an offence for a prisoner to have contact with, or attempt to have contact with, someone in breach of any court order or direction. Currently, as it stands, such contact would only be a disciplinary offence if it was offensive, threatening, abusive, or intimidating. I think that’s an important inclusion. It’s also bringing in an offence about the use of psychoactive substances.

So the majority of the actual amendments in this bill are minor ones and don’t actually change the current operation. They just give certainty for the prison officers to do their jobs. But there are also some important ones in there, and that’s why New Zealand First will continue to support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in the second reading of the “Corrections Amendment Bill - lite”.

What a missed opportunity this bill is. As others have acknowledged, the Hon Louise Upston put a great deal of work, and time, and effort into reducing the likelihood of prisoners going back inside by providing them with rehabilitation, and providing them with drug treatment within the jails. There were some very substantial discussions that were had in the last Government about doing that, so this is just incomprehensible to us, on this side of the House, and it’s is why National did not support the bill in the Justice Committee in any way, shape, or form.

There are some minor technical arrangements that have been changed here. There are some that will provide certainty in new technology. There are elements of this that we do support. The new technology we learnt a great deal about. The department is using imaging technology, but it’s been very difficult to do so because of privacy safeguards. But, actually, it was explained to us at select committee that with the very invasive nature of some of the searches that were needing to be done, the imaging technology, with the right privacy provisions and so forth, does provide for a better experience for the prisoners and also the corrections staff, and, I think, for better outcomes generally. If people are going to bring in contraband that’s tricky to find, the imaging technology will help. So after the work was done at the select committee—we certainly listening there to what needed to be done to use it—the fact that it would be able to be used as a replacement for mandated strip-searches of prisoners was the bit that we took particular notice of and decided was useful.

But we’re getting more into release than rehab, and I think that this bill has really wasted some proper opportunities to turn people’s lives around. I don’t imagine for a moment that the Minister had that in his mind with this legislation and with what was removed, but I do think that this is an ongoing challenge that we really need to do more about when they are literally captive. We need to offer prisoners far more incentives, and even requirements, to do the kind of rehabilitation that focuses on what has got them into that sort of problem in the first place—making very bad decisions about their lives, which has got them into jail.

So, I guess, when we look at this, we see what’s not here as much as what could be here. I think that this bill is not going to deliver what that Government has said it wants to do, which is to reduce the prison population by 30 percent. It’s not going to happen, because you are continuing with the missed opportunities that this bill presents and not addressing the real cause of the problems of offending. I really think that that is deplorable.

So we sat there, probably with increasing sadness, as we considered this bill and thought about what might have been, and thought about how this lite bill could have done a whole lot more. Had it had the courage, had the Minister had the courage, had that Government had the courage—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!

—to really address the main fundamental issues, this could be a bill that would change lives and change the direction of the corrections experience in New Zealand, but it has missed that opportunity.

So we don’t support this bill. We oppose it, but we do so with regret. We would have preferred to have been here united in this House—which happens rarely—to try and improve the rehabilitation of prisoners. This bill fails to deliver that, which is why I do not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill essentially includes a number of different types of amendments to the way that we run prisons and the way that we administer them. I won’t address every single detail in the bill, but I will start by speaking about the requirements that it introduces in terms of the management and segregation of prisoners at risk of self-harm.

We know that over the past five years, 30 people in our prisons have committed suicide and one in five attempted suicide. That’s compared to 5 percent in the general population, which is still high. We know that our prison population generally suffers from incredibly, heartbreakingly high rates of mental illness, brain injury, and trauma. So knowing that the population that we hold in our prisons contains people that are, actually, at incredibly high risk of self-harm and that come to our prison system with a history of their own types of victimhood, it is important that at this point we’re going to introduce some management plans and some requirement that they be accommodated in ways that take account of the risk that they have of self-harm. Some of the requirements are that an assessment of self-harm risk be done on new entrants into our prisons. It’s incredible that that wasn’t already a requirement. There’s a new requirement in this bill that ongoing assessment of self-harm risk is done and a health plan is implemented for those prisoners that are identified to be at high risk of self-harm, and that accommodation that they are put into is deemed to be appropriate based on that plan.

