Corrections Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the Corrections Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1; this is debate on clauses 4 to 47A amendments to the principal Act, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, firstly, I just want to acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Kelvin Davis and the previous Government who did the bulk and substantive work on this bill and, of course, as the incoming Government, I was pleased to be able to make what I think are some really important changes and additions, especially around the rehabilitation and the delivery of programmes to prisoners on remand, inside the corrections system.

It’s unacceptable; we have an unacceptably high amount of prisoners on remand in our corrections system as a result of them trying to get through a court system that’s clogged. But whilst they’re with us, I think it’s important—especially those remand accused who are getting no programmes at all delivered—that, actually, we make an investment and we make the change to make sure that they get a programme delivered and support towards rehabilitation whilst they’re with corrections.

The bill makes important changes to the Corrections Act 2004. It changes intelligence provisions in the bill, which is going to give corrections staff a much stronger ability to keep the front line and prisoners safe; this is critically important. Corrections intelligence staff will be able to better identify risks and respond to them. These provisions directly respond to the reality of challenges that corrections faces every day. As the incoming Minister, my number one priority was around staff safety, and if the staff are safe, then that naturally leads on to a better-run prison with an upside for everyone.

The bill includes a number of other important tools for safety. Strengthening the disciplinary process in prisons is one of them. This will ensure the disciplinary process in prisons is more effective and holds prisoners to account. The bill provides for the expanded use of body imaging searches of prisoners. This change will help prevent contraband such as drugs and cellphones from entering our prisons. This change also ensures the legislation provides flexibility to adapt to future technologies and better supports staff safety.

Extending rehabilitation, like I said, to remand prisoners is one of this Government’s priorities. The bill enables limited mixing of remand and accused and convicted prisoners for non - offence-based programmes. The bill also provides for offence-based rehabilitation for remand convicted prisoners. I also want to acknowledge the minority views that were submitted by both Labour and the Green Party during the select committee process. In relation to that, I want to touch on the Treaty of Waitangi provisions that were removed at the select committee stage. I want to be clear that it’s my expectation that Corrections will continue working with Māori. This includes continuing its work with hapū and iwi to deliver culturally responsive rehabilitation.

Finally, I brought forward an Amendment Paper that makes minor and technical changes to the bill. These changes enhance the workability of the bill and will not change any of the policies in the bill. Mr Chair, I look forward to debating the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for those opening remarks. I appreciate the fact that you’ve set out a little bit of the context to this Corrections Amendment Bill. It may look like small bill, in two parts, but the regulatory impact statement is a hefty document, as are several of the pieces of advice that the Minister of Corrections, previous and current, would have received, and certainly the select committee process had lots of things to consider as we worked our way through this bill.

There are several themes that the questions today will address. I think the Minister has certainly touched on one. Whilst it would be certainly the intention to go through in a systematic way and perhaps to do the sort of back and forth as the preference of the committee is, with regard to asking and answering questions, I think what I will do today is just set out a little bit more of that context. I know that I have colleagues who will be very keen, perhaps, in themes but also as questions arise, to pick up and circle back over various other considerations and concerns that we have with this piece of potential legislation.

The Corrections Amendment Bill, as the Minister has correctly said, was first introduced by the previous Government because there was—and we acknowledge—a need to update and keep modern and ensure that our corrections facilities and our Department of Corrections are always up to date with best practice, because, as the Minister has mentioned, safety of both staff and of prisoners is critically important. It’s a dangerous environment. It’s an environment that’s complex, that’s full of all sorts of considerations, because it’s full of human beings. By virtue of that alone, it’s one of those complicated ones, indeed.

The several proposals, the several legs to this bill as was first introduced by the previous Government, have largely been retained. We will have some questions about the practical applications of that as we go through this process of the committee of the whole House.

As the Minister has also touched on, the fact that the Minister and Cabinet made an explicit decision to remove Te Tiriti provisions and not only reference to Treaty but the principles and the other bullet points, essentially, that we will go through one at a time, from what has now come before this committee, we think is such a shame, is so atrocious. It completely guts and, quite frankly, ruins large swathes of the intentionality of this bill, and it’s something that we intend to spend a considerable amount of time on, working our way through, because the implications are so profound. It’s not just a principle, it’s not just in principle, but everything else that’s in this bill was guided by the legislative foundation that that simple clause in the early stages of the bill guaranteed and supported. Without that, there is a different lens to which we now must examine the rest of this bill, and that’s what we intend to do.

