Corrections Amendment Bill

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

Before I do that, please, can I take time to acknowledge the previous debate, celebrating the centenary of women winning the right to stand for Parliament, and I would like to acknowledge the 150 women who have served in this House, who are currently serving, and the many thousands who will follow in their footsteps, and I thank you all for your service to the country.

Moving on to the Corrections Amendment Bill, we are a Government determined to address the long-term challenges facing our country. We have a goal of safely reducing the prison population by 30 percent over the next 15 years. We have a plan that ensures public safety remains the priority, while delivering real rehabilitation, mental health treatment, and transitional services to reduce reoffending. The previous Government sat back and watched the problem grow. Their only plan was to build more American-style mega-prisons, which just churn out hardened criminals and lead to escalating costs for the taxpayer, with no reduction of reoffending and no social improvement. But our Government is focused on taking a smarter approach to reduce reoffending and giving people inside our prisons every opportunity to turn their lives around. We know we cannot fix everything overnight, but we are getting started on it, and we’ve made a fantastic start.

Already, we’ve made changes to the way Corrections operates by introducing Hōkai Rangi, the new Corrections strategy, which aims to humanise and heal people so that there is less chance that they will reoffend. We’re focused on wellbeing. That’s why we’re providing a huge boost to mental health and addiction services for offenders, which will support thousands of additional people per year. Instead of building a mega-prison at Waikeria, as planned by the previous Government, we’re building a smaller facility alongside a 100-bed mental health unit that will be the first of its kind in New Zealand.

We have safely reduced the prison population by 8 percent since March of last year, where it peaked at 10,820, by speeding up access to justice outcomes and targeting blockages to make the system more effective. We’ve invested $98 million on the creation of new Māori pathways at two prisons, to be co-designed and implemented by Māori with Corrections, Whānau Ora, and the Ministry of Social Development, working together in partnership with hapū and iwi. The Corrections Amendment Bill continues this good work by improving prison security and ensuring the fair, safe, and humane treatment of people in prison, while upholding public safety.

This bill makes business-as-usual changes to the Corrections Act and serves three important purposes: first, it ensures that Te Ara Poutama Aotearoa—the Department of Corrections—has the ability to manage people in prison humanely and in line with their individual needs; second, it improves the processes that enhance the safety of people in prison, victims, and staff; third, it ensures the fair treatment of people in prison by clarifying what their obligations are while in custody.

During the committee of the whole House, I tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that made a number of changes to the bill. At the second reading of the bill, I spoke about a number of these changes, as they were suggestions made and subsequently not accepted during the select committee process. I now wish to take this opportunity to talk about changes that were made after the select committee, specifically to prison mail provisions.

To begin with, I want to acknowledge the distress caused to those impacted by the tragic events of 15 March and the events involving mail that should have been withheld. We know from overseas experience that people in prison who hold hostile views towards particular groups may seek to communicate their views in an attempt to influence and potentially radicalise others, both in prison and in the community. These individuals can also become a focal point for sympathetic individuals and groups in the community who may seek to draw attention to and to amplify their hostile views.

Corrections is currently managing a significant number of people with views that might be considered extreme, including around 100 people with white supremacist views. Given that, and the fact that around 15,000 items of mail go through our prison system every week, I consider it important that the legislation regarding prison mail is as clear and as explicit as possible. Today, we are one step closer to ensuring this and guaranteeing that Corrections has strengthened powers to prevent the dissemination of correspondence that revictimises those who have previously been subject to harm, or attempts to radicalise or influence people, and/or promotes violence or hostility against people, particularly those that are vulnerable. I wish to thank members for the cooperation in supporting the Supplementary Order Paper to ensure the bill is fit for purpose.

Earlier this year, I announced Hōkai Rangi, Ara Poutama Aotearoa’s new strategy that will underpin the transformational system change required to break the intergenerational cycle of reoffending and re-imprisonment. Many provisions in the bill support this strategy, and I would like to take this opportunity to mention a few examples.

Removing mandatory strip-search requirements and introducing a comprehensive framework for the management and care of people vulnerable to self-harm will humanise the experience for people in prison and is indicative of Corrections’ intention to treat those under its care with dignity and respect. This will mean that the most vulnerable people in prison—and we know that people in prison are four times more likely than the general population to have attempted suicide—will be treated with greater care to ensure that their time in prison does not cause further harm and re-traumatisation.

The second example I want to highlight is that the bill introduces a requirement that upon reception, all information provided to people in prison must be in a form that is accessible and appropriate to their ability and preferred language. This provides another opportunity to humanise the prison experience, given that research indicates that people in prison tend to have a high level of educational disparity compared with the general population and that for many people in prison, English is their second language. In practice, this will mean that people in prison will have the option to receive information in their native language and in different forms such as written, oral, or visual.

Finally, I want to highlight the changes that are being made to improve the mothers with babies regime currently operating in prison. I consider that one of the most upsetting aspects of prison is that families, particularly mothers and tamariki, are separated. Under current settings, only a small number of applications to place a child with its mother in prison are declined after consultation with Plunket, the Ministry of Health, and Oranga Tamariki. These decisions, however, are final. The bill gives mothers the statutory right to appeal the decision and introduces a review process. Corrections will also be required to tell mothers the reasons why an application to have a child placed in their custody has been declined, and the process available to have a decision reconsidered. In practice, this will mean that mothers in prison, as well as their whānau, will have a greater understanding of the opportunities available to have decisions about placement of tamariki reconsidered.

The changes this bill makes to the legislative framework of the corrections system will improve prison discipline and security and will ensure the fair, safe, and humane treatment of people in prison. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following the Minister Kelvin Davis, I’d just like to acknowledge the many women that have served in this Parliament, and have done such a fantastic job—and we’re sure there’ll be many more to come in future generations of leadership and at the highest levels of our country. So congratulations to all those women MPs and to the role models that you have provided and also to the future generations of MPs that will come forward and, no doubt, deliver great results for our country going forward. So congratulations, and our best wishes, on this very special day for women MPs.

It was very interesting in that speech from the Minister that he focused on a lot of things that weren’t in the bill and he talked about very few things that were actually in the bill. I know that the Speaker is looking at me darkly, but the reality is that—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member won’t comment either on my rulings or the method by which I’m looking at him—even if the member is accurate in his description.

💬 Chris Penk: It’s getting darker.

It’s not as dark as some over there.

