Corrections Amendment Bill

It gives me great pleasure to talk about the Corrections Amendment Bill, and I’ll just go through a number of the provisions in it.

There’s a provision regarding prisoners vulnerable to self-harm. At present, when a prisoner leaves their cell and comes back to it, there’s a provision in the current law that that person must be strip-searched. Now, we have concern for those people who may have mental health issues—the regularity of them being strip-searched. We propose instead that the person coming back will only be strip-searched based on their individual management plan.

There’s another provision around mother and baby placements, where mothers in the past may have had their baby who was in prison with them actually taken off them and the mother had no right or no grounds or no ability really to have that decision re-examined. So now what we’re saying is that mothers need to be given the reasons why their baby would be removed from them and also the process necessary for that decision to be reconsidered.

There is also the use of mechanical restraints during hospital visits. We’re saying that for restraints to be used for more than 24 hours it must be only if there is a concern that the person may escape rather than them having the restraints on all of the time.

When prisoners come into prison, it’s necessary for them, we believe, to have information given to them in a form and in the language that they understand so that they can actually understand the information that is given to them. Understanding that not everybody can read, any information given to them must be given in a way that they do understand if they are unable to read. So we say that it should be in a form that is accessible and appropriate to the person’s abilities and language.

There was some discussion around the use of police cells. Now, the previous Government wanted us to say that police cells could be used—designated—as corrections cells. The truth of the matter is that with the success that we’ve had in safely reducing the prison population this provision is no longer necessary. When we became Government, the prison population was up around 10,500. That was in late 2017. The prison population continued to rise until March 2018 when it reached 10,820. Since then we’ve had a 7 percent prison population reduction, which means that it’s hovering now around 10,000. The prison population is around about 10,000.

Now, the justice sector forecast in 2017 said that if the previous Government had been still in Government in October 2019, the prison population would now be around about 12,000. And I can see why the previous Government decided that they needed to have as much extra space as possible and so they decided that prison cells would be one way to have extra accommodation. That is no longer necessary. We have safely reduced the prison population down to, like I say, hovering around 10,000.

I did note, as I walked into the House this afternoon, that the National speaker in the general debate was saying that there are more bad people out there than ever before. The reality is when we became Government the prison population was around 10,500 and the number of offenders in the community was 30,137. The latest information I have is that the number of offenders in the community is now 29,031, which is about 1,100 fewer offenders in the community than when we became Government and there’s about 500 fewer people in prison than when we became Government. So there are actually fewer offenders in the country; not as I heard when I walked in that there are actually more.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just rubbish.

So I hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith praising me for the work that we’ve done in the corrections field over the last four years—something that he knows that his Government never intended to ever address. In fact, they saw the justice sector forecast of 12,000 by October 2019 as a target. So the previous Government saw the justice sector forecast as a target and they were just going to build more and more prisons—American-style mega-prisons—to cater for the numbers that they were going to incarcerate.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just garbage. Nobody believes that. It’s about as credible as your nine years of neglect.

And I continue to hear the acclamation and the affirmation from the Opposition as to the wonderful work that this Government has done to reduce the prison population safely, to reduce the number of offenders in the community safely—

💬 Chris Bishop: How much has it gone down by?

How much has it gone down by? I’ll just repeat those figures. At the end of 2017 there were 10,550 people in prison. There are now 10,052—a reduction of 500. In the community, there were 30,137 at the end of 2017. There’s now 29,031—a reduction of over a thousand. And what is even more interesting is the work that we’ve been doing in terms of the total number of sentenced prisoners. At the end of 2017 there were 7,529 sentenced prisoners in total. The latest information we have is total sentenced prisoners: 6,418. Just quickly, doing the maths—over a thousand fewer sentenced prisoners. So this Government is doing a fantastic job in safely reducing the prison population.

I recall in the previous debates there was some concern around the sharing of cells and I recalled the Dr, the Hon, or the Hon Dr—the totally Doctorable Nick Smith—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! You must use the correct honorific and the correct name for members.

—the Hon Dr Nick Smith criticising me for saying in Opposition that we shouldn’t use shared cells and that now—I think his words were “A lion in Opposition and a lamb in Government.” Well, the reality is that the previous Government knew that there was some legal ambiguity around the use of shared cells and that legal ambiguity in a worst-case scenario—a challenge in court to current practice—could result in a court decision requiring the Department of Corrections to reduce the use of cell sharing, which would increase the pressure on available accommodation and impose substantial costs to the Crown.

So it’s interesting that the previous Government allowed for—because they knew for about four years that there was some risk to the Crown. And I wonder why they didn’t do anything about it at the time. And there was four Corrections Ministers in the previous Government. Any one of those four could have done something about it and they didn’t. And they left the Crown, the Government, at some substantial risk and that, for me, is unacceptable, and I can hear the praise from the other side! They just said, “Thank you, Minister Davis, for removing that risk to the Crown and saving us the potential of getting had up for the cell sharing.”

The reality is if the previous Government had stayed in Government—and remember our prison population was around about 10,000 and was forecast to be up to 12,000 by now, if they were still in—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Fantasy.

Well, he’s saying that the justice sector forecast was a fantasy. That’s interesting—it was the justice sector forecast when he was in Government. But the reality is we don’t have the capacity to house those 12,000 people and I don’t know where the previous Government would have held them—probably billeted them out around the community. That was probably their only option or they would have had to double-bunk them. Now, if they’d double-bunked those extra 2,000 people, that means in total 2,000 people going into cells with other people. That means there’d be 4,000 more people being double-bunked right now if the Opposition was still in Government and that is totally unacceptable.