As I said, that’s the foundation, and there will be colleagues not only from the Labour Party but from whānau in the Green Party who will take up various aspects of this, because this is a really big question. It’s not just a bill. It’s not just a simple black and white, two-dimensional clause on a piece of paper. It was an opportunity to provide the legislative framework from which the rest of this made sense.

People and colleagues will approach it from several different angles, but I just want to ask the Minister, as a means by which to prompt and to give notice, I suppose, in terms of his own responses and his own thinking, if he could certainly turn his mind to that and think about the means by which the justification can be made and also the specifics as we go through the clauses as to what the practical implications might be.

I have a few questions. As I said, we had hoped to go through in a systematic way, but we’re going to skip to the clause that I think is the most contentious—clause 7—and that is one that has been completely removed from this bill. The section it referred to was 6A—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Tracey McLellan.

I promise I will get to my questions quickly so that we can afford a little bit of back and forth. The section is section 6A, “Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi”. Originally, it was drafted and it was included in the bill, as introduced, in order to provide the Crown’s intention to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi.

I suppose my question to the Minister is: whilst you’ve touched on it and whilst I’ve read the documents and I’ve read the advice, I’m just interested to hear a little bit more from you as to why you thought it was necessary to remove that clause that underpins so much else in this bill and gives effect not only to the operational strategy and the documents—but what was the harm in making that explicit? What was the harm in keeping it in? What was the harm in showing—not saying, but showing—your intentionality to do something that gave effect to the fact Māori are overrepresented in our prisons and after years and years and years of trying to redress that shameful statistic, we finally put something in legislation that had some oomph, that had some intentionality, that was in black and white, and you’ve just turfed it out?

Can you talk me through the process that’s not as simple as it was part of a coalition agreement, it was part of a 100-day plan, and to suffice all of those relationships, you decided to prioritise that instead of doing what I believe is the right thing for the people of Aotearoa and for the people and the families and all of the individuals who are affected by this who find themselves with friends, relatives, whānau in the prison system? So can you just give me a little bit of an update on that and clarify your thoughts? We’ll come back with more specific questions as time goes on.

Thank you for the member’s opening comments. I just want to acknowledge and say that, yes, I agree with you. I want to acknowledge all of our corrections officers and personnel, whether they be community-based or whether they be working now in corrections facilities. It’s a difficult and demanding work environment and they do an outstanding job, but it’s incumbent upon us as lawmakers to make sure we bring legislation into this House that actually is going to make them safer and is going to make the people that they’re looking after safer as well.

In relation to the removal of the Treaty provisions, as she’s alluded to, as the incoming Government, a coalition Government, that was the decision taken by Cabinet. But the one thing that I would say to her is this. She’s saying that because the Treaty provisions aren’t in the bill, that means that Corrections are not able to actually deliver the services that we all expect of our corrections service, especially in relation to Māori. I agree with you, they’re overrepresented in in our corrections system. That is not Corrections’ problem. They just have to deal with what is presented to them.

However, they are very passionate about—as I am—making sure that we deliver more rehabilitation programmes, making sure that we continue to work strongly with iwi and hapū, because they have an extremely important role in the rehabilitation of our prisoners and making sure that they successfully reintegrate and that they’re able to make good decisions on their lives instead of bad ones. But having the Treaty provisions in there—by the way, the Corrections Act has never had those provisions in there. They’ve never had them and yet Corrections have been extremely effective in the work that they do over successive Governments for many, many years.

I don’t see this as being a barrier at all in terms of the outstanding work that our Corrections staff do in the delivery of those programmes. And they’re continuing to work alongside—which I’m facilitating myself as the incoming Minister—to strengthen those relationships with iwi and hapū to make sure that we can continue to deliver those great rehabilitation programmes into our corrections system.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take a call. My questions pertain to the Treaty provisions some more because I think that I have a different perspective to offer from that of my Labour colleague Dr McLellan, which is why I’ve got an Amendment Paper to restore the Treaty provisions within the bill. In your answer just then, Minister, you said that that was not the Department of Corrections’ problem—the overrepresentation of Māori—but it absolutely is. You yourself have acknowledged the disgrace that it is that Māori are overrepresented throughout our justice system, and that is the responsibility of Corrections to address that overrepresentation.