But the Minister did mention one or two of the provisions in the bill, and one of them was in regard to prison mail provisions. Now, that’s a late addition to this bill, that wasn’t in the original bill, and that went through the committee stage. It’s a result of what happened in the terrible tragedy earlier this year. Our thoughts are with all of those victims and their families at this very time. The pain that those families felt, they had to relive through the Corrections department’s failures to actively engage and do their job under the law that they already had. The Minister made it very clear, at the time when those letters were released, that there was sufficient legal basis for the department to stop those kinds of letters going out.

Then, why do we need more legislative change now? This legislative change doesn’t stop that situation. The very bill that we’re talking about here today is another attempt by this Minister to cover up for the failings of himself and his department. The reality is that the Department of Corrections failed New Zealanders at that time—and especially failed the victims of that terrible tragedy in Christchurch.

The Minister may have said sorry at that time, but he didn’t take responsibility for what actually happened. Because the Minister had the control over his department, the Minister should have engaged with his department from day one, saying that “I don’t want to have any mistakes here.” The Minister from day one should have got his departmental heads in and said, “This will not happen under my watch” and that “I will not put the Prime Minister in a position where she has to defend me and my department.” The Minister should have taken action from day one, when that prisoner went into the prison system, because he is the most high profile prisoner in the New Zealand system. The Minister did none of those things. The Minister sat there and just hoped it wouldn’t happen—or he didn’t even think it would happen; just didn’t even think at all. That’s the reality of what happened in that situation. The Minister didn’t go and get sufficient updates from his department. The Minister didn’t go out there and actually take advantage of the rules that he already had in legislation.

Now, the Minister is attempting, through an amendment to this bill, to show that he is doing something. Well, he’s not doing anything more than what he had the power to do then. This doesn’t give him any more rules or ability or power than what he had in the past in practice. He failed to do his job at that time. The Minister cannot fail to do his job and then try and cover it up a few months later through legislation that doesn’t actually assist him or his department in any meaningful way.

That’s why this legislation is a farce. It’s a meaningless attempt to cover the tracks and to say “Oh, we couldn’t have done anything at that point in time” and that we need to have this legislation now. I asked the Minister what, within this legislation, would stop those letters going out at that time. Nothing—he had exactly the same powers at that time, he didn’t use them, and he knows that. He should have taken responsibility from that, rather than make the Prime Minister take responsibility at that time.

💬 Raymond Huo: What are you talking about?

The members don’t even understand what I’m talking about. We’re talking about the release of letters, that came from the terrorist in Christchurch, that the Minister’s department let go around the world. We don’t know where the recordings went for the phone calls from that member of the prison system, who made numerous phone calls. They were recorded, weren’t they, Minister? Oh, the Minister doesn’t even know where the phone calls have gone. In his written questions, he’s even answered, saying that they were recorded. So there were recorded phone calls that have gone around the world. There were other letters from that member of the prison system that have gone around the world as well—presumably, because the Minister won’t release those details. If he was clear and he was open and transparent about it, as the Government were supposed to be, then he would release all details of all correspondence from that prisoner, instead of coming here a few months later trying to pass legislation to cover himself. And that’s what we’re doing here today, and that’s why the National Party is not supporting it.

Another big part of the bill, that the Minister failed to talk about in his speech, is around cell sharing. Now, I remember that for this Minister, when we were in Government and he was in Opposition, double-bunking was so terrible, it couldn’t happen, it’s an abuse of the rights of prisoners—it just couldn’t happen—and now he’s legislating to allow it to happen. He’s actually making it legal, in any form or context, to have double-bunking. So why didn’t the Minister talk about that in his speech? Did the Minister come out and be open and transparent about that in his speech? No, he very conveniently didn’t mention it at all. That’s openness and transparency from this Minister!

And then we go to the new strategy for prisoners. The line the Minister used was “to humanise the prison experience.” Well, first of all, it’s not an experience. Being in prison is not an experience that someone goes through as part of a lifetime journey; being in prison is because that person has offended against the laws of this country and against the people of this country, and deserves punishment. It’s not some kind of experience, and it’s not to be humanised in the way that that Minister wants to. He doesn’t actually believe that anybody should be in prison. He said that at the start of the year, on TV; he said that “I don’t believe anybody should be in prison.” He is just trying to make it a humanised experience—that’s what the plan of this Minister has been.

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: You’re making stuff up.

No, I’m not. I can show you the TV documentary, and the exact question, and that was his exact answer.

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Those who should be in prison will be in prison.

“Those who should be in prison will be in prison.”—well, that’s his other line, isn’t it? “Those that should be in prison will be in prison.” And then he’s so proud, saying, “Oh, we’ve reduced the prison population.” Well, the prison population has only been reduced, in theory, because they’ve moved people out of the prison system into the community—that is what they have done. They have actually put more people into the community through earlier bail, more community service—

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: The judges do that.

“The judges do it”—they say, “The judges do it.” We just had an example of a judge making a judgment on the weekend around drugs, and the—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Can I invite both members—the Minister not to invite irrelevant comment by irrelevant interjections, and the member to spend his last minute getting back to the bill.

Well, it’s a very important part of the bill—

💬 SPEAKER: The judgment at the weekend is not part of the bill. Carry on.

Well, it is, because the Minister’s talked about how they’ve reduced the prison population. One thing to reduce the prison population he could have done is rehabilitation, which is a key part of this original legislation, which he took out. The whole bill was around rehabilitation, when Louise Upston, the former Minister, set this bill up—and all those clauses were taken out. The only bit that was really relevant, they’ve taken out, and then they’ve filled it in with other things to try and cover their mistakes.

So this Minister has had the opportunity to do some real things in justice and in the corrections system, and he has failed. We have a bill here today that is an attempt to make it look like they’re doing something in a system, where the reality is that he doesn’t believe anyone should be in prison. He thinks it’s an experience that should be humanised. He doesn’t actually take on the role seriously and he doesn’t look after those victims out there, as we have seen with the victims of Christchurch. That is the disappointing part of this Minister and what we’re seeing in this legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was a totally lost-in-translation type of contribution from the Hon David Bennett; most of the points in his speech were irrelevant. Instead of barking at every passing car, I think the National Opposition should have really acknowledged and congratulated the Minister on his achievements and leadership in this very important area of law. The Corrections Amendment Bill was one of the 23 or so bills that the extraordinarily busy Justice Committee had considered. At the bill’s third reading, I think it’s fitting for me as former chair of the Justice Committee to acknowledge and thank our officials, advisers, and submitters for their contributions. I’d like to congratulate, again, the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Kelvin Davis, on his achievements and leadership in this very important portfolio area. Corrections legislation is not only about New Zealand prisoners or about our Department of Corrections; it’s more about rehabilitation, public safety, and social wellbeing. The key words of this bill are “rehabilitation”, “improvements”, and “social wellbeing”.