So instead of just talking about it, we’ve done something to actually reduce the pressure on the double-bunking. We have safely reduced the prison population. We’ve safely reduced the number of offenders in the community. This Government is doing a fantastic job in the area of corrections.

But let me just come back to this particular bill, because I know that they’ll go on about the mail system.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Chair.

Before I give the Hon Mark Mitchell the call, I’m just going to make a ruling. I’m going to take the Minister’s contribution as opening remarks and I’m going to give the Opposition the opportunity to respond. After that, I expect all members to speak to Part 1 of this bill and only to Part 1. The Hon Mark Mitchell.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for clarifying that, because that’s a very fair ruling as the Minister did depart from Part 1.

I do want to address some of the comments that he made. Firstly, I have no doubt at all that the Minister has got the best of intentions in terms of what he’s trying to achieve as a Minister of Corrections with Corrections, but he really owes this committee an explanation around the numbers that he’s giving. You can’t stand up and say that under the previous Government the prison population right now would be at 12,000, and under this Government it’s at 10,500. There has been some initial gains made because of the work that the Hon Louise Upston did in starting to put a programme in place to allow, especially those on remand, to be able to fill out forms and actually respond to the information that was required around decisions on bail, and that has had a positive effect, without a doubt, on the remand population. She, also, was doing a lot of work in recognising the fact that when prisoners are on remand they should be getting some rehabilitation programmes delivered. I think, fundamentally, we probably all agree with that. But it’s completely misleading to stand up in this House and say that “We’ve done a great job of reducing the prison numbers”, and that under the previous Government we’d be sitting at 12,000. An explanation behind those numbers would be useful, I’m sure, to the House.

The reality is this: our prison population numbers for the next five, 10 years are going to fluctuate and probably sit fairly close to where they are now. They’ll go up a bit; they’ll come down a bit. If we really want to make a difference to the pipeline of people coming into our criminal justice system, the greatest roadmap that we’ve been given for that was given to us by the Rt Hon Bill English, and that is the social investment model—that is actually making investment into people’s lives much earlier, and getting support around them much earlier to actually prevent them from coming into the criminal justice system. That’s how we’re going to make the greatest impact as a country on our prison population.

What really worries me and concerns me about the Minister’s approach and about this Government’s approach is a blinded ideology of just throwing open the cell doors and getting prisoner numbers down. It’s dangerous, it has no regard for public safety, and it’s quite simply this: it’s a transference of responsibility from the Government back to the public. And touch wood, and as hard as we pray and hope that we don’t see a tragedy, my greatest fear is that we will see a tragedy because there’ll be someone in our community that is actually a danger to public safety that actually should be inside our corrections system, where at least they are getting some treatment, they’re getting some rehabilitation, they’re moving towards integration back into society. The worst thing that we can do is put people that are still a risk, not only to themselves but to the general public, back out into society.

What we need to see from this Government and we haven’t seen, is a clear plan. A plan to actually deal with organised crime, to deal with the growing numbers of gangs, and, let’s face it—and it was raised in this House today—gang numbers are exceeding those of the new police officers coming out on the streets who have to deal with them. So that’s an abject failure from this Government. Tell us what your plan is and how you’re going to deal with it; lay out your plan. We’re seeing poverty numbers go up. We’re seeing every indicator that would show that we’re losing the battle in terms of that pipeline of people coming into our criminal justice system. Those are the things that this Government needs to focus on. Those are the things that they need to show this country that there’s a plan for. Not coming to this House and standing up and being flippant and making jokes and attacking the Opposition, but actually outlining a plan and showing us clearly what the plan is in the long term for reducing people coming into our criminal justice system and into our corrections system.

We can’t support this bill because you’ve diluted one of the most important and fundamental things that we all agree on, and we’re meant to agree on in this House, and that’s around rehabilitation and rehabilitating people—trying to get them to re-join society, trying to make them become lawful members of their community and start to contribute. That’s one of the fundamentals of what we should be delivering inside our corrections system.

The use of police cells—you just completely removed the ability, should there be a situation where there is a spike, where there is an increase in people coming into the corrections system, for the Minister or for the chief executive to be able to access and use incarceration in the safety of the police cells. I mean, this is not something that’s new. I can tell you now, for decades [Interruption]—I can tell the Minister right now that for decades, police cells, and I concede that they are not set up for long-term, permanent use and housing of prisoners, but they do provide a safe and adequate solution should it be needed to house prisoners. And let’s remember why we do that: we do that to remove the risk from the community. We do that to make sure that Kiwis that are going about their lawful business, that actually our law-abiding Kiwis don’t become victims in their own right because we, as a State, have failed, and we’ve put people back out into the community that actually shouldn’t be there.

So I would ask the Minister to stand and—although, Mr Chair, I acknowledge that you have given us a lot wider scope because we are addressing the points that the Minister has raised, I hope that you allow the Minister to continue to have some scope in responding to the questions that we’re putting to him. But it would be great if the Minister would stand and would actually address the issues and tell us: what is the Government’s plan in reducing the pipeline of people coming into our criminal justice system?—because that’s how you’re going to have a real impact on the numbers in our prisons, not by throwing the doors open, not by weakening parole laws or sentencing laws or bail laws to find a way of actually releasing people early and transferring that risk back to the community. Let’s hear what the meaningful plan is to actually make a significant difference. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity of speaking on Part 1 of the Corrections Amendment Bill. It’s been an interesting discussion so far and, in particular, I’d like to focus on the part in Part 1 which is clause 7 which, initially—and created by the previous Government—put in place new section 32A which allows the Minister to declare a police jail, or part of police jail, as part of the established corrections prison. That is the point in particular that the previous member was discussing, and it lays out very clearly there what that process is. I am heartened to see the Supplementary Order Paper offered by this Government that prevents that from being the case.