The Treaty provisions in the Corrections Amendment Bill would have allowed for equitable rehabilitation and reintegration for Māori. There was a requirement for the chief executive to ensure the development, maintenance, and implementation of a strategy that is focused on improving outcomes for Māori in the corrections system to address longstanding Māori needs. The provisions were making access to cultural activities a purpose for which prisoners could be temporarily released or removed from the prison, which is important so that they can attend things like tangi and other cultural activities; ensuring that prisoners have access to cultural activities, regardless of the prison in which they are detained; and were enabling the views of whānau, hapū, and iwi to be taken into account, where appropriate and practicable, in decisions about which prison offenders are accommodated in.

The reason that those Treaty provisions were inserted in the bill by the previous Government was because Māori are overrepresented in every single stage within the justice system. Whether it is the moment that they’re apprehended by police, through the remand process, through sentencing, through the time served, or through reintegration back into society, Māori are not experiencing or receiving the same treatment and outcomes as non-Māori.

In Te Tiriti o Waitangi, article 3 talks about the rights of Māori to have equitable outcomes to their non-Māori counterparts, so in not putting those Treaty provisions within the bill, it completely ignores that the founding document of our country provides for those equitable outcomes between Māori and non-Māori. Where is the onus on the chief executive or the members of the Department of Corrections to meet those needs and to address the institutional racism that is baked in throughout our justice system?

We know that there is racism baked in throughout our justice system because researchers have made that clear. Advocates, criminologists—people across our society have made it clear that there is racism baked into our justice system. If we want to look at the statistics that back up those claims, we know that the main one is that despite the fact that Māori make up only 17 percent of the general population, they account for 38 percent of people proceeded against by police, 42 percent of adults convicted, and 57 percent of adults sentenced to prison. Of people within youth justice custody, 67 percent of those are Māori, and in our women’s prisons, 68 percent of that population is Māori. We are among the most incarcerated people in the world, and I refuse to believe that that is something that is genetic or inherent within our people. It’s a reflection of the impacts of colonisation—legacies of poverty and trauma within communities that have come about as a result of colonisation.

I’m not saying that having Treaty provisions within this Act will turn those statistics around overnight, but what it does demonstrate is a genuine and sincere commitment from the leadership of Corrections and from the Minister himself to rectify those disparities, which are a disgrace. I guess my question is: why is it that the Government’s coalition agreement is more important than rectifying discrepancies between Māori and non-Māori, and what advice did you receive on the detrimental impact of removing the Treaty provisions from this bill?

One of the core aspects of rehabilitation for people who are in prison is their ability to take responsibility for the harm that they have caused and to be accountable for the harm that they have caused. How is it that we can have these expectations of the 10,000 people in prison that they will be responsible for their actions and harms caused if the ministry itself is not willing to take accountability and be responsible for the harm that they have caused in perpetuating the impacts of colonisation, and how are we supposed to have certainty that people in prison will be able to access programmes and initiatives that address their cultural needs as a pathway towards their rehabilitation?

We went to Waikeria Prison on Monday and we got to visit the Kia Mārama unit, and that’s one of the few Māori units throughout our prisons in New Zealand. We were able to talk to people in prison who had been a part of that unit, and they talked to us about the importance of learning their pepeha, learning karakia, learning waiata—that access to their culture that they’ve never had before. In the abuse in State care report, which details the abuse endured by people in State care during that time period, one of the harms that was highlighted was the disconnection of children from their culture and whakapapa, which led to the creation of gangs as we know them and the over-incarceration of Māori.

If we know that meeting people’s cultural needs is an important aspect of their willingness to engage with rehabilitation programmes and if we know that people having their cultural needs met is an important aspect for them to have pride in their identity and be able to see themselves differently than the way that they are treated—which is often like animals—then that’s going to be an important step towards rehabilitation. Can the Minister talk about whether he might consider supporting my Amendment Paper 81 to restore the Treaty provisions in the Corrections Amendment Bill, and can he talk a bit more about the overrepresentation of Māori and why he might believe that the work that Corrections is doing is sufficient in addressing the overrepresentation of Māori?

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the member and her interest in our corrections facilities and corrections staff, and prisoners and residents there. Obviously her recent visit to Waikeria highlights a genuine interest and desire to understand and know what’s actually happening inside our corrections system. I want to acknowledge too that she has put forward an Amendment Paper. I can’t support the Amendment Paper because it would be going against a decision that had already been taken by Cabinet.