The bill makes a number of changes to improve the Corrections Act 2004 in order to ensure the ability of the Department of Corrections to safely and humanely manage prisoners, to improve prisoner discipline, and to ensure the fair treatment of prisoners.

For too long, the reoffending rate of New Zealand prisoners has been too high. It has been historical and it has been a particular problem among Māori prisoners.

I’m very proud of the achievements made by this Government—congratulations again to the Minister. We are focused on doing things differently to reduce reoffending and give the people within the prison—

💬 SPEAKER: Specific things from the bill, please.

—every opportunity to turn their life around. Therefore, rehabilitation is our focus.

💬 Hon David Bennett: It’s not in the bill, though.

We chose not to build a mega-prison, as the speaker has duly reminded us—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m trying to sort it out. I don’t need David Bennett’s help.

Thank you very much.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will return to the bill.

We choose not to build a mega-prison at Waikeria. [Interruption] Well, that’s one of the most important provisions in this bill—

💬 Hon David Bennett: What provision is it in, then? What number? What clause?

Well, look at the provision yourself, because we chose not to build the mega-prison as planned by the previous Government—as planned by the previous Government. Instead, we’re building a smaller 500-bed facility along with the 100-bed—

💬 SPEAKER: We’ve now got a second warning to the member to speak to the provisions of the bill. There is no obligation to speak for the full 10 minutes. I know it’s a relatively narrow bill, but the member will have to speak to it.

Thank you very much. Coming back to the bill, specifically, the bill made some specific changes. I can spell them out: (a) making it a disciplinary offence regarding the prisoner tattooing; (b) amending the definition of a drug to align with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, so people in prison can be tested for a wider range of drugs, including synthetic cannabis, and be charged with a disciplinary offence in the event of a positive test; and (c) allowing for use of imaging technology like a body scanner, as the Minister just outlined, to more effectively detect contraband, including drugs and weapons, and reduce reliance on rub-down or strip searches; and, finally, removing the mandatory requirements to strip search those who have returned to prison from an escorted outing.

But back to the rationale behind the bill, as the Minister just outlined, we chose to do things differently because after the Justice Committee had heard from many submitters and from officials, especially when considering stats and facts, we decided not to build a mega-prison. Instead, we have to build a mental health facility as part of the rehabilitation process because—

Tim van de Molen: Which clause is that?

It’s because we’re talking about the corrections bill, because the reoffending rate has been too high; it has been historical.

As we can witness, the Opposition has been very loud, especially talking about one particular provision which we have removed from the bill. And that provision was with regard to the police jails. That provision in the original bill was removed because we have successfully reduced the prison rate and reduced it by 8 percent after it had peaked—

💬 Hon David Bennett: How much?

8 percent after it had peaked at—

💬 Hon David Bennett: 80.

8 percent after it peaked at 1,820 as at March 2018. So, therefore, the Justice Committee has considered the stats and facts, and that’s the reason why we removed that particular provision from the original bill.

The Hon David Bennett also touched upon one particular clause regarding the prison mail laws. Again, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister for his leadership because following the terror attack in Christchurch and the subsequent Christchurch Call, the Minister introduced Supplementary Order Paper 392 to make a number of changes, including significantly strengthening the prison mail laws.

Those changes, together with other provisions, are designed to ensure the Corrections Act 2004 is fit for purpose. But, again, I remind the Opposition they should really congratulate the Minister and the Government on our achievements, on our track record, and instead of barking at every passing car, they should really choose to side with the people of New Zealand, and let’s do it together to reduce the reoffending rates, especially among Māori prisoners. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I very quickly, too, just make mention of and acknowledge the last motion, the centenary of women winning the right to stand for Parliament. Can I acknowledge the women that I serve with in this Parliament across all our parties, but, especially, can I just very quickly acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams, who will be leaving at the end of this term. I was her Associate Minister in the justice portfolio. She provided enormous leadership in that portfolio and was a great mentor to me, and I just wanted to take the opportunity to acknowledge her.

Can I acknowledge the Minister who took a call on this, the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. I have no doubt that the Minister of Corrections, Kelvin Davis, is driven by the right intent in terms of what he’s trying to achieve inside our corrections system. He’s been a strong advocate and has spoken up about these issues both in Opposition and also now as the Minister. But as we discussed in the committee stage, we think that the policies are misguided, and, in particular, with this bill, we think that there’s been a real missed opportunity. And as we’ve said in our minority view, we would have liked to have seen a lot stronger focus in the legislation around rehabilitation. I want to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, who began this work, and I know for a fact that she had a very strong focus on making sure prisoners, especially those that were coming into our corrections system as remand prisoners, were also going to have rehabilitation programmes delivered to them. I think that was a good initiative. It’s a missed opportunity. We spoke about this during the committee of the whole House stage, we spoke about this on the Justice Committee, and we said that we could strengthen this bill and make a real difference by having a much stronger focus around rehabilitation.

The other issue, the other missed opportunity on this, is around the use of police cells, and although that’s not ideal—and I’m the first one to admit that, sometimes, actually, police cells do have to be used—we’d much rather see it spelt out very clearly in this bill—

💬 SPEAKER: OK, I’m now going to interrupt the member and say he’s had two minutes. He’s telling us quite a lot about what’s not in the bill, and he will now talk about what is in the bill, because the third reading is the debate on the bill as it emerges from the committee stages.

Mr Speaker, absolutely. If you give me a little bit of leeway, because I am responding to the Minister’s comments, too.

💬 SPEAKER: I have. I have, and I’m going to remind the member that the member on his left thought I was being too soft.

OK. All right. Thank you. I hear you, Mr Speaker. So I’m not taking, actually, a long call on this either.

I’ll finish up by quite simply saying this: we believe that it’s misguided, throwing the doors open and letting prisoners out. All you’re doing is transferring the risk from the Government, the Corrections department, back into the community. It’s not the right way to go, and what needs to happen is actually strong policies that will address the real issue of the pipeline into the Corrections department. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

It’s hard not to go past the real reason why the National Party aren’t supporting this—it’s because they need to be tough on crime. That’s why they’re not supporting this bill. But the problem with asking any 12 National Party members what “tough on crime” means: they’re going to have 13 different answers. Well, there’s no definition of what tough on crime is, but they’ve got to hold up this rhetoric, you see—they’ve got to hold this rhetoric. I’ll tell you why I say that: it’s because they stand up and they start complaining about everything, and in fact, they agree with most of what was in this bill. [Interruption] They agreed with most of what was in this bill.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bennett, one more time and you’ll be out.