Unfortunately, the Justice Committee wasn’t able to reach agreement on one aspect of the self-harm treatment approach to prisoners at risk, and that was in terms of their strip-searching. Officials advised that as the bill stands, the requirement to strip-search prisoners who are at high risk of self-harm might not be appropriate because it may actually be traumatic, and, in particular, in terms of those prisoners who have suffered things like sexual abuse, it may be particularly re-traumatising. They recommended that an individualised approach be taken in those cases to balance both the risk that they have something on them that may be used for self-harm, with the risk of re-traumatisation making them more at risk of that harm. So the Minister has—rightly, I think—indicated that he’s going to introduce Supplementary Order Papers to give effect to the advice of the officials and to protect against that.

The next thing that I think is something to be celebrated in this bill is that it creates new chief executive powers to review, at the request of a mother who is a prisoner, the decision not to allow her to keep her baby in placement with her. We know—and the Children’s Commissioner constantly does remind us—of the need to accommodate mothers with new babies because of all of the kinds of damage that can happen if attachments are broken at that young age. Attachment disorders lead to all sorts of other mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and other harms that come down the way. So to allow for mothers and babies to be together where the mother is, for whatever reason, incarcerated is something that will benefit New Zealand, actually, in terms of minimising the harm that the whole family, the whānau, and the community suffer when one person—especially a new mother—is held in prison. So, hopefully, with the review provisions, this will allow for fewer of those cases in terms of the separation of mother and child.

There is also the provision made here—and this probably relates back a little bit to the strip-search provisions under the self-harm risk prisoner segments—that allows for imaging technology to be used for any prisoner where a search is now necessitated. So that is a far less intrusive, far less traumatic experience. Again, whether or not a prisoner is deemed to be at high risk of self-harm or not, we know that the prison population is filled with people who have suffered trauma. So to maintain a sense of dignity in our prisons is important, and the self-imaging provision allows for that.

To turn to one last issue, the bill provides for certain offences to be created, and one of those is for anyone in prison contacting someone in breach of a court order. Presently, that is only an offence if the contact is akin to an abusive type of contact. But we know that in terms of, in particular, domestic and sexual violence victims, any kind of contact from an offender or an abuser would be particularly traumatic. Those types of contacts may actually be positive from the prisoner’s perspective, but they’re incredibly traumatic and are in breach of a court order. So they should be an offence in our corrections regime, and that’s being created.

One of the other things that came out of the select committee process—but the select committee wasn’t able to reach agreement on it—is the appropriateness of police cells being treated as corrections facilities, and the officials advised that that would not be appropriate. We know that police cells are not usually deemed appropriate for long-term detention. Some of the reasons for that are the lack of exercise facilities, the size of the cells, and the fact that cell-sharing among many prisoners is often used, so they breach a range of rights and welfare issues of prisoners. The Minister has also, rightly, indicated that he would introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to mitigate against that. In fact, he’s indicated that because we are now operating within a much broader review of our system to bring down the prison populations, that use of police cells is in fact not going to be necessary.

So the Government’s commitment to reducing the prison population, acknowledging that evidence shows that the prison system isn’t, in fact, particularly effective in keeping anyone safe, has resulted in this reduction of our prison population. An evidence-based approach has resulted in a lessened need for us to use police cells, which breach different and other rights and make our prison system less effective and less safe. So I also will welcome that change at the committee stage. I do commend the bill to the House.

There is nothing as cancerous to the political process as politicians saying one thing in Opposition and doing exactly the opposite in Government, as is done in this bill. I want to call out both the Green Party and the Labour Party, and particularly Minister Kelvin Davis, on the bill in his name around the issue of shared bunking, because when I was in Government there was a constant chorus from Mr Kelvin Davis that double-bunking was a great evil.

I actually searched on the parliamentary Hansard and I have found 36 quotes from Kelvin Davis extolling the virtues of single cells in our corrections system. In fact, the Green Party in their policy specifically said that they would ban double-bunking.

Let’s come to the bill. It replaces the existing law in clause 66 of the Corrections Regulations. The existing law says that as far as practicable, prisoners will be accommodated in single cells, and then it sets down the exceptional circumstances in which they might have double cells. That was the law that National operated for nine years and it was heavily criticised by members opposite.