I would like to talk briefly around that point as to why, in the first place, that was required and some of the information that the Justice Committee received at the time—which was quite alarming—around that. So it is really concerning that there was a plan in place by the previous Government to be able to utilise police cells as an interim measure because of a prison system that, quite simply, could not cope with the influx of people who were being incarcerated in New Zealand. And it is quite astonishing to be challenged to the fact of having no plan to address that particular problem when there has been $1.9 billion invested in mental health and addictions treatment, with a substantial proportion of that being allocated to the corrections system to enable more prisons than ever before in New Zealand offer the type of treatment that changes people’s lives and gives them the opportunity not to enter prison again.

So some of the information that we received on the select committee, in relation to that clause 7 in Part 1, was from the Ombudsman. He was very concerned that there were some fundamental human rights that may be impeded by those cells within police stations not having the basic equipment for people to be able to use the bathroom frequently, to be able to sleep or lie down—some pretty fundamental human rights that would not be able to be adhered to if that provision was continued; if we were continuing to enable for legislation to provide for spill-over from the prison system to go into police cells.

It’s really concerning that we have members within this House advocating for situations to be provided for in legislation that impede upon people’s human rights. So I’m encouraged to see that the Supplementary Order Paper that is before this House as part of Part 1, and being considered, enables that provision to be removed, and it is because of that that we are moving towards a corrections system and a prison system that gives people the opportunity to turn around their lives and take advantage of what treatment is now being provided but previously was not. And I think it is interesting that there are no changes recommended by the select committee that were able to be agreed upon, because I think that demonstrates very clearly the vast space between this side of the House and the other in terms of where we see the future of New Zealand’s prison system going.

I think that clause 7 in this bill is an excellent example of the difference between this Government and how we view our justice system and the role of our corrections system in rehabilitating people and giving them opportunities to turn around their lives instead of the temporary slap-up measure of putting people in police cells. I think that the other key parts of this bill that are really important are important because they also give good opportunities for people to have more ability within the prison system to be looked after, and that is also what takes place here.

It’s an interesting fact that 90 percent of prisoners have a lifetime diagnosis of either a mental health or substance abuse disorder, and for many people the corrections system provides a huge opportunity to access that treatment when previously they weren’t able to. And I would argue quite strongly that the place for doing that treatment and rehabilitation is in the corrections system and quite simply not a short-term measure that the other side proposes and systems like having police jail cells at hand to take the spill-over. There are many other very important parts of this bill that I’m sure that other members would speak on, but for the time being I wish to commend it to the committee.

There are three key points I wish to make in this committee stage debate on this bill. This bill is about broken promises, like so many areas of policy by the current Government. It’s about a policy that is soft on crime, and it’s also about incompetence, and I want to talk about each of those three issues.

But first of all, can I just respond quickly to the point by Ginny Andersen. She says that the focus of corrections policies needs to be on the rights of offenders. Well, I’m sorry; we disagree. It is our view that people are sent to prison because they have offended against society and they need to be held accountable, and I, on this side of the House, make no apologies for curtailing their rights.

One of the key issues in Part 1 deals with letters by prisoners. I have never been so embarrassed as a New Zealander to read newspapers around the world pointing out that the worst terrorist, the horrific man that is accused of committing the crimes in Christchurch, was able to perpetuate his hate by writing letters out of the Department of Corrections—and members opposite want to talk about prisoners’ rights. Well, I want to talk about public safety, and I say to the Corrections people and I say to the Minister, you failed New Zealanders in your duty to keep us safe from the worst criminal in the history of New Zealand by allowing those letters to be distributed by that seriously accused offender.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. One of the rights of New Zealanders is to ensure that that criminal justice system can operate effectively and can secure a conviction of an accused person. One of the things that we have a responsibility to do in this House—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: What’s the point of order? This is a debate.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: —as much as—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Points of order are heard in silence.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, that isn’t one.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You can stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you, and be silent or you’ll be leaving.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Chairman, as much as the right of free speech should be jealously guarded, the member previously referred to the accused, and it’s important that he continues to do so rather than presume a conviction, because to do so undermines the trial process, and that is actually very important. This is something that the media are working very carefully to do, and we have a responsibility as members in this House to do the same thing as well.

Speaking to the point of order, I clearly referred to him as the accused of the horrific crime. The issue remains the same—that while he is on remand he has been allowed to send letters raising issues of hate that are an embarrassment to New Zealand. This part of the bill specifically deals with the issue of letters and I was entirely appropriate.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m not questioning the member’s ability to raise issues around the alleged offender.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s just that he has to continue—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: —to refer to him as that. Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I listened very carefully to the debate. I’m not sure what the member’s actually asking for, except my opinion. The content of what the Hon Dr Smith said, although contentious, was actually in order in my opinion. I think all members need to be careful when discussing things and people who are before the courts. It’s an ongoing issue that we do not breach any of those rules. I’m listening carefully, and it’s really good if both sides of the Chamber observe that. I know that the Hon Dr Smith does fly close to that edge. He’s been a member for a very long time. I know he knows where that edge is.