I’ll try and make that happen. They agreed with, actually, most of what’s in this bill, and they get up and they say that, and then they start talking about the fact that rehabilitation is not in the bill. But I didn’t see one Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) come across the table, or even discussions in the Justice Committee about making any amendments—about making any amendments—to this bill.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, there was.

No, there wasn’t. The Justice Committee did not come to any consensus whatsoever, and especially from the National Party, about making any amendments to this bill. So where’s the proactive nature of wanting to ensure that our corrections system is working correctly, just like, apparently, it was under the National Party?

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: All kōrero, no mahi.

All kōrero, no mahi.

💬 SPEAKER: OK. Right. I’m now being harder on the member than I was on Mr Mitchell. He’s had a minute and a half to get to what’s in the bill as it emerges from the committee stages of the House. That’s what he’s going to talk about, not a general policy discussion about corrections, justice or anything similar. I’ll reiterate the comment that I’ve made to members previously: if they don’t think there’s a 10-minute speech in the bill, sit down well before then.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that as the bill came back from select committee, there were a number of obvious changes that needed to be—

💬 SPEAKER: No, the committee of the whole, all right?

Sorry—yeah, sorry. It’s come back from the committee of the whole House, and I think one of the things that that highlighted for me is the fact that there were no SOPs or amendments from the National Party. All they did was stand up and complain about it—all they did was stand up and complain about it. But I think the fact that the majority of the changes that were made to the legislation that came through from the committee of the whole House was to ensure that legislation was fit for purpose—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: You can do this, mate.

—to ensure that the legislation was fit for purpose. Well, what we can do, Mr Mitchell, on this side of the House, is make sure the prisoner numbers go down. You see, on TV the other week, that member over there said on Newshub Nation, I believe it was, that they’re focused on the prison numbers—they’re focused on the prison numbers. What happened under National for the nine years that they were in there? Oh, they focused on them, all right—they went up. The prison numbers went up under that party, and now they’re complaining of the fact that on this side, it’s going down.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And just because there’s a new Speaker in the seat is not a licence to go away from the bill.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: That’s right.

No, you’re right. You’re right, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And I don’t need any help, Mr Mitchell.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the main changes that was brought in— and it’s been mentioned by both the previous speakers of the National Party—was the strengthening of the prisoner mail laws. One of the interesting things that Mr Bennett said, actually, made it quite clear that he hadn’t actually been understanding what the legislative changes here were in regards to the prison mail laws, because if he did, he would understand that the law regarding what the prisoner can send out, what was the content of it, and who they can send out to has been strengthened by this legislation—has been strengthened by this legislation.

I’ll say something else. I want to point out something else, too, about what happened during the committee of the whole House. The National Party voted for the SOP that changed the prisoner mail laws. Go look it up—go look it up. That party over there is standing up and bagging the very law that they voted for—the very amendment that they voted for in the last stage of this House. Go and look it up. Oh, you see, he’s smiling. He doesn’t want to say anything now, eh, Mr Mitchell? Where was Mr Bennett? Where was Mr Bennett? Where was Mr Bennett? Oh, see, now that member doesn’t even know what the previous two National Party members have been speaking about. You voted for it. Anyway, I digress.

So, see, what this legislation is doing is it’s added an explicit provision—right, Mr Mitchell?—that allows for the withholding of prisoner mail that promotes or encourages hostility towards any group of people. You see? So it does make changes in the favour—and the National Party should know about it because they voted for it in the past stage of this House.

But I’d like to mention also—this provision was mentioned by Mr Mitchell—the use of police jail cells in extreme circumstances where there was an overflow of numbers in the prisons, right? That’s what it used to be, because they needed it, the National Party, because the prison population under National was overflowing and they needed to utilise the police jail cells, which when—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: That’s right.

They knew it. See, they’re saying they knew it, but they also must have known at that point that the police jail cells were not suitable for holding prisoners. So, you see, I’d like to—I was actually going to say this at the start of my speech, but what this piece of legislation highlights for me is the transition of a Government that used to—that used to—be Government of being reactive to issues. And see, they’re proving me right again. They’re being reactive to legislation—reactive. But we’ve got a transition from being reactive to proactive—being proactive. This is what all of these provisions in here are doing—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Throw the doors open. Let them out.

—because we’ve got a corrections system, Mr Mitchell, and under the National Government, there was no corrections about it. Who was it correcting—who was it correcting? You see, it’s about ensuring that we have the ability to ensure that the prisoners that are there don’t come back—don’t come back. That’s what we’re doing right now, and we have done in the last previous two years, because the prison population has gone down—not like the previous Government, when it’s gone up by 20 or 30 percent. That’s how they’re focusing on and reacting to the prison population.

A few other changes in the legislation that this bill does: it makes it a disciplinary offence for a person in prison to—around giving tattoos, giving consent to receive a prison tattoo, or tattooing themselves. I think it’s pretty important, because within the prison system, we all know that there’s an issue with gang membership and the recruitment of gangs, and that’s one way that those existing gang members in prisons actually assert their influence on others and bring them in—by forcing tattoos on others. Another one—also very important, and bringing it up to date and being fit for purpose—is ensuring that we amend the definition of a drug to align it with the Psychoactive Substances Act. That is very important because of, obviously, the scourge of synthetic cannabis on the streets and, obviously, being brought into the prison system, and ensuring that we can have a charge for a disciplinary offence on that.

Another couple is allowing for the use of imaging technology—obviously there will always be a need, but it reduces the need and reliance on rub-down and strip searches—and also another important one was removing the mandatory requirement for a strip search of those who have returned to prison when they’ve always been escorted the whole entire time. That just makes sense. So, in summary, obviously New Zealand First is supporting this piece of legislation because it’s a common-sense one. It brings in much-needed changes to ensure, for the most part, that the legislation is fit for purpose, and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

National is a party that is tough on crime. It’s tough on the causes of crime. It is focused on the safety of New Zealanders and on doing everything practical to rehabilitate those that are serving time. We are opposing this bill because it fails those tests and because it breaks the word that parties in Government gave to New Zealanders at the last election.

The most ironic part of this bill is that the Labour and Green parties campaigned for years against double-bunking and are now passing a bill that will make it much easier to double-bunk. The Minister responsible, Kelvin Davis, is directly contradicting hundreds of public statements that he made in Opposition. The most extraordinary part—and I challenge Marama Davidson in this House—is the Green Party specifically said in its policy that it would ban double-banking. It is now voting on a bill that deliberately makes it easy to double-bunk. National is old-fashioned. We believe that if you say one thing to voters in an election campaign you should not then be voting on a bill that specifically, in replacement clause 66, makes it easier for the Government to double-bunk. I challenge the Green Party to give some explanation to their supporters and to the people of New Zealand as to why you have ratted on your word. We believe in trust. By voting for this bill, the Green Party is doing exactly the opposite of what it said.