I just want to correct one thing, and she said in her opening comments that there was nothing Corrections could do—it wasn’t their issue—around the fact that Māori were overrepresented in our corrections system. That’s not what I meant. What I meant was Corrections have got no control over who is coming into the system. When the people do come into our system, I’m extremely proud of the work that they do, whether it be community based or whether it be at our corrections facilities. I just want to assure her that the people that I see and that I meet inside our agency are deeply passionate about being able to deliver rehabilitation, look after those people whilst they’re with us, and give them the best possible chance at being able to reintegrate and make good decisions in their lives when they come back into society.

A big focus that I have as Minister of Corrections is also delivering programmes that give them real life skills; that give them the best chance of being able to come into meaningful employment, get some independence, get some pride back, have some options in their lives, and lead them more towards making good decisions instead of bad decisions which put them in that spiral back into our criminal justice system.

We know that we’re grappling as a country with Māori overrepresentation in our criminal justice system—I acknowledge that—but to say that our police and corrections officers and staff are racist: no, I completely reject that. In my experience, our police officers serve without fear or favour and they’re colour-blind. It’s exactly the same that I’ve seen inside our corrections services. If we’re willing and brave enough to have honest conversations about why there’s an overrepresentation, then we need to go right back into people’s lives and find out where we make the investment, where we can support them so that they can realise the potential that we have in our country, so they can make good decisions, and so they don’t come on to a fast track into our criminal justice system. That, fundamentally, is the social investment model that I’m a huge believer in.

Those are the sort of conversations that we should be having. Those are the sort of issues that we should be brave enough to address, and that, fundamentally, is going to be, in my view, the way that we’re going to make the biggest impact and stopping people from coming into our criminal justice system and instead being on a much more positive pathway in terms of realising their true potential.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start my contribution to this issue by asking the Minister, has he read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report “Tu Mai Te Rangi!”. I see he doesn’t want to answer my question, so I’ll leave that one for him to think about whether in fact he’s actually even read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the justice system, which specifically talks about Corrections and the role that Corrections do in fact have as part of the justice system to address the overrepresentation of Māori. So, very clearly, my question is: have you read the report? Have you read the recommendations? Have you read your own regulatory impact statement on improving rehabilitation, reintegration, and safety outcomes in the corrections system? If the Minister had read the regulatory impact statement, he’d have seen, on page 84, section D: improving long-term outcomes for Māori, diagnosing the policy problem, operational changes under way, guided by Hōkai Rangi, that were needed.

The Minister said in his first responses that we don’t need a Treaty provision in law, that this can happen without it, that relationships were happening, that expectations had been set, that things were happening at an operational level. But if you read your regulatory impact statement and the tribunal’s report, it said what had been happening was insufficient and it needed more done, and the recommendation is to include it in legislation to require it to happen, to give practical effects to the application of those Treaty principles.

Now, the Minister has said Cabinet’s made a decision based on their coalition agreements. There’s one party who wants the Treaty principles bill—rewrite what all of those might even mean—and there is another party in that coalition agreement who says they will review, repeal, remove, or replace all Treaty references in all legislation. That’s New Zealand First. What is driving this: coalition agreements or actual problem definition, actual solutions to that, backed up by evidence from experts who say there was not enough partnership and relationships and delivering on these things prior to it, that the strategy alone, that the operations model alone was insufficient? It needed legislative provisions to ensure that we are on a track to reducing those disparities, which you have acknowledged.

I find it really hard to be here in the Chamber and hear the problem being acknowledged, the challenge being acknowledged, and “If only we could do something.” Well, you can do something. The Minister, the Government can put it into the law to make that actually happen; hold everybody accountable, hold the organisations accountable. The Minister, the Government, Cabinet deliberately decided to remove these provisions. What does that tell us all? Has the Minister read the report?

Yes. I have lots of reports to read, and, yes, I have read the report. The member Willow-Jean Prime is right that they have made recommendations around improvements. I agree—

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But you’re not doing them.

Well, every agency should be focused on ongoing improvements, and that’s exactly what Corrections are doing. They are fully committed to that. But I completely reject the premise that because the Treaty provisions have been removed at this stage with this bill—by the way, the Treaty provisions have never been a part of the Corrections Act, and it hasn’t stopped those very deep relationships being formed with Māori, hapū, and iwi. It hasn’t stopped the delivery of those rehabilitation and culturally based programmes being delivered. It hasn’t stopped any of that. All of that is ongoing work.

