Ministerial Statements — Department of Corrections—Prisoner Mail Management

on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: I wish to make a ministerial statement, under Standing Order 356, in relation to corrections’ dealing with correspondence, and I do so on behalf of the corrections Minister, the Hon Kelvin Davis.

Last week, corrections’ chief executive issued an unreserved apology when a letter written by the man accused of the Christchurch mosque attack sent a letter that was subsequently posted on an online message board. Let me be clear: under the current law, that letter should have been withheld. The purpose of the law which allows corrections to vet and block mail to and from inmates is to prevent harm to victims and others. The family and friends of those lost in the mosque attacks should have been protected by the proper application of the law.

As the Minister, I publicly stated my disappointment and my loss of confidence in the process of prisoner mail management. Corrections immediately stopped the alleged offender from sending and receiving any further mail, and put in place changes to the system that mean all mail of prisoners who have been identified with extremist ideologies and/or registered victims will be checked centrally by a single specialist team. Corrections have now developed a revised process, which will include all of the accused’s correspondence being reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team, which includes members of the prison management team, corrections intelligence staff, senior custodial staff, and corrections psychologists, as well as partner agencies with specialist knowledge and as well as corrections’ chief custodial officer.

Withholding a prisoner’s mail is a serious step. The final decision about withholding the particular prisoner’s correspondence at issue in this matter will be made by the chief executive in accordance with section 108 of the Corrections Act 2004. The strengthened process is unprecedented and demonstrates the seriousness with which corrections are taking this and their commitment to ensuring that we get this right.

Following on from events last week, corrections will do a full review into the practice of the reading of mail and withholding of correspondence. This review will be carried out by an external party. The centralisation process will remain in place until the review has concluded and corrections is confident its processes are robust and can ensure this can be prevented from ever happening again. The review will provide a report to the chief executive of corrections, containing a broad assessment of how our current processes operate and the level of consistency across the prison network; clear recommendations to enhance the existing processes to ensure instances of inappropriate treatment of prisoners’ mail are eliminated; and, finally, advice on ensuring that the law is effective and being adhered to. The chief executive has also advised me that corrections has set up an 0800 number over the weekend so that people can report any concerns they have about receiving unwanted mail from prisoners. The number to phone is 0800 345 006.

Corrections advise that around 15,000 items of mail are sent from prisoners every week. Under current legislation, prisoners are allowed to send and receive mail. The vast majority of the around 10,000 prisoners we have write to friends and family, which aligns with what we need to do to uphold our human rights obligations. That is part of the rehabilitation process, to give them a better chance of reintegration and to reduce their reoffending on release.

These letters can be withheld for a range of reasons, and, at the time the 2004 Corrections Act was set in place, the holding of mail centred around threats to the security of individuals and the security of prisons. The current grounds may not have envisaged mail being published to a wider audience and may not have captured the broader issue of hate speech. So, as the Prime Minister announced yesterday, we are considering whether or not the current Act is fit for purpose. The bottom line is that the community should be safe from those behind bars, whether that’s individual threats or the spread of hatred, and that’s what we’re going to make sure of.

Finally, on behalf of the Minister, I want to apologise again to the many people who were directly affected by the terrible events of 15 March and who were caused further anxiety by the publication of the letter last week. The top priority of corrections is the safety of the New Zealand public. The system has let us down but we intend to fix it and to strengthen our systems so that this never happens again.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We acknowledge those victims in Christchurch and their families and the wider community that have been impacted by the tragic events that happened earlier this year and the result that that had, with the Prime Minister making it very clear that the name of the individual was not to be mentioned again and that New Zealanders should do all we can to ensure that that person does not get the notoriety and the presence that that person has seen being acknowledged in the media in New Zealand and around the world in the last week. That is a great failure on the Minister and his department, but especially on the Minister: the gross incompetence to enable that to happen against the wishes of the Prime Minister and the people of New Zealand.

This is a high-profile prisoner, unknown to New Zealand before, but there is no excuse in this case. The Minister has a duty of care to the New Zealand public to protect our people and our citizens from this prisoner. The Minister had a responsibility to act in certain ways, and that did not happen in this case. The Minister demonstrated that he had no expectations for his department. He did not monitor his department, and the ultimate failings that we have seen are the result of his incompetence. What’s worse, the Minister didn’t own up when this became public and is now hiding behind law changes, 0800 numbers, and reviews.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will stay, at this time—and the ministerial statement is one of the most formal times—well within the Standing Orders.

It is clear that the laws were enough. Letters were stopped. The Minister, his department, and academics have all said that the laws are sufficient. They did not need changing. What has happened in this case is that the Minister has created a culture of leniency to prisoners. He has created a prisoner-first culture that has meant that the department has not exercised its role in the appropriate manner. He has tried to have incentives for prisoners to behave. He seeks, in his latest strategy, to continue that process, and the system has broken down as a result.

The second thing that has happened in this case is the Minister was not vigilant with his department, he did not set a plan, he did not require them to meet any objectives, and he did not monitor them on an ongoing basis to ensure that it happened. All this led to this prisoner being able to get the notoriety and publicity that the prisoner has always sought.

This is not the end of the matter. There are more questions to be answered by this prisoner: what further communications went out? The other letters that went out—who did they go to? The Minister had admitted that there are other letters and yet would not be able to identify to who and when they went. The Minister should have that information. With a prisoner of this high level, all interactions will be recorded within the department, and we need the Minister to come out with the rest of the information around this prisoner—his phone calls, other letters, and to who they may have been—because there could be further incitement and continuation of this notoriety that this prisoner has achieved.

There is no problem with the law. There is no need for legislative change. What we needed was a Minister to stand up for the people of New Zealand, to do his job, and to make sure that his department was vigilant in this case. He had the responsibility to act. He has let down his Prime Minister, he has let down the New Zealand public, and, more importantly, he has let down the victims of those terrible tragedies. This Minister can do more than apologise; he needs to act in a way that this never happens again and that the New Zealand public are safe, as we would expect from someone that has his position.

I want to start by acknowledging the re-traumatising effect that the recent failure of the prison mail handling system must have had on the surviving victims and on the families of all of the victims of the 15 March terrorist attack. Our law and processes for handling mail sent from prisons needs to uphold public safety interests, including stopping the spread of violent incitement. At the same time, this must be done with minimal interference with low-risk prisoners. The right to send and receive mail is crucial for enabling prisoners to keep in touch with their families and supports better rehabilitation outcomes and better reintegration on release.

However, the Department of Corrections also has a responsibility to ensure that prisoner correspondence is not used to endanger the safety of any person or to incite offences. We support ongoing work to ensure that our law is fit for purpose for stopping the online spread of content that dehumanises particular groups in our society and legitimises the use of violence. This incident demonstrates the importance of considering how we ensure online spaces enhance our democracy and freedom of expression for all.