The second part that concerns us about this bill is the issue of rehabilitation. The original bill required an individual rehabilitation plan for every inmate. And here are the weasel words: members opposite say that we don’t need to put it in law. “We’ll just trust the officials.” This is Yes Minister stuff. They say they support National’s intent of every one of our prisoners having an individual rehabilitation plan; they just don’t want to put it in the law. What sort of weak policy is that? It really does show that members on this side of the House are serious about rehabilitation, where members opposite just want to have this blind faith that Government departments will deliver on their rehabilitation pleas.

Then, the third part of this bill that concerns members on this side of the House are the specific clauses as they relate to the writing of letters by prisoners. I have never been as embarrassed, as other New Zealanders were, when we had the most serious criminal ever to be held by our Corrections department—having allegedly committed the worst offence ever in terms of facing charges of murdering 51 people and facing charges for the serious assaults on another 50—and this Government allows them to write letters internationally to further the cause of terrorism and hate.

And what do we hear from the Government? “Oh, what about the rights of prisoners?” Well, sorry, forget it. I’m on the side of protecting New Zealanders—not just New Zealanders, but stopping those crimes of hate, internationally. It was an appalling failure by the Minister of Corrections and this Government to let that charged offender write those sorts of letters. My problem, and National’s problem, is that the provisions in this bill strengthening the protections of prisoners being able to write letters are not strong enough.

I, in the last month, had letters from constituents who had received inappropriate communications from people behind bars. Here’s the problem. Mr Davis the Minister and his Green Party mates are more interested in the rights of prisoners than they are in protecting New Zealanders from the sort of hate and the sort of victimisation that can occur from people that are behind bars.

So I make no apologies for National opposing this bill. We believe in parties being true to what they say. We are yet to hear an explanation from either the Green Party or the Labour Party as to why they are going back on their word on double-bunking. We are yet to hear an explanation as to why they will not support a legal requirement for rehabilitation of every prisoner, and we’re yet to hear an adequate provision that will ensure that never again are New Zealanders embarrassed by a failing Corrections department that lets, from behind bars, people continue to perpetrate their hate.

It’s a bad bill. We oppose it. It’s an embarrassment to the Government. It’s another broken promise and National will be holding this Government to account for the poor management of Corrections and this weak bill.

The way to keep communities safer is to focus on restorative and rehabilitative initiatives for inmates. It is not to expand prison populations. It is certainly not to focus on building mega-prisons and private prisons. We are pleased to support the positive changes in this, the Corrections Amendment Bill, because to uphold our entire nation’s humanity for the good of all of us, to uphold ourselves as to what we think is a civilized society, we need to ensure the humanity of all our people, including our people in prisons.

I’ll actually start by addressing that we see the positive steps in this bill. I want to be quite specific about including the ongoing assessment for risk of self-harm and the changes to the bill as introduced back, which recognises that prisoners at risk of harm—I think—would commit suicide at a rate four times more than the general population. I think that’s right there, Minister Davis?

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Yes.

So making sure that we have got proper assessments for risk of self-harm, and then the initial steps here in new section 61B—the initial steps and ongoing steps that prison managers and health centre managers must take in respect of at-risk prisoners—are positive.

I think about my uncle, who was an inmate and who died in prison—who was murdered in prison. He caused harm and, rightfully, was accountable to that harm that he caused. His sentence was not death. These sorts of assessments for prisoners at risk and then the follow-up actions—things like ensuring that registered health professionals visit prisons at least twice per day unless deemed not necessary—are the sorts of positive steps that will ensure that we have a strong, robust justice system, actually, and that we have a justice system that we can be proud of, which follows due process for all people involved, including victims. The weakening of our justice system, which includes the undermining of the humanity of people in prisons, does not help victims of crime, and does not help people in prisons either. Those are not trade-offs. They need to be upheld together.

I said at the start that to uphold our humanity as a nation, we have to uphold the humanity of all humans, including people in prison. We are clear, and the Minister himself has been very clear throughout this whole debate, that double-bunking in prisons is not ideal and that the pathway to reducing double-bunking is to reduce the prison population and the drivers of crime and to ensure that people have what they need to live good lives so that the circumstances of crime are reduced. That is the pathway to reducing double-bunking. We are pleased that to stop double-bunking the Minister has not chosen the pathway of building mega-prisons. We understand the current challenge facing us to reduce double-bunking, and we are clear that that continues to be an aspiration and that we must work towards ending double-bunking.

We know that right now we have to figure out a pathway to get there, and I welcome and am pleased with both Minister Little’s and Minister Davis’ pathway to reducing our prison population. That is what the Greens stand for. That is what will bring us to ending double-bunking. So we can stand proudly on supporting this bill, which has positive changes for upholding our country’s humanity, and for upholding our justice and prison systems. That is absolutely a direction that we need to head in. There is no rocket science here—there is no rocket science here.

So I think there is one last positive change, in regard to the clause 21 search powers, that I do want to focus on. We’re allowing prisons to use imaging technology to detect and deter the possession of contraband, which also, I understand—in the select committee discussions and the committee of the whole House debates and with the advisers—in that part of the bill overall, part of clause 21, that imaging technology use recognises too that many of our people in prison who have caused harm were harmed themselves. If we have any hope of truly wanting to keep our communities safe, then we do not want to be releasing unsafe humans from prisons. One way of helping to ensure that we are keeping a humanised system is by allowing the use of imaging technology to search. So I did want to talk about that particular part of the bill.

I also wanted to congratulate another positive step of the part of the bill relating to a child’s placement. Ideally, none of us wants any child to be in the environment of a prison. But allowing for babies with their mums, with their mothers, is really important for bonding. I have visited those types of units in several prisons in our country, and in the situation of babies and mums there is good work and good intent that the Minister’s reform programme also continues to support—and through this bill—around doing the best we can in some pretty rough circumstances to provide for a positive, nurturing relationship between mother and child and inmate and child. So really, again, this is why the Greens are supporting the positive steps in this legislation.