The issue here is a serious one. There is no question of the rules of trial. The issue is that a remand prisoner, charged with the deaths of 51 New Zealanders in the most horrific attack in the history of New Zealand, in the custody of the Department of Corrections, was able to freely send letters around the world promoting terrorism and further hate crimes. Members on this side of the House say it’s wrong, and members over on the other side of the House can talk all they like about the rights of prisoners, but it’s wrong, it’s embarrassing, it’s a failure, and we make no apologies for holding the Department of Corrections and this Government to account for that failure. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Kelvin Davis, needs to be answerable for the provisions in Part 1 of the bill and assure this Parliament that the amendments that are being put in place will ensure that that mistake, that potentially deadly error, will never ever happen again.

The second point I want to make is about broken promises. The Minister in the chair for nine years raged against double-bunking in prisons—and do you know what this bill does? It makes double-bunking in prisons easier. Is there a member on this side of the House that can remember Kelvin Davis saying, “I want to be the Minister of Corrections so that double-bunking will be easier for the department.”? I don’t remember the Greens saying that. In fact, the Greens, in their specific election promise, said they were going to ban double-bunking—and this bill makes it easier. That is a broken promise in anyone’s books.

Now I want to come to the contribution of Jenny Andersen about the issue of rehabilitation—

💬 Ginny Andersen: Ginny.

Ginny. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Kelvin Davis, said that this bill was first developed during a National Cabinet. Yes, and I was part of those discussions. And do you know what we had in this bill, Ms Andersen? What we had in this bill was a very specific requirement that there be a rehabilitation plan for every prisoner. Now, wouldn’t that be a good thing? That’s what National wanted to put in the bill, and Labour took it out. It’s been removed from the bill, and do you know why they said they took it out? Because the Department of Corrections, without the legal requirement, doesn’t need the requirement to do it. Well, I have to tell you I’ve seen some “yes” Ministers in my day. If members opposite, including in the Labour Party and the Green Party, truly believed in rehabilitation, as we on this side do, they would put a legal requirement in the legislation for an individual rehabilitation plan, because that is an area where we agree. And this Parliament can talk rehabilitation all it likes, it needs to pass the laws that will strengthen our rehabilitation, because that is the area where we need to make significant improvement. Part 1 of this bill has huge gaps, and we can do much better.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just like to respond to some of the issues raised by the Opposition—first of all, Mark Mitchell talking about the need for the police cells. I just spent 10 minutes explaining the fact that we don’t need them. We don’t need them, and it just goes to show how this Opposition has given up and has run out of ideas.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: What are you going to do?

What are we going to do? Well, we’ve done it. We have reduced the prison population safely. Now, we haven’t done it by throwing open the doors, as the Opposition and Mark Mitchell charges us with, because he knows that the Government, he knows that Corrections, are not responsible for the release of prisoners. He knows that the judiciary makes those decisions. He knows that the Parole Board makes those decisions. All the Government is doing is getting information to the judiciary and to the Parole Board in a timely manner. I’ve said it before in this House: only in “Planet National” are efficiencies a bad thing—making sure that judges get information in a matter of days or weeks instead of months or years. It’s only on “Planet National” that efficiencies are wrong.

The rehabilitation—well, let me read: “The department was instructed by the previous Minister in 2015 to include a provision stating that people in prison are expected to participate in any rehabilitation programmes they are requested to attend.” This clause was never drafted, and guess why: because the Parliamentary Counsel Office raised concerns because “an ‘expectation’ ”—in speech marks—“clause is not best practice, as it had”—listen to this, folks—“no operative or legislative effect.” So they were doing something for no reason whatsoever, and they think that that’s being efficient. There was no purpose to that.

Also, if they looked in the Act, section 51 talks about management plans, and part of the management plans are to have rehabilitation. I’ll just find that. The management plans, section 51: “(1) This section applies to every prisoner who is—(a) sentenced to imprisonment”. And section 51(4)(c) says the plans must “outline how the prisoner can make constructive use of his or her time in the prison (including, in the case of a person sentenced to imprisonment, ways of addressing offending behaviour and preventing reoffending);”. So that is in a plan that the prisoner already has, and they want to have another plan that has no legislative or operative effect. It goes to show that that party over there is totally bereft of ideas, and they spent nine years doing absolutely nothing constructive.

In terms of the mail situation, we have put up our hand and said, “Yes, those letters should not have been sent.” There is an issue though, and what we’re trying to do is clear up the ambiguity in the law and also make sure that we don’t impact on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—so managing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Corrections Act. So the Act as it was said that mail shouldn’t go out if it was likely to cause harm. What we’re now saying is that we’re reducing the threshold to say that mail shouldn’t go out if it may cause harm.

The issue with the way the Act was was that I could write to somebody directly and threaten them, and that’s a pretty clear case of a letter that should not have gone out, but, if you’re writing to somebody who shares your own abhorrent views, then that person isn’t going to be threatened or harmed, because they share your views. Where the harm is likely to be caused is if that letter is then shared online, say—which is what happened. That’s why we’ve changed it so that we say that the letter may directly cause harm or indirectly, and that’s a big distinction. That is the reason why we’ve put that into this Supplementary Order Paper. We’ve said, “Yes, it’s wrong.”, and Corrections was accountable. The chief executive said it was a mistake that shouldn’t have been made. But we are changing the law so that nobody can be harmed directly or indirectly from mail.