So what does the Minister’s bill do? Let me read it. Now, rather than saying that in all practicable circumstances it shall be a single cell, it says that a prisoner “may be accommodated in in a shared cell unless the prison manager is satisfied” that there is some special reason. What sort of double standard is that? How can the Green Party look voters in the eye and say “Trust us.”, make over—and I’ve got the number—24 press releases criticising double-bunking, and then roll down to the Parliament and vote for a bill that changes from a law that puts the presumption in favour of single cells to giving corrections open slather for double-bunking?

The leader of the Green Party has just walked in, and I would love to hear his explanation as to the damage his party is doing to its reputation as a party that people can trust. Its manifesto, its policy to the electorate, said that it would oppose double-bunking, but it is now voting for a bill that changes the presumption in the law to do the exact opposite.

But what is even more extraordinary is actually the Minister of Corrections. I’ve checked his number of press releases. He should have a look, because it was on the Labour Party website. There are actually 22 press releases in the name of Kelvin Davis indicating his opposition to double-bunking. How can he have the audacity to come to this Parliament and sponsor a bill that does exactly the opposite of what he says? I think this issue is very practical. What more practical issue could you have than whether you share a cell or whether you do not? I ask Mr Kelvin Davis and I ask the Green Party: what’s changed that you have broken your word to New Zealanders? I also note—

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: More beds available—more beds available.

Oh, I seek leave for Mr Kelvin Davis to be able provide an explanation as to this reversal of policy.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

So the Minister interjects, offers to give an explanation as to this giant backward flip on one of the core issues in corrections policy, and his own Labour colleague objects to him providing that answer. So I simply challenge the next Labour member to get to their feet and answer the question as to why they have done a super backward flip on the issue of double-bunking, an issue that they railed against for nine years and are now changing the law on in exactly the opposite direction. Here’s my new challenge for the Green Party: your policy specifically says—and we share the values—that we need to put far more emphasis on the rehabilitation of our prisoners. We’re with you on that, and what the original bill had provision for is requiring a rehabilitation plan for every prisoner.

Now, what happens to Governments when they get into office? I’ve been there: officials come along and say “Now, Minister, don’t put it in the law. Trust us. We’ll have a rehabilitation plan for every prisoner.”, and I see every previous and current Minister having a little chuckle. Why don’t we put in the law a requirement on corrections for every one of our 10,000 prisoners to have a rehabilitation plan? Wouldn’t that be what we would want to do if we were serious about the issue of reducing reoffending rates and ensuring that corrections does what it says in providing for that rehabilitation?

National will be reintroducing the original amendments to the law that were in this bill to provide for rehabilitation, and it will be a test of the Green Party, again—just like on double-bunking—as to whether it is a party that will again break its word in this important area of corrections policy. Here’s the problem: in almost every area of endeavour, whether it’s climate change, whether it’s housing, whether it’s road safety, or whether it’s justice, there is this almighty gulf between the promise and the performance of this Government. This bill is a damning indictment on both the Green Party and the Labour Party in that on the most contentious issue in the area of corrections—on double-bunking—they are doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.

The next is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Wow! That member—Dr Nick Smith—talks about what’s cancerous to a politician’s career and says that in Opposition you say one thing and in Government do another. Well, I put to that member and that side of the House that after their nine years in Government, our prison system reached a crisis point, a crisis point where we almost ran out of capacity—almost ran out of capacity.

I lay a very simple formula before this House tonight—a very simple formula—and if that side will listen, they’ll understand why, in the famous words of Renée Geyer, we are heading in the right direction. It goes like this: a reducing prison population frees up more beds. Add to that that more beds are coming online. Therefore, we no longer have the capacity issue that saw that side of the House campaigning on a new, billion-dollar mega-prison, and what did the public say to that? “We don’t want that.” The public said that there has to be a better way, and I am proud that the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Kelvin Davis, is making sure that our prison system, the corrections system in this country, is actually fit for purpose and actually does what the general public expects of it.

It isn’t simply about building more beds, higher walls, stronger locks—no. In fact, mention was made on that side of the House about rehabilitation, so allow me to expand on the words of the Minister this evening. There is no question on this side of the House that rehabilitation is an integral part of the corrections system—no question whatsoever—to help prisoners live a crime-free life upon release. Corrections already allocates significant resources toward assessing offenders and providing programmes according to their risks and needs and their ability to be responsive to the programme.