Finally, just to sum up, the various positive steps in this bill move us towards an approach that ultimately recognises that keeping communities safe is maintaining the humanity of people in prisons, because that also maintains the hope and humanity of their whānau and the very communities and families that they have to transition back into. And we are also looking at the drivers of crime and working to ensure that everyone in this country has enough of what they need to live good lives and that we move towards a restorative justice and rehabilitative approach. It’s very clear for us in the Green Party why we need to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Kia ora, sir. Thank you. Just before I turn my attention to this Corrections Amendment Bill, could I acknowledge the lovely debate that was held prior to this one, celebrating the centenary of women having won the right to stand for Parliament in New Zealand. I’m sure we all felt there were excellent contributions from those who spoke. There was plenty of humour, pathos, and fascinating reflections on changing social attitudes and opportunities over time. I’m sure that all male MPs would endorse the comments that were made by our female colleagues, including the hope that in future, it will not be seen as remarkable when women are successful in any fields of public life, employment, or whatever they may aspire to. And if I didn’t feel that way, I’m sure that my three sisters, two daughters, wife, and mother would all be quick to enlighten me as to the error of my ways.

Well, having enthusiastically supported that motion, I would also have wished to be able to stand here this afternoon to support this Corrections Amendment Bill, as a firm belief in effective rehabilitation measures for prisoners has been one of the political goals I have always advocated for most passionately prior to and throughout my political career. When we were last in Government, I was encouraged by and very supportive of the work our last Minister of Corrections, the Hon Louise Upston, and her officials were doing, much of which we hope to see continued in this bill. I accompanied the Hon Louise Upston to events and meetings in my Waikato region at which effective rehabilitation was promoted and celebrated.

I joined with her in acknowledging with pride former prisoners who were taking advantage of those programmes and turning their lives around. I supported the out-of-gate measures that her predecessor, the Hon Anne Tolley, had championed to provide the vital support that prisoners depend upon when being released, because that is a time, of course, when they are at their most vulnerable. I’ve been a strong supporter of PARS, the Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Service, in my city of Hamilton, and I place on record my admiration and gratitude to those who have provided that important compassionate and practical support to many families who have benefited from it. I’ve been equally supportive of the wonderful care and support provided by the prison care ministry’s team in my region over the past 15 years. I had the great honour of speaking at a service recently to acknowledge that work. I’ve supported many other similar services and initiatives, and many caring people, the length and breadth of this country, to find work, to assist prisoners and their whānau, and, in particular, to reduce recidivism.

So rehabilitation is a genuine passion of mine, and I am hugely disappointed that the current Government has largely removed that focus from the reforms that were under way at the time that Mr Peters changed the Government. The current Minister has announced a target to reduce the prison population by 30 percent, but his lofty goal is causing alarm, not hope, not admiration, in many New Zealand communities where violence and a lack of respect for law and order are growing concerns, because he’s got absolutely no plans for getting there. This bill doesn’t deliver them, and he stopped the previous Government’s work to ensure that an effective rehabilitation plan is delivered for every prisoner. Now, that would be a wonderful thing to do. That would make a difference. I can’t believe the Minister doesn’t support it.

Instead, as I’ve listened to Government speakers in this debate—in the hope that they would articulate some measures that will boost rehabilitation and increase public safety—I’ve been hugely disappointed, and so will all members of the public who have been following the debate.

So we on this side of the House can’t support this bill, as it’s another failure full of unexplained aspirations and empty promises from a Government that constantly fails to deliver and Ministers who are out of their depth and out of touch with the real concerns of New Zealanders.

This is a split call. I call the Hon Willie Jackson.

It’s a disgrace, what we’re hearing today from the National Party. I want to congratulate the Minister of Corrections for his great work. He’s without doubt been the most successful corrections Minister that Governments have seen in the last two decades. There’s no doubt about it, and Māoridom is proud of Minister Davis. No, absolutely—no doubt. Mark Mitchell and other MPs over there should hang their heads in shame, because Minister Davis has clearly focused on what’s been happening in the prisons—something National was never interested in, never interested in. We know, on this side of the House, the National Party policy: lock them up and throw the keys away—lock them up and throw the keys away.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Abandon hope.

Abandon hope.

We are into everything that Marama Davidson and Minister Davis have talked about. Rehabilitation is something that we’re driven by. Restorative justice is something that we back. And, in terms of what Minister Davis was talking about, in terms of the Hōkai Rangi strategy—a brilliant strategy in terms of turning our people’s lives around.

I’m particularly supportive of what Minister Davis was talking about in terms of mental health. Mental health is something that is very dear to this Government. When you have the terrible statistic of prisoners wanting to commit suicide four times more than people on the outside, you have to do something drastic—you have to do something drastic. Minister Davis has come up with the right solutions.

We know about this kaupapa in the community. I know about this kaupapa. My mother was the longest serving Parole Board member in this country—20 years. She was, unfortunately, appointed by a National Government, but that’s by the by—that’s by the by. No, seriously, thanks to the National Government for appointing her. But over those 20 years, my mother told me this: she said that over 95 percent of prisoners could be rehabilitated—over 95 percent of prisoners could be rehabilitated. That’s what she knew. That’s what Minister Davis knows. They need opportunity and they need support, and this is what our Minister is trying to do here. My mother used to bring—sadly, we felt at the time—murderers, paedophiles, and rapists to our marae to turn their lives around. These were people who had done their time, and our whānau and our people worked with these groups of people. We worked with them because we wanted a better country. We didn’t want to just give up on them, like the National Party did. This is part of this Hōkai Rangi strategy. We can see what the Minister is saying.

So we’re not just investing in prisons; we’re investing in this country—we’re investing in this country. And we have results, with a reduced prison population of 8 percent, since it peaked at 10,820 in March 2018. This Minister is progressing, as well as that, investment in terms of $98 million being put aside, Whānau Ora being introduced, and the Ministry of Social Development working in partnership—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I wonder if the Minister can actually link all of those things to this bill, because so far you haven’t.

Absolutely. That’s all part of this amendment bill. This Corrections Amendment Bill is important because it improves prison security, ensures a much safer environment in terms of the treatment of people in prison, and upholds public safety.

But the goal, in terms of what Minister Davis wants to do—in terms of reducing our prison population by 30 percent—is a goal that we should all fix on over the next 15 years. We should aspire to those types of numbers so that we can have a society that we’re all proud of.

So I’m proud of this amendment bill because it’s a bill that addresses some of the problems that a lot of people don’t want to address. The Minister is nailing it, as far as we’re concerned. Māoridom are crying out for solutions; we’re on track with this bill. When half the prison population are Māori, it demands a response, and a courageous response. Minister Davis has come up with that in terms of what he wants to do in terms of the Hōkai Rangi strategy, which has the primary aim to treat prisoners with respect. That doesn’t take away the fact that we have much aroha for the victims, but we have to start somewhere different, and I mihi to the Minister for his innovative and original way of dealing with things. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would, first of all, like to clarify that National is opposing this bill in the third reading. The previous speaker, the Hon Willie Jackson, was really passionate about rehabilitation. But this bill does nothing. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, our very strong woman leader from Waikato, who had that passion. She wanted to make sure that this bill included rehabilitation. The rehabilitation part is very important because when people in prison have completed their time, they should be integrated in the society. This bill, had it not regulated but legislated that rehabilitation path, would have been really good. The Minister spoke very passionately, but this bill does nothing. It’s very weak on that front. So I oppose this bill in the third reading.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are fewer offenders in the community and in prison than there were two years ago: 30,000 two years ago; just over 29,000 today. So that’s the evidence, in fact. The National Party Opposition is not interested in actually talking about fact; they’re interested in rhetoric and dog-whistling.