The issue was about individuals—in the current Act, individuals—being harmed. What we’re doing now is changing it so that for groups of people, based on their religious beliefs, their sexual orientation, and their ethnicity—all those sorts of reasons—any mail that threatens or jeopardises or harms them should not be sent.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Corrections Amendment Bill. My point of reference in addressing Part 1, which deals with amendments to the principal Act, is actually referencing the report that came to the whole House from the Justice Committee. I want to reference my contribution in Part 1, because the bulk of the Justice Committee report actually addresses components of Part 1. In examining the Justice Committee report, it’s interesting to note that the committee could not agree, but the issues that the bill addresses in Part 1 were well canvassed by the select committee, with the exception of the hard-working Labour members of that select committee that did make recommendations. I want to acknowledge the Minister for acknowledging those specific suggestions that Labour members of the select committee made.

That’s how I want to start my contribution in terms of Part 1, because the first issue that the select committee raised where Labour members made some amendments was the powers and functions of the health centre managers. In the Act itself, that is on clauses 6 to 14, which clearly introduces, as part of the rehabilitation commitment of this Minister and this Government, the taking of mental health very seriously. In clauses 6 to 14, we introduce a process around identifying, or self-identifying, prisoners at risk—that are a requirement of health needs. I want to acknowledge that part of the bill. That goes in quite substantive detail in this part, and that talks about the actual process under clause 14 in the new section 61A, which talks about the ongoing assessment for risk of self-harm, and it clearly spells out the process that’s involved in that.

We then turn to section 61B. That talks about initial steps that prison managers and health centre managers must take in respect of at-risk prisoners. So you’re starting to see not only in rhetoric but actually in legislation how serious we are taking mental health amongst a huge number of prisoners in our prisons so that we are treating them appropriately. Section 61C—confirmation of at-risk prisoners assessment—again requires the health manager or the prison a 24-hour prisoner at-risk assessment. Section 61D—at-risk management plan. We heard from that side: where’s the rehabilitation plan; where’s the management plan? Here it is—to the Opposition side. It’s in clause 14. It’s spelt out very clearly in the process when we’re dealing particularly with the health concerns of our prisoners. Section 61E—content of at-risk management plan. It goes on and on.

I heard the Minister in his opening statement about this side of the Government not only committing to trying to help prisoners rehabilitate but also doing it while keeping the public safe. There was mention about the use of prison cells. I’ve heard it clearly from the Minister himself. We don’t need them. In this particular part there’s reference—actually, it’s right up the front—in clause 4, “Section 3 amended (Interpretation)”, which actually does not include a prison cell when defining what a corrections prison is. So it’s clearly spelt out our commitment to rehabilitating prisoners in our prisons.

But I opened this with a reference to the Justice Committee because we also talked about prisoners at risk of self-harm at the select committee and the recommendations made by Labour about making amendments to clause 14, clause 25, and section 98(7A).

There were also discussions and recommendations around decisions relating to a child’s placement, but also that was in relation to clause 17(1) inserting new section 81A(5A), and then we also addressed at the select committee—the Labour members—prisoners’ understanding of information, which is clause 9 of the bill. My point is simply that the select committee process is an avenue to not only hear submitters but take on board the expert advice to make constructive recommendations. It’s unfortunate that this select committee, when considering this bill, couldn’t come to agreement.

But I also turn to the minority report of the National Party, again, because that’s where they start putting down their concerns with this bill, and there’s only actually two matters that they raised in consideration of this bill. The first one was they felt it didn’t address rehabilitation significantly enough. I have just talked under clauses 14 to 16 in Part 1 around the mental health commitment and rehabilitating those prisoners that need that service while they’re in prison.

The other issue that they talked about was police cells. That’s it. All they oppose in this bill is rehabilitation and jail cells, and they would not come to the table at the select committee and come up with some recommendations. Instead they completely binned the bill, and that’s a real disappointment for the democratic processes of this House, when we come here to consider bills like we are doing today. It’s a lost opportunity for all members of the Justice Committee to be more constructive when we have bills that are going to impact—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll ask the member—

—the lives of all New Zealanders.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll ask the member to come back to the bill, thank you.

I commend this bill to the committee.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the Corrections Amendment Bill at this committee stage. I’ll just briefly preface my remarks by acknowledging those who work in the Auckland prison at Pāremoremo within my Helensville electorate. I’ve met with the Minister there on at least one occasion and also I’m taking the opportunity to visit various constituents who are situated there by choice and otherwise.

The frame, I suppose, or the context of my consideration of this or other corrections bills other than, of course, general considerations relating to prisoners and those who are involved in the corrections system is whether the difficult and dangerous job of corrections officers is made easier or harder by the legislation that we are in the process of passing, at least potentially.

I’d like to focus on three aspects of Part 1, the first being the letter-writing provision at clause 27. The committee has already traversed some of the issues associated with the high profile recent case. I don’t intend to cover that ground again. There’s probably not much positive to be gained by me doing so. I will note, however, that I’m aware of at least one case of a constituent in my own electorate who was the recipient of a letter that had been written from a prisoner that was totally inappropriate under the old law and indeed the new. So I’d just note that with no particular political point to make. In fact, I don’t know whether that act occurred prior to or after the change of the last Government. It’s irrelevant. But just to note the importance of the rules around letter writing from prisoners to the outside world, particularly the disproportionate effect that that would have on those who will have a particular reason by way of their background, having been a victim of a violent crime in this particular case. So notwithstanding recent lapses as already acknowledged on both sides of the Chamber, it’s positive if we can have some rules going forward that tighten further the requirements around prisoners’ correspondence and the effect that those can have on the outside world.