There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, there are already requirements in the Act for corrections to assist in and provide access to rehabilitation and reintegration through the provision of programmes and other interventions—that’s pretty clear to me. It makes sense to me.

Secondly, an explanation clause has no operative or legislative effect. Essentially, this renders it meaningless as it does not affect any behavioural change and has no enforceability—no behavioural change and no enforceability.

What are we setting out to do here? What are we setting out to do here? We are setting out to make sure that those who enter into our prison system have the rehabilitation services that they need. Guess what? They already do. Simply putting something in a piece of legislation doesn’t make it at all enforceable, nor does it force behavioural change.

Thirdly, prisoners also already have a strong incentive to participate in rehabilitation programmes through parole requirements to receive early release. An expectation clause does not alter that.

We offer, again, thanks to all those who submitted on this bill, because it was made rather clear, as mentioned by the Minister, that while there was a small number of submitters, the quality was really strong. It was made very clear from those submitters that what we are doing currently, not just in this bill but as a Government, looking forward into the future for those of the prison population, is the right thing to do. That side asked for a vision and a plan. We have one.

We acknowledge that mental health and drug and alcohol addiction are serious issues for the prison population. So what does this side of the House do? We make sure that there is a facility available for that—beds available for those who need that service. That side is asking for a vision. They had nine years to do it and didn’t. On this side of the House, within one term, we have already made available beds for mental health services and drug and alcohol addiction services, something that that side only ever spoke about and did nothing about. I’m proud that this particular piece of legislation is but one piece of a larger work programme from this side of the House to make sure that the prison population continues to decrease and, more importantly, does so safely, and that those who enter into the prison system come out on the other side better people.

A very senior member of this House by the name of Steve Maharey used to have a saying “That’s the sort of thing you say in Opposition, not what you say in Government”, and that is exactly what the Labour Party and the Green Party are like when it comes to this bill. When they were in Opposition, double-bunking was the end of the world. It was a disaster. It was a breach of human rights. We had to get rid of it. Rehabilitation was the way to go. And now what do we have? Well, we have a poorly performing Minister, who has been given all of the work by Louise Upston and the National Government, turning up into the House, and somehow he has managed to make a good bill deficient. Somehow, with the best of intentions, he has managed to make what was actually a series of sensible progressive reform changes to our corrections system worse, because he has made it easier to do to allow cell sharing and double-bunking and he has taken out the rehabilitation components of the Corrections Amendment Bill.

It’s exactly as my colleague Dr Nick Smith said: it’s all very well to talk in Opposition, but a lot harder to do the mahi in Government. Actually, that’s what the Labour Party is finding, because it’s all very well to say “We’ll have 100,000 homes.”, “We’re going to eradicate child poverty.” and “Climate change is our nuclear-free moment.”, but governing is harder, and it actually requires doing real work. It requires a Minister who knows what they’re doing, and this one does not. So the Labour Party in Government is discovering that it’s not as simple as simply spouting rhetoric and talking in feel-good ways and talking in buzzwords. Actually, it’s a lot harder. So we have this bill, which is generally sensible, but makes it easier to double-bunk.

Frankly, I don’t know how the Green Party can sit there and vote for this piece of legislation. The Green Party likes to get on their high horse at every available opportunity, and, frankly, even when there aren’t available opportunities they like to climb on that high horse of moral righteousness and probity and they like to lecture those of us in Parliament about how only they have the true path to greatness and virtue and all of the things that are great and well in the world, yet we have the Green Party here—Chlöe Swarbrick and James Shaw are in the House—and, in a few minutes’ time, they are going to vote to make it easier to double-bunk.

I just want them and their supporters out there—who I know are listening at 9.41 p.m. on a Tuesday night—to reflect on the tawdry Government they have become a part of. They need to reflect on what exactly they are getting out of this arrangement, because they are having to vote for a bill that makes it easy to double-bunk and that has removed the rehabilitation requirements in the legislation, and what do they get for that? They get a climate change bill that’s stalled, they get a bit of extra money for conservation, and they have to prop up Winston Peters as Deputy Prime Minister. The Greens need to reflect on the tawdry deal they have done and the lack of leverage they have in this relationship. I just make that point as an aside and say that they should be ashamed to vote for themselves.