This is a Government that is tackling the long-term problems facing this country. One of those problems is high numbers of people in our prisons, the disproportionate number of Māori in our prisons, the staggering number of prisoners with a diagnosis of mental health or substance abuse, and 91 percent of our prisoners with a diagnosis of mental health or substance abuse. These are the long-term problems that we need to address. But I’m afraid that Opposition is not interested—not interested. They’re interested in dog-whistling.

We support this bill because it and the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Minister strike the right balance between moving to humanise our prison system while ensuring that the community is safe post the 15 March attacks and that we make necessary changes to keep people safe.

It updates the Corrections Act 2004, and it’s about improving processes to enhance the safety of prisoners, victims, and staff, while Corrections can properly manage people in prison humanely and in line with their individual needs.

Really, how can you argue with that? Well, I’m afraid the National Party has argued with it, in what I consider to be a series of incoherent arguments. Let’s start with the first one, around double-bunking. I just want to refer to what the Minister said in the committee of the whole House stage on the shared cells practice. He said that the reality is—and this is where the facts come into play—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—which is 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 ultimately this is about cleaning up the mess of the previous Government—cleaning up the mess. Oh, but they don’t want to acknowledge that. Not only that, they knew for four years, under four Ministers of Corrections, and they did nothing. This Government is addressing it, but, oh no, what we get is clouded rhetoric, a lot of hot air and puffery, which is actually not acknowledging what the real situation was.

The second argument that they use for their opposition to this bill is that it doesn’t include rehabilitation. Well, let me tell you what the departmental report says about rehabilitation: “Corrections was instructed in 2015”—so that’s under the previous Government—“to include a provision in the bill that stated that prisoners are expected to participate in the development and implementation of their management plan and in any rehabilitation programmes that they’re requested to attend.” But during the drafting the Parliamentary Counsel Office—now, that is not the officials, that’s not the Department of Corrections; it was actually the people that draft the legislation—advised that an expectation clause would have no operative or legislative effect. I’ll say that again: no operative or legislative effect. Since such a provision would be unenforceable, PCO—that’s the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who draft the legislation—recommended that the provision not be included in the bill.

So that was from the instruction in 2015. Corrections also had concerns about the impact forcing unmotivated prisoners into treatment programmes would have on the effectiveness of those programmes for other prisoners. Research indicates that compulsory rehabilitation in prisons is generally ineffective. So unmotivated prisoners being forced to do rehabilitation, affecting other prisoners, and not being effective—that’s what’s called evidence. But, oh no, don’t let research and evidence get in the way of a good piece of rhetoric from Nick Smith; let’s not let that get in the way! Instead, let’s look at section 51 of the existing Corrections Act, subsection 4, which says that each prisoner must have a management plan for offending behaviour, to prevent reoffending, and for successful reintegration. It’s already in the Act. But what this Opposition is doing is that it’s using spurious arguments—which it does over and over again—to outline their opposition to a piece of legislation which is improving our system for managing prisoners in the prison, keeping the community more safe, and doing it in a way that is humane. Surely that’s something that the community should be getting behind.

This bill is sensible, it’s practical, and it goes a long way to providing an environment in which we can bring down the prison population, which is what this Government is committed to, and doing it in a way which is humane and effective. Unfortunately, the Opposition—if they ran a good argument, we could at least have a good debate. Unfortunately they haven’t. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. It’s probably worth acknowledging for the sake of the record that there is some positive work reflected in this bill and, as such, we can support a certain amount of it, but other colleagues on this side of the House have outlined—as I intend also to outline, at least briefly—some other aspects of the bill which we feel unable to support and, therefore, will not be supporting the bill as a whole in that third and final reading.

On that note, it’s worth perhaps giving an example of something that I regard as a positive move: the regime to triage prisoners, which, of course, already does take place, has been amended to include an assessment of the risk of self-harm of a prisoner, and I think that’s something that I think I’m right in saying that at select committee and at all other stages there’s been little or no debate as to the merits of that on either side of the House. So it’s worth noting for the record that there is a positive aspect in that regard.

As for the letter writing provisions, that’s obviously a topic of some current political interest, given particular cases that we don’t need to necessarily traverse again, and I don’t feel moved to do so in the context of this bill. So we’ll move on, except to say that providing clarity in relation to the rules under which correspondence can be sent out of prison is a helpful thing to be done so that the department can administer those rules effectively. And, of course, the onus will be on them to do that administration properly, but at the very least, as a legislative body, we can provide those rules to the best of our ability.

What’s in and what’s not in the bill is, of course, of an interest. Much has been said already about the rehabilitation plan. On this side of the House, we’ve said that we would have preferred a faster and better evolution of the move towards rehabilitative practices—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: It’s already in the bill.

—but I won’t rehash that any more for fear of failing to live up to the Hon Clare Curran’s high expectations in terms of debate.

I will just close by noting in relation to police cells that we do believe that it’s possible that these may be needed in the future. Of course it would be better if that were not so, and in the context overall of justice sector reform that’s been somewhat lacking. What we actually need is faster processing times so that those who are accused of crimes are determined to be innocent or guilty more quickly, and therefore there is less demand for remand, so to speak. So on that note, I’ll conclude my remarks, and with that, I think, from this side of the House, noting overall that, for the reason we’ve all outlined, we are unable to support the bill at this, the third and final reading.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Mr Speaker?

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Dr Shane Reti): Greg O’Connor.

Oh, Mr Speaker, I look up with some surprise to see yourself sitting in the Chair, and can I just say how well the crown of Speaker seems to be sitting upon your head—a very natural position to take. So I’m going to enjoy my next 10 minutes under your tutelage.

This bill is not a panacea for all ills that beset the justice system. This is something that is more of the manner in which this Government is now attacking the problem with crime, attacking the problem with the increased population in our prisons, and, more importantly, attacking the issue of rehabilitating people into our society. But, before we start on the detail, I think it’s important to think why we imprison people. There are four main reasons: we imprison them to punish them, we imprison them to deter others, we imprison them to protect society, and we imprison them to rehabilitate—they are the main reasons. So when we look at any legislation which is designed—which all legislation should be designed to do—to make New Zealand a better place, we run a test against that to see whether we are likely to help or assist, or whether any of the provisions in the bill are going to send us down that path. I think we can look at the provisions of this bill and think that while none of them are going to fix society overnight, what they will do in their own way is make society, or the things that they’re designed to address, that much better.