I’d also like to touch on the use of police jail cells. I understand the point that the Minister’s making, suggesting that it won’t be necessary to resort to the use of jail cells in that remand sense. I would love for him to be correct for that never to be the case going forward, but I fear, unfortunately, it might well be, even if for no other reason than population increase that translates into an increase in criminal activity. Even if the rate of crime were to not go up, then it would be, at least potentially, the case that we will continue to need to use police cells in the way that is contemplated in clauses 7 and 8. So I think it’s a matter of prudent lawmaking that we actually provide a set of circumstances and safeguards so that in the situation, should it occur in the future, that police cells will be used in a way that is advantageous to consider, effectively, as Corrections prisons operated by the department, we should have some good strong rules around that.

I’ll note in passing, of course, that the problem of “muster pressures”—to use the phrase in the bill—is one that relates as well to a more general reform of longstanding issues. Again, I don’t make a partisan point in relation to the fact that it’s a slow justice system in the criminal realm, whereby prisoners on remand often spend long periods of time before coming to trial, at which of course they might be found either innocent or guilty. So that is an area in which I urge more action from the Government than we have seen thus far.

My final point within this five-minute call is simply to note the work that’s been done in the area of mechanical restraints, as they are described. I’m not particularly expert in this area, but I’ve listened carefully to briefings that we’ve had from officials and other Government agencies outside of Corrections as well and note that it’s important that our domestic law in these respects is consistent with our international obligations.

So, with that, I say to the committee that the detail of this bill is hugely important for all kinds of reasons relating to the safety of all concerned and I join with my National Party colleagues in seeking that all these issues be addressed thoroughly as we proceed in this, the committee stage, and beyond.

Thanks. Thank you, Mr Chair. With reference to the Opposition’s opposition to this bill, the Corrections Amendment Bill, I’d just like to make the comment that it appears to me, on close listening to the arguments and reading the National Party minority view, that it’s an inability by the National Party to run a coherent argument around why they actually truly oppose this bill. Instead there is reliance on a dog-whistling approach and, by reference to Dr Nick Smith, high dudgeon to express their opposition.

I just went and read what the opposition was, and it is around the participation and rehabilitation.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We’re 60 seconds into the speech and the debate is on Part 1, not on the minority report. If you want to, you can mention that in passing, but you must debate Part 1.

OK. In passing, the comment was made that it was the Corrections department—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): As part of Part 1—you need to reference Part 1.

Yeah. Instead it was the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s advice, and I’m happy to talk about that further in future calls. But accuracy in why they’re opposing the bill is important.

In reference to Part 1 and clause 6, in particular, which are the adjustments relating to prisoners vulnerable to self-harm, I want to mention the absolutely critical intersection between mental health provision and the corrections system and the incredibly important work that’s being done there, given that 90 percent of prisoners have had a lifetime diagnosis of mental health or substance abuse disorder and many of them enter the corrections system with undiagnosed illnesses or corrections. The Minister, in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 392, is revising the delegation of a health centre manager’s powers and functions, and the revision is allowing that health centre manager to delegate their powers and functions to a registered health professional, as opposed to a medical practitioner.

Now, it doesn’t seem necessarily such a huge thing, but in terms of providing the adequate support to people, particularly when they’re entering the system and being assessed, this could be critical. Having recently advocated for a person within the corrections system who has very complex mental health issues, these more considered powers and a more thoughtful approach to this individualised approach to this are absolutely critical in being able to ensure that the person sees out their sentence within the corrections service, but does so in the safest way, in the way that is safe for them and for the rest of the system, and ensuring that there’s a recognition of the mental health disorders that may have led to them entering the corrections system in the first place.

I can’t stress highly enough how important it is to take this individualised approach. This SOP in this particular piece of legislation is really trying to take a very considered approach to how we treat people within the corrections system. Interestingly, it goes to the point that was being made by the Opposition member Dr Smith around rehabilitation, which is that if you actually provide the adequate services, then you can steer the person through into the system where they come out, having taken a much more rehabilitative approach. So these clauses in Part 1 that go to the delegation of health centre managers’ powers and functions may not, on the surface, seem the most important part of this bill, but, as I see it, this is incredibly important.

The member Clare Curran, who’s just resumed her seat, laid down the challenge as to why National opposes Part 1 of this bill, and I want to set it out very clearly for her. When this bill was developed, the National Cabinet included a specific provision and legal requirement for an individualised rehabilitation plan for every prisoner. A deliberative decision was made by the new Government to remove that. We think that’s a mistake and we think those individual rehabilitation plans should have still been part of Part 1.

The second reason we oppose this bill is because you’re breaking your promises. We’re old fashioned on this side of the Chamber. If you say something to the voters, we actually think you should carry it through and do as you say. Both the Green Party and the Labour Party campaigned on getting rid of double-bunking. The irony of this bill is that far from getting rid of double-bunking, it makes double-bunking easier. For members on that side of the Chamber, when they ask why we are opposing the bill it is because we think it’s fraudulent to go to the voters—and I say it to the Green Party—with a specific policy saying that you are going to get rid of double-bunking and then vote for a bill that makes double-bunking easier.

Then the third reason, for Clare Curran’s edification, why we oppose this bill is that since this bill came to the House we had the appalling failure by the Department of Corrections, allowing the most serious criminal ever to be before our prison system and our court system, charged with the deliberate murder of over 51 people and as many as 50 others seriously injured, and that person while on remand being able to write letters. I say, and I think my colleagues on this side of the Chamber say, that we must better protect the public from that sort of incident. All I’ve heard from members opposite is that it’s about prisoners’ rights. Actually, it’s about protecting the public from those sorts of acts of mass murder and terrorism.