I do want to pick up on a comment that Darroch Ball made, because that’s the other thing about the Greens: they have to sit there and vote for a Government where Darroch Ball has more power than they do. That must be a very depressing prospect when one wakes up in the morning.

Darroch Ball made a series of pretty outrageous statements. Darroch Ball said the last National Government did nothing about rehabilitation. Well, a few facts for Darroch Ball: when the National Government came into power in 2008, very, very little money was spent on literacy and numeracy, and I actually looked these statistics up the other day. Do you know how much the literacy and numeracy budget for prisoners went up when National was in Government? I couldn’t believe it. It was 500 percent—500 percent. It quintupled—it quintupled.

The reason for that was that the National Party recognised in Government that it is exactly as Kelvin Davis likes to talk about: it’s giving prisoners the skills, so when they leave they can go out and get jobs and transition into the workforce so that they don’t go back into prison. When we came into Government, very few prisoners—in the hundreds; not even in the thousands—were getting literacy and numeracy support. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you know a lot about this: a succession of National Ministers pumped money into that, and, actually, the National Party is very proud of what it accomplished in Government. It’s just a shame—it’s just a shame—that what could have been a good vehicle for further reform and further rehabilitation efforts were lost by this deficient piece of legislation.

I was so entranced by what you were saying that, sorry, I forgot to give you a warning bell at one minute.

So this is a split call, too? Is ACT wanting to take its—

I yield my call to Rino Tirikatene. If I can just say that if something goes up 500 percent, it doesn’t quintuple; it sextuples.

We’ve had Mr Bennett tonight, who didn’t know how many seconds were in a minute, and now we’ve had that contribution.

I’m delighted to speak in support of this bill at its second reading. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Kelvin Davis, for his work in bringing this bill to the House and putting in place the changes in practice within our prison system that have long been called for and which have been implemented through this bill. I want to acknowledge him because we’re seeing the results already: a 7 percent reduction in the prison population since we have taken power as a coalition Government. That’s a massive impact, and especially for Māori, because Māori, as we know, are over 50 percent of the total prison population. So that is an important achievement, and I do want to acknowledge the work of the Minister in that regard.

But I want to just first of all address the two issues which the Opposition have been waxing lyrical on in their contributions this evening. We’ve heard about the rehabilitation—these elusive provisions around rehabilitation. They were never contained in this bill. It was never part of this legislation. Whatever they may have created or drafted when they were in Government, they should have implemented it.

There’s no point crying crocodile tears now around some supposed rehabilitation programmes and the like. They were never part—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did you take it out?

They’re not part of this bill, so it’s totally erroneous what you’re talking about. It’s not part of this bill that our Minister has introduced. I think they’re in some sort of—

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: Denial.

—yeah, denial—denial around what might’ve, could’ve, should’ve happened. You had nine years to do it and failed to do anything about it. So it’s a bit rich to have all this fake emotion around rehabilitation programmes and where are they when it was never ever part of this bill. If they were part of whatever, that side should’ve done it when they were in Government. So that’s a big red herring. It’s a big red herring, what they’re talking about.

What we’re debating in this bill, and what we debated, is unchanged, unfortunately, from when we spoke at the first reading. From when it was introduced, there was no mention of anything around rehabilitation programmes, so let’s stick to this bill. Let’s stick to this bill, and please don’t try and provide some sort of distractions which are totally irrelevant to the bill that we’re debating.

So getting back to this bill, I want to—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be good.

—acknowledge the Minister, firstly, for the measures which we are taking around at-risk prisoners—prisoners at risk of harm. I want to acknowledge the proposed expansion of providing a more tailored, individualised—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just stop the crosstalk, please. Your colleague is actually trying to speak.

Thank you. I want to acknowledge the work of the Labour members of the committee, the Government members, which has actually led to expanding recommendations, which will provide actually more protection, care, and individualised support for those prisoners that are at risk of self-harm.