I agree with the member that Corrections is always looking for improvement, it’s always looking to strengthen those relationships, and it’s always looking to be able to deliver more programmes. A big part of what this bill is currently about is being able to deliver more programmes to people, especially those on remand, because we have an unacceptably high level of people on remand at the moment.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister, the Hon Mark Mitchell, for his wide-ranging introductory remarks, and I’ll just observe, before I get into some detail, that the Justice Committee, which considered this bill, the Corrections Amendment Bill, has also been engaged with the Ombudsman on the corrections system. The Ombudsman said, more in sadness than in anger, that he had seen no real change in the corrections system despite repeated reports where the Department of Corrections said, “Yes, we agree with all of your criticisms about prisoner safety and rehabilitation and lack of resources” but ultimately did nothing. This bill as presented to the House by Kelvin Davis was something that did something.

I want to go through and ask the Minister some specific questions, particularly around the differences between the bill as introduced and the bill now. And I want to go through it in a very methodical manner, starting on page 6 of the bill, which deals with interpretation. I observe that the innovation of having accused prisoners being able to access some rehabilitation is a really good thing, because people come to prison—they may be innocent but they may still have things in their lives that can be improved. I commend Corrections and the Minister for progressing that, but the first thing is this change: the deletion of “cultural activities”. The bill before the committee now removes the definition of cultural activities, and that definition simply said, “cultural activities means activities that are integral to establishing and maintaining a person’s connection with their culture”.

Now, Willow-Jean Prime has just touched on some Treaty issues, but this is not actually a Treaty issue at all. This is just recognising that we have a diverse range of people that come into prison, who, if they are going to be treated, firstly, humanely and, secondly, put back into the community in a better place than they arrived, need to understand their own cultural context, whether that be a Sikh, a person from China, a Māori person, a person from the Pacific—whatever. I’m just really perplexed as to why reference to cultural activities would be removed, particularly in light of page 7, where the legislation talks about “non-offence-based programme” and it actually refers to programmes which relate to te ao Māori or cultural, educational, employment, religion-based, or reintegrative programmes. On the one hand, we are getting rid of reference to cultural activities, but, actually, in the very next breath, the bill refers to cultural, religion-based, te ao Māori activities, which fundamentally are cultural activities. That’s the first thing; what’s going on there?

I am going to go through, essentially, line by line, and I’m going to start on my next one, which is quite distinct, and that is the definition of “remote access facility”. Obviously, the use of remote access facilities for things like visiting or even some hearings is important, and we’ve got a definition of audio link and audiovisual link. Obviously, an audio link is not as useful as an audiovisual link in terms of looking at people and seeing what’s going on, but then we’ve got “visual link”, and I’m a bit perplexed as to what the purpose of a visual link is—because it’s got no audio, and it’s hard to communicate with no audio. Is there a suggestion that we’re going to have some kind of remote visits, for example, or some form of important communication where it’s simply visual link alone, because that would really be deeply problematic? We’re looking at audiovisual links, visual links, and audio links in other contexts such as court hearings, and I think we need to be really cautious here. In terms of the insertion in that definition—this is a new insertion—of “visual link”, I’m very interested to hear what’s going on there.

I’ve asked two questions, one about cultural activities and this disjunct between that and the “non-offence-based programme” definition, and one about visual links and what exactly that means.

Well, firstly, the reality is that this Government has made a significant investment—over $70 million—to be able to deliver programmes to prisoners on remand, either remand convicted or remand accused. Remand accused have to have different types of non - offence-based programmes delivered to them because, in the eyes of the law, they’re innocent until proven guilty, and, unfortunately, they haven’t been in court yet. Of course it would be wrong to deliver offence-based rehabilitation to someone that’s remand accused. All the non - offence-based programmes, including cultural ones, will be made available to them. I’m not too sure what the member is referring to there. In relation to the visual and audio, quite simply, every option is available in the bill. Of course, if it’s going to be visual, there’s going to be audio that accompanies that as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for answering some of those questions, but he does actually raise further clarifications that it would be good to hear from the Minister on. I want to start with a big-picture question. Going through the regulatory impact statement, one of the things that did come out is some of the recommendations or suggestions from the prisoners themselves, because this is a bill that affects our prisoner whānau immensely. I wanted to ask a big-picture question from the Minister first, which is what kind of consultation and what sort of recommendation was taken on board from prisoners when this bill was particularly drafted?