We’re not satisfied that the provisions in this bill adequately provide the protection that New Zealand will never ever be the laughing stock of the world, that we charge a person with terrorism and while they’re behind bars, they’re writing letters to fanatics around different parts of the world encouraging others to commit repeats of that awful atrocity that occurred in Christchurch. So I say again to Clare Curran and members opposite: National is opposing this part for very good reason. The Government should not have taken those extra requirements for individualised rehabilitation plans out of this bill. It should not be breaking its promise around double-bunking. If National was in charge of this bill, the provisions around letter writing would better respond to that awful, embarrassing failure that occurred at Pāremoremo prison in allowing New Zealand’s most serious ever charged offender to be able to carry on writing letters.

When I hear the Ginny Andersens saying that we’re not focused enough on the rights of prisoners, actually, we make no apologies for saying that we’re here primarily to ensure that our corrections laws protect New Zealanders from those sorts of offenders, and we’re not convinced that that’s the Government’s priority. The Government’s priority is more about emptying people out of prisons and the sort of advocacy of prisoners’ rights and forgetting about the very important rights of the public to be safe.

In my view, those three reasons are very sound reasons why the National team is not supporting Part 1 of this bill. We would be delighted if Government members would reconsider and realise they should do what they said around double-bunking, that they should strengthen further the provisions around letter writing, and, thirdly, they should include those individualised rehabilitation plans.

I’d like to speak to the Corrections Amendment Bill, Part 1. Particularly, I’ll talk about the police jails, but just before I do, I’ve sat in the committee this afternoon and heard the Opposition doing the usual lazy Opposition thing—and, I have to say, it’s not just down to that; Oppositions everywhere do this, because what they do is go for the easy win, and the easy win is always fear of crime. The easy win is always to stand in the Opposition and scare the hell out of the population, and it doesn’t just happen in New Zealand—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And now speak to Part 1 of this bill.

I was just providing some context, but, yes, I will speak to—part of this I’d like to speak to is just particularly around the provision of police cells. I can remember visiting the Henderson Police Station at a time when the police station was full of remand prisoners. Now, they weren’t necessary dangerous remand prisoners; they were actually immigration, they were people there on various regulatory offences. When I look at Part 1 and I see the provisions in there, they become very important to ensure that where prisoners are in police cells, there are proper provisions around them, particularly around clause 7. Clause 7 is what allows the Minister to declare a police jail, or part of a police jail, as part of an established corrections prison.

Now, what is important there is that the prisoners that are put in there—and often they’re not the most dangerous prisoners; often they are, as I said, immigration prisoners, and they can be left aside because no one’s really advocating for them. So it’s very important that I look back at Part 1 and look at the provisions in there to ensure that there is some oversight and good oversight and to ensure that the running of the police stations in particular is not affected any more than it has to be by those prisoners. It is, of course, something that now we can look at in the cold light of day, because it is not an issue at the moment because of the very good work done by this Minister of Corrections, which has meant that the pressure has gone off the prison system without any accompanying rise in crime, and that’s what we want to achieve.

When I look at the whole of Part 1, the whole thing is about providing to ensure that we can talk—and we can build fear, as we’ve heard this afternoon, but, actually, nothing we have done has worked. The Opposition can stand and scream from the rooftops all they like, but nothing they—or, I have to say, any other Government, really, in the world—have done has worked. So when we look at Part 1 and we look at the provisions here, what these are is the start of a slow turnaround. Nothing we will do by itself—there’s no one pill we’re going to take that’s going to change things. It’s a bit like the turning around of a tanker, turning around of the Titanic, if you like, just making sure that as we turn—probably not a good analogy, but the turning around of a major ship so that, slowly, we start to acknowledge that what we have been doing isn’t working. In fact, we’ll go back to the Titanic—maybe it’s not such a bad analogy, because it certainly didn’t work for that.

So any provision we look at, as we look at the whole way we deal with the justice system, the prison system—that we look at what we’re doing in context. It’s not just taking it out, because if you do that you’ll end up with what Oppositions—and what this Opposition is doing; lazy Oppositions—do, which is stand up and just scare the heck, the bejesus, out of anyone listening without any solution at all. Someone, somewhere, has got to start making some new changes, because if we don’t, we end up going—it’s 11,000, it would’ve been 12,000, there’d be super-prisons all over. You would get like Texas was, where the biggest growth industry in Texas at one stage was geriatric prisons, because of this absolute fear that nobody could change, nobody could turn the ship around.

So if we go back to Part 1 and look at this around the slow moving that, hopefully, whatever hue of Government it is, Oppositions anywhere will not stand and talk and make speeches and advocate statutes, advocate laws, that will only end up filling our prisons even more and will do nothing—do nothing—for the safety of our society. So I go back again to Part 1 and I look at again at the police jails at the start of it. If we are going to have overflowing prisons where police jails are going to be required, then it means that there has been a failure within the system. However, if it does happen, we now know that as a result of these provisions, then it will actually be a little bit more workable.

I’d just like to respond to a number of the issues that have been raised. Clause 7 talks about the police cells. Again, Mark Mitchell said we might need more police cells because there might be a spike in offending. Well, it’d have to be a pretty huge spike, because there are a thousand beds coming online in prisons. So we are creating capacity that way, but also, with the safe reduction of the prison population, we’re creating capacity in that area as well. In fact, we’ve done so well, we’ve been so efficient and so effective, that the High Impact Innovation Programme has in itself saved about 106,000 bed nights. Just doing quick calculations, that’s the equivalent of reducing the prison population by 290 prisoners. Think about the cost of that. If it costs over $100,000 a year to house a prisoner, the High Impact Innovation team has saved a couple of dozen million dollars just by reducing the prison population safely. So it’s going to have to be a pretty high spike.