Let me switch back in the time I have remaining to the issue of the double-bunking, which Mr Nick Smith has raised. I’ve been reassured by the Minister that double-bunking numbers under his watch have actually gone down since we have been in Government. Those numbers are down. So, again, a totally erroneous argument is being raised by the other side around “Oh, we are permitting the use of double-bunking.” It has been a practice, but it’s been reducing under our watch, and it will continue to as we have seen a steady decline—that 7 percent reduction—and, likewise, less use of that provision. So the results are actually being achieved.

We’re not focused on just numbers, though—we’re not just focused on numbers. We’re about delivering results. The results are reflected by the numbers, and so I want to acknowledge Minister Davis, again, for his outstanding work in this portfolio and for presenting this bill, a very sensible bill, which is going to help in the operational procedures and the handling of prisoners within our corrections system. We know it’s desperately needed.

We know there are a range of other measures within here—let me see—around safer searches, searching for contraband and the like, through modern X-ray imaging, and other measures like that, and the ability for mothers who are caring for their children, their babies, to have a right of review of decisions around when that may end. I think that shows that we have a heart within our Government as well within the corrections system in terms of all of the different procedures that we are implementing through this bill. So I want to acknowledge the Minister once again for his work.

I’m saddened that the select committee was unable to reach a consensus on this bill. Here we are debating it at its second reading and the bill is exactly the same as it was at its first reading. But I am heartened that the Minister will be producing a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) at its committee stage which will put into effect the recommendations that the Labour members of the select committee have so helpfully contributed, as likewise in this bill, through their contributions and their hard work that were conducted at that stage. Unlike the other side, who are preoccupied by fantasy rehabilitation provisions and other erroneous arguments which were never part of this bill, our side of the House has gotten on with the job and made some helpful contributions, which will be ultimately implemented by the Minister through his SOPs in later stages where we will approve this bill.

With that, I just want to acknowledge the Minister, once again, and the work of our Government in this bill, and I commend it at the second reading. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this unexpectedly early opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Corrections Amendment Bill at this, the second reading. [Member receives note] I’ve got a message to pass back to my colleague, but I might leave that for later. We’ve heard discussion on both sides of the House relating to the good, the bad, and the ugly of this bill. I’ll touch briefly on each of those, with the good, of course, being the positive stuff that’s in the bill—largely a result of good work from the previous Government—the bad being the positive work that hasn’t been reflected in this but has been removed, and I’ll provide the ugly.

Moving on quickly to the explanatory note of the bill, looking at the general policy statement, it’s pretty hard to disagree with the broad intentions of it. It’s saying that it’s “designed to improve the ability of … (the department) to safely and humanely manage prisoners:”—for example—“improve discipline and safety:” of prisoners, and their fair treatment as well. I think the only objectionable thing in that is the doubly split infinitive—“to safely and humanely manage prisoners”—but, really, the key point there is what’s not said. It’s the Boyzone approach to legislative change: they’ve said it worst by saying nothing at all about rehabilitation. Colleagues on this side of the House have already touched on that, and that’s the theme to which I’ll return in my remaining time.

I should note, of course, being the second reading, that we’re principally concerned with reporting back from the select committee. I wasn’t a member of the Justice Committee, I think, for any of the deliberation or consideration and so forth, and I’ve done my best to understand the back and forth by reading the various reports and statements and so on. It’s been more confusing, not less, to have heard some of the debate from the other side of the House about the comings and goings of the legislative process. I suppose it’s inevitable in something that’s got the word “Corrections” and “Amendment” in it, that there’ll be some confusion about what’s the starting point and what’s in and what’s out, but it seems, in any case, pretty clear that Supplementary Order Papers will be put forward by the Minister which will have an effect, I suppose, of making it a better piece of legislation in his mind. But, certainly, the state of it as we see it in front of us now is not one that we are ultimately able to support.

On the subject of rehabilitation, as has been mentioned, technically, it’s to restore something to a former condition—perhaps to working order and so on—and that, of course, is a very worthy aim in relation to prisoners, those who find themselves detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure in the system. It’s been, certainly, the philosophy of those on this side of the House through our time in Government—not least of all your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker, in a ministerial capacity, I’m aware—to really focus on the importance of doing so not only for the benefit of those individuals themselves but also society more generally as a whole. Rehabilitation, I suppose, could be summed up by the phrase “Do the mahi, get the treatment.”, if you’ll excuse that slight play on the more usual statement around the value of that hard work that will pay off—just a little note to the Hon Peeni Henare, whose contributions I always enjoy.