Going on to the specific elements, again, we’re also sort of working through this because Part 1 is quite substantial and it covers a lot of different areas. In order for us to sort of do collective thinking and moving at a pace, we’re also going to go systematically through the clauses.

I’d also like to discuss in terms of clause 4(4) around interpretation. Now, we heard from the Minister around the fact that it’s not appropriate to have offence-based rehabilitation to those on remand, but I wanted to check from the Minister one additional clarification, because that’s to do with subclause (4) of clause 4, where it talks about “accused prisoner— … (b) does not include a prisoner who is on remand awaiting sentence”. I know there’s a later provision that other people may address in clause 11A around rehabilitation for those who are on remand awaiting sentence, but I want to just check over here what was the rationale behind specifying what we have here in, essentially, three stages: accused prisoner who is awaiting trial on remand, prisoners who are on remand awaiting sentence, and then prisoners post sentence.

I’m assuming that, from the Minister’s perspective, the treatment of each of these three groups would be quite distinct, but I do want to know, in terms of accused prisoners and prisoners who are on remand awaiting sentence, what is the duration we’re looking at here? One of the things the Minister addressed is the length of time that we have with prisoners on remand, and that’s one of the issues of why we have such a high remand population in Aotearoa, but what are some of the thinkings around splitting those two off specifically?

Coming over also to the point that the Minister has mentioned around the presumption of innocence—and particularly I’m looking at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), section 25(c), around people who are provided the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty—how does NZBORA then tie into these two categories of remand that have been created as a part of the definition of “accused prisoners”?

Finally, one other area that we haven’t heard from the Minister yet, and our colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has mentioned it, is in terms of the removal of cultural activities. Other people may have further to say around the removal of clause 6A around Tiriti o Waitangi, but I, as a Chinese person, would like to focus on that element of cultural activities. The link I want to draw to is in the regulatory impact statement, paragraph 189, which is talking about feedback on Te Tiriti. One of the things I want to talk about is ensuring that Māori are not at risk for speaking te reo. I wanted to check whether the removal of cultural activities would then have inadvertent effect on the sort of treatment that people will have, particularly from a migrant background, when they are speaking in their own reo, when they’re speaking their own language in the prison system and how that would be addressed by the corrections facilities.

The questions would be around the three different types of prisoners, and particularly the two types of prisoners that have been created with the definition of “accused prisoner”, and also in terms of speaking their own language and the impact of that with the removal of cultural activities. Thank you.

A really good point to raise. Just quickly, on remand accused and remand convicted—it’s quite simply that. Someone who is remand convicted has been convicted—so they have been to court, they have been convicted, and they’re awaiting to be sentenced to find out what their sentence is going to be. Remand accused have not actually been to court and had their case heard. That is the fundamental difference, and that is why, if you were to deliver offence-based programmes to someone that was remand accused, even though they may actually ask for it, that could be seen as an admission of guilt, because they’re engaging on a programme like that. Fundamentally, that’s why they’ve been separated out.

Look, in terms of te reo, or any language that anyone wants to speak inside corrections, absolutely they can; there’s no restrictions on that, they’re very welcome to do that. I do agree with you that there’s also opportunity in corrections to expand cultural-based programmes, not just te reo but to other cultures as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I also had some questions around the removal of clause 6A, which is titled “Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi”. I just had to raise some reflections on this clause before I get to my questions for the Minister. This is a very specific clause that, actually, unlike many other Treaty clauses in legislation, outlines very, very specifically what Corrections should do in order to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I think it’s really important for the committee and for our discussions today in analysing this bill, to note that these are very specific commitments.

I have been listening to what the Minister’s been saying in relation to this clause, and I’ve heard his assurances that rehabilitation work will continue and that the work that corrections officers are doing is good work. I don’t doubt, on an individual basis, that they do do the best job that they can, but also we’ve heard comments from members around the Chamber, and I think that we must acknowledge that the statistics in relation to Māori are not where they should be and that something needs to be done. I think that this was the attempt, in this originally drafted bill, to address some of the inequities.

My questions are actually very specific. In section 6A, in clause 6, if we look at the sections that have been removed, what in this section will not be going ahead as a result of the removal of this section? Specifically, we’ve got the corrections system and support for rehabilitation and reintegration of Māori offenders. We’ve got a “chief executive’s function of ensuring the development, maintenance, and implementation of a strategy that is focused on improving outcomes for Māori in the correction system:”. I won’t read all of the different sections, but in that section, specifically I’d like to know from the Minister what won’t be happening.