But here’s the thing: even if there was a high spike and we did run out of capacity, we can still use police cells. It’s in the Act as it stands: section 34, “Detention of prisoners”. I’ll read it to you: “A person who is sentenced to imprisonment must serve the sentence in a corrections prison. (2) Despite subsection (1), any person sentenced to imprisonment may be detained in a Police jail on 1 or more occasions … A person may be held in custody on remand in—(a) any police jail”. So it’s already there in the Act as it stands, and here we have the Opposition railing against something that is totally irrelevant. Detention of prisoners can be in police cells. They really need to get on top of the issue.

The whole rehabilitation plan stuff—we’ve covered that in amended section 51, inserted by clause 11. Prisoners already have to have a rehabilitation plan as part of their management plan—they’re flogging a dead horse there. Of course, the legal ambiguity around the cell sharing—oh, and cell sharing, sorry, is in Part 2, so I’ll leave it there.

The fact of the matter is the Opposition—they need to explain why they are opposing this bill when if we look at new clause 25C(3)(vii), section 108 amended, we’re changing it so that people cannot “promote or encourage hostility towards any group of persons on 1 or more of the grounds specified in section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993.” So by opposing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 392, what they’re saying is that they’re open to promoting and encouraging hostility towards any group of persons on one or more grounds specified in section 21 of the Human Rights Act. That’s what they’re doing by opposing this SOP. They’re actually opposing us making it impossible for prisoners to actually promote hostility towards those groups of people. So they need to defend their position. We’re trying to make people safer; they’re not. They’re opposing us trying to make—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, we’re not.

—members of the community safe. I hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith saying “No, we’re not opposing it.”, but they are. He stood up and said, “We’re opposing this. We’re opposing this SOP that is going to make it harder for people specified in section 21 of the Human Rights Act”—for hostility to be encouraged towards them. He stood up not five minutes ago and said “We are opposing it.”, and now he’s sitting over there chirping away saying, “No, we’re not opposing it.” Oh my goodness! Hand up if you heard him say he’s opposing it. Even Willie Jackson heard, and we know that Willie Jackson doesn’t listen to a thing Dr Nick Smith says. Dr Nick Smith has said they are opposing this SOP, and that means that they don’t mind promotion or encouragement of hostility towards any group of persons on one or more of the grounds specified in section 21 of the Human Rights Act, and those are groups based on their ethnicity, based on their sexual orientation, based on their religious beliefs.

I think that the National Party, the negative National Party, needs to stand up and explain why on earth they’re actually not supporting that particular part. We say negative National Party; there is one glimmer of light, and that is Chris Penk. He stood up, he praised the Corrections officers, and I thank him for being the one positive beam of light in the National Party.

I have to say that probably one of the most accurate statements in the House today was that of Mr O’Connor when he said he felt like he was on the Titanic. It’s pretty hard to argue with that sentiment. I just wanted to address to the Minister in the chair, Kelvin Davis—I genuinely appreciate the fact that he is standing and taking calls and addressing the issues that we’re raising, because we don’t always see this in the House, and it is actually a good part of the democratic process in terms of us talking to these bills. But I would ask him to stand—and he quoted the Act and the section that relates to the use of police cells—and clarify for us, because this bill was going to make it very clear that Corrections staff were going to be able to come in and manage any prisoners that were going to have to be kept on remand in police cells. If he could clarify for me: is that going to give Corrections staff the legal power to be able to come in and have oversight and run that, or is it going to suck up police resources and only police are going to be able to do that? If he could clarify that, that would be much appreciated.

Coming back to the letter, my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith has been very clear about this and has articulated it very clearly for the House today, that we did suffer our country’s worst tragedy in terms of a mass killing in Christchurch, not actually just for New Zealand but globally. It is abhorrent to think that the accused was able to continue to spew his hateful and violent rhetoric through letters that were coming out of our corrections system.

Actually, as a member of the Justice Committee, I can say that we took that very seriously, and we, on this side of the House, asked that we initiate an inquiry around that so that we’d actually find out and get to the bottom of it and we’d make sure that something like this could never happen again. Sadly, we couldn’t get that through. That was voted down by other members of the committee. But I’d like the Minister to stand and tell us why he has not supported making this bill much stronger and much clearer around ensuring that that can’t happen again.

Like the Hon Dr Nick Smith has said, we’ve heard lots of comments today from the Government benches around prisoner rights. What about the rights of the families and the friends of the people who were left behind and who are still having to deal with the human tragedy of that attack in the—

💬 Michael Wood: The bill deals with that. That member’s voting against that.

Sorry, what was that?

💬 Michael Wood: The bill deals with that matter.

The bill doesn’t deal with that matter at all.

💬 Ginny Andersen: It does.

It doesn’t. A big part of why we’re not supporting this bill is because we don’t feel like it’s strong enough, right? That’s the reality of it. If you’re against making it stronger, then stand up and take a call and explain to us, Mr Michael Wood, why you don’t want to make those provisions stronger within the bill. I’d be pleased to hear a call from you, but I’d be even more pleased to hear a call from the Minister to explain—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): From me?

No, not you, Madam Chair, although it’s nice to see you—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): So don’t say “you”.

—in the Chamber. But it would be even better to see the Minister stand and take a call and explain that to the committee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 in the name of the Hon Kelvin Davis, and the following amendment in his name, to Part 1 be agreed to:

in clause 27, in proposed new clause 146, replace “92A(4)” with “92C(4)”.

Amendments agreed to.