But in relation to the explanatory note of the bill not having the weight of operative provisions, it can be the case, of course, that the explanatory note can be used to interpret substantive provisions so that, for example, a management plan that’s described in the Act itself as amended could actually be interpreted as a treatment plan or rehabilitation plan—perhaps by a slightly activist judge, I suppose—if it was made clear in the explanatory note that that was the purpose of the legislation.

Anyway, that’s a reasonably technical detail, which, at 9.53 on a Tuesday night, I’ll leave at that, and I’ll just return to the point, I suppose, about the shared cells—so-called—in the legislation, aka double-bunking. I’ve actually done a bit of double-bunking myself in my previous life on submarines and containers as well—on an oil terminal in the Northern Arabian Gulf—so I can speak highly of the experience, but not too highly, I hasten to add. Of course, the point that Dr Smith makes around the reversal of the presumption—whether double-bunking will be a valid option in any case—is a very well-made one.

So I encourage members opposite to think on that, and particularly in the context of statements that they’ve previously made, again as highlighted by Dr Smith. At that point, I leave my contribution there, adding only that on this side of the House, we feel unable to support the bill in the form that it’s come back from select committee.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I say that it is a huge pleasure to stand up and speak on this bill, which is yet another leap forward in corrections, on top of the fantastic and pragmatic work that the Minister of Corrections has done to date. I think what this bill shows is that it’s not all about the rules; it’s also about how those rules are implemented on the ground.

I must say that when I was put on the Justice Committee and this bill was before us, I resolved that I should exercise my right as an MP and go and look at the prisons so I knew exactly what I was talking about, and I have done that. I would challenge all MPs to go and do that so that when they talk about double-bunking, they can say that they’ve seen a cell with two beds in it—the cells that are used—and then make their own judgment as a human being as to whether that is a humane way to incarcerate a person. I must say that while it is certainly incarceration—and incarceration is not pleasant by any means—it is humane, those cells. The regulations and the Act set out the basis for that kind of imprisonment so that the dignity of the prisoners is still preserved—so that there is enough space in those cells for two prisoners to be kept there.

So what we have here is not the wishy-washy position that existed under previous legislation, but we are front-footing it and saying quite clearly that it is appropriate to have shared cells, and not only that, but it also makes clear that residential-style accommodation is appropriate as well. What we see if we go to prison is, ideally, a transition. From a sometimes very high - security imprisonment or high-security imprisonment—which is, I must say, pretty brutal, as it must be—those prisoners transition over time to a freer situation where they are able to mix with other prisoners in perhaps a shared cell, although, as the Minister has repeatedly said, under this Government, the amount of prisoners that are sharing cells is diminishing as we speak. The prison population is falling year on year because of the steps that have been taken in this Government.

So what we have is a pragmatic and honest approach to what’s going on, and I must say that the other thing I was very impressed with was the mother and child unit at Christchurch Women’s Prison. I must say, it gave a real sense of hope to see these women, who had, obviously, fallen foul of the law, caring for their children and finding in that real meaning, and they were also being taught how to care for those children in accommodation which was very much like a social housing unit, where there was a community. So when children are not able to be placed with their mothers, or that is the decision that’s made, there’s an ability for that to be revisited.

Also in there is the ability to revisit the placement of people away from whānau, because we know that those connections—and this is the wider point—are important for when people get back into the community and when people return to family, to whānau, and when we have people who are placed near family, they can maintain those connections. So in this situation, we have a much more humane approach.

Further, there is the fleshing out of the management of prisoners at risk of self-harm, so that they also can be dealt with humanely. They can be dealt with in a way which takes into account their special needs and they can be isolated appropriately and dealt with with the appropriate dignity, and the Minister himself talked about the need for being cautious around procedures like strip-searches, which are of themselves traumatic.

So this is an excellent piece of legislation. It’s legislation which really tidies up and takes prison management into the 21st century. It also makes interface as well with the practice of prison, and I think that’s a very important matter. I commend this bill to the House.