Just before I go into the details of the bill, I might say that as a younger man I worked as an undercover police officer. I used to hang around in pubs, bars, gang headquarters, and the most dangerous time for me was when someone came out of prison, because they came out of prison, and—whether they’d been away for a year, whether they’d been away for three years, five years—they came back and they expected to come back to exactly the same place that they had left. They expected to walk into a bar or to a gang headquarters and to see everybody sitting around exactly as it was when they left so they could resume their criminal career. Of course, if there was a new face there that hadn’t been there two or three years before when they left, they would immediately say, “Who’s that?” So that was actually something that I was probably too young to really understand what I was seeing, but what I actually was seeing was that people were coming out of prison with absolutely nothing having changed, and they were coming back to resume where they left off. So in the time and in the opportunities I have in this House, I would like to think that I can contribute to reducing that flow, and that what we do has to be about reducing that flow so that when people do walk out that prison gate, the chances of them going back in are reduced.

So let’s just have a look at some of the things that this is designed to do. Certainly, interestingly enough, I see some of the debate has been around double-bunking. Well, it may interest those opposite to know that one of the advantages of double-bunking is it actually reduces suicide levels in prison, because if there are two people in the cell and one of them tends to try to commit suicide, there’s someone there to stop them. So it’s just important to understand that there are broad issues around all these things. So often, and I see it in the speakers on the Opposition, all one is looking for is the pill you can take that’s going to fix this. Everything is integrated. The whole prison system, in and out, corrections system, justice, probation, police—everything is integrated. It’s important that we understand that, and that when we’re standing up making speeches around any aspect of this, we understand that there are other things we’d have to consider.

Just in so far as that double-bunking goes, it’s also important that the reason this has been addressed here is that—my colleague Clare Curran has touched on this—as it currently exists, a legal ambiguity puts the New Zealand taxpayer and the correctional system at some risk, and it has to be fixed. This bill is actually fixing that. So, again, to those who may have been watching, that have been a little scared by the rhetoric of the Opposition: don’t worry about it; this is actually fixing something and actually will make things better, at the end of the day.

Also, the rehabilitation plans—now, “rehabilitation” is a word that’s thrown around. Isn’t it an easy word? Yes. We’re going to put “rehabilitation” into the bill, and that’s all we need to do. Unfortunately, it’s one of those tick-the-box exercises. I call it “counting the paperclips”, because we’ve done that. We’ve put that in the bill; we don’t need to think about it any more, because we put “rehabilitation” into the bill. Well, can I just say, if you look at section 51 of the Act, we talk about management plans. Now, management plans are incredibly important, because what they do is that when you try to force people into rehabilitation—“rehabilitation” is a word; “Oh! What are you doing? It’s a soft option. It’s just something I’ll do to get out.” Actually, a management plan is very different—that which is in the Act. A management plan means you have to do certain things or you will not be considered for parole. You have to do certain things or you’ll actually not get yourself into the pathway that will see you come out of prison. So that’s why just throwing—and I have to say, when I was on the select committee it was a little bit strange that we were taking the word “rehabilitation” out. Then I understood it meant nothing. It was a meaningless expression that was in there. So, again, anyone watching can see the fact that the word meant nothing—a tick-the-box exercise.

Do you know why the evidence is that it meant nothing? I heard the Hon Tim Macindoe speaking about all the wonderful things that were being done in the last regime—well, he must have ticked some boxes, but it actually didn’t stop the prison population getting to 11,000. So, obviously, I’d hate to think how high it would have been if those things perhaps hadn’t been done. But what we have currently, of course, is the Minister, who not only has reduced through his actions the number of people in prison but, actually, the number of offenders in the community has reduced, as well. So you might have thought, “Ah! All they’ve done is push them out into the community.” Actually, no. The number of people in the community has actually reduced, as well. So what we have is working because there are less offenders, and that’s what we are trying to achieve here. I go back to the broad picture.

Also, I’m going back to the changes in the mail system. Again, the Hon Dr Nick Smith being outraged—I continue to be impressed by his ability to be outraged about everything that he stands up to speak on. Quite impressive. It does remind me a little of the boy who cried wolf, but that’s perhaps for another time. But, again, the mail system—I just listened. I thought somehow the Minister had written that letter, the way he was going—the terrible, terrible Minister had somehow gone to prison and had written this letter that found its way into the system. A terrible, terrible thing, Minister—but then I did listen, and no, no, no: he was actually, through the rhetoric, apparently blaming everyone else.

No, what did need to happen was that we needed to ensure that, currently, when a letter goes out, it’s the harm that was “likely” to occur—that’s the word at the moment—and that’s quite broad. What really needs to happen is that harm “may” occur, so much more broad criteria are able to be used now to ensure that not only will it go to an individual—because what tended to be the case is that when a letter went out, it was going to an individual, perhaps someone who had been a victim, a family member who may be threatened by it; what this bill does now, and what needed to be tidied up, to ensure that the criteria can be used to ensure that it can’t go to a friendly person—a friendly person who gets the letter and then turns it into an offensive letter, which is obviously what’s happened. So just broadening that criteria—again, an excellent piece of this bill. Also, it’s a question of whether harm may occur directly or indirectly.

So going back to this bill—again, it is not a panacea. It is not going to cure everything from the common cold through to leprosy. But what it will do is, again, it will increase the chances that when that pathway of people come out of prison, that opportunity now exists to actually get them on the right path.

One thing it doesn’t address, and I’ll say this, is the gang situation, because, again, there’s been some talk about it—I was at the Police Association conference just last week, hearing about just how bad our gang situation is. Of course, that’s manifesting itself in prison as well. So what we also will need to do, and these things will feed into other provisions that are going to be required to depower our gangs—because we can do what we like in prison: we bring them out determined to break the cycle, but they go back into the community and the gang has been looking after their family while they were in. Well, they’re not going to go anywhere else; they’ve got nowhere else to go. So, again, I can’t reiterate it more: none of these provisions by themselves are going to be the panacea. As part of a range of provisions, it has to address gang offending, it has to address drug treatment, it has to address mental health. But as long as these things—these Acts, these bills, this legislation that goes through—are against a criteria, against a template, that we can measure it against: is this going to make New Zealand a safer place? Then I, as the last speaker, thoroughly recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.