A follow-up to that question: if these things are still going to be occurring under the corrections system—if he wants to jump up and answer, I’m happy to yield. But my follow-up question is really: if they’re not happening, why not? These seem to be very, very practical solutions to addressing a very real problem that has existed within our corrections system. If they are happening, then why are they being removed from this piece of legislation? And to what extent does the title of this clause, being a Treaty of Waitangi clause—as my colleague Duncan Webb has said, this is not just looking at the Treaty and saying we should use it as a philosophy for the basis of our work, which is what many other Treaty principles are; this is a very practical bill and a very practical clause. Why is it being removed? It seems to me to provide a way forward to addressing some of these very important issues that exist for Māori in our corrections system. Those are my questions for the Minister.

Look, a really good question. The one thing I’d say, and I’d come back to the point that I’ve been making, is that we have never had Treaty provisions inside the Corrections Act ever, and yet the system has been working very well. It’ll continue to work well. All of the obligations on the chief executive and on Corrections in terms of continuing to work on strengthening that relationship and recognising the importance of that relationship with iwi and hapū will continue, and is continuing today as programmes are rolled out and delivered.

💬 Camilla Belich: So why take it out?

Well, quite simply, it was taken out because—the member alluded to it in her opening comment—we are a coalition Government and that was a Cabinet decision.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to pick up on those questions that were on, I think, page 7 under clause 6 of the bill. In particular, I really appreciate that the Minister’s been really forthright with his answers so far in relation to the removal of the Treaty references in this legislation. I just wanted to pick up on one thing he stated, which was that Corrections should be colour-blind and that if they weren’t, then it would somehow impede or make their job not right, so they should be colour-blind.

I would just like to refer the Minister to the regulatory impact statement, which specifically references the work that’s been undertaken by Corrections in relation to Hōkai Rangi. They specifically state that “Corrections is contributing to improved rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes by delivering its programmes and services in a way that recognises the power and the strength of whakapapa to enhance a sense of belonging and identity with the community.” I would see that as integral to the Hōkai Rangi strategy that has been and continues to be implemented by Corrections. It is not colour-blind; in fact, acknowledging Māori, their identity, their whakapapa, and their cultural connections is the very essence of how rehabilitation may well occur. I’m really puzzled by the Minister’s comments that the Department of Corrections should be colour-blind.

I would further really like to understand, and we haven’t had this answer yet, why the Treaty provisions have been removed. When we on the Labour side asked officials why these provisions were removed, similar to the Minister, the explanation we were provided was we’ve already got all these great Māori programmes happening; we can do some programmes, we can do cultural things, we can have te reo Māori—we can do all these things—so we don’t need a Treaty reference in this bill in order to be able to do all these great things for the 53 percent of Māori inmates that we have. But the question is: so why take it out? What’s wrong with having the Treaty in there? If these things are so fundamental to our partnership between the Crown and te iwi Māori, what is the problem with that?

You can just point to your coalition agreement, but it’s your coalition agreement as well. You need to be able to explain to New Zealanders that there is more to this than just a political promise. There needs to be logic behind removing it. I agree that you’ve made a deal with some coalition partners to be able to form a Government and pass legislation like this, but I think incumbent upon that power comes responsibility to explain to voting New Zealanders why taking Treaty references out of this bill makes one lick of difference. Because I can’t see how it does. You can’t leave it both ways. Either you take it out and it makes a difference to the bill or you leave it in and it stays the same.

I still yet have not heard from the Minister responsible for this legislation why the Treaty references have been taken out of this bill and also why they make the bill better by removing the Treaty references in this bill. We know that over 50 percent of those incarcerated in our prisons are Māori, and I do not accept that being colour-blind makes any difference or makes it any better.

He says that the corrections system is working incredibly well. Well, I would say that rehabilitation needs to hugely improve, recidivism needs to hugely improve, and I would think that the Treaty as a framework in a partnership between the Crown and te iwi Māori was a good starting point to start to address some of those huge discrepancies that we’ve continued to see over decades and decades in New Zealand. We still not have not received an answer as to why the Treaty references taken out, and, secondly, what difference this actually makes to the bill. All of the things that were already happening in there are, so why don’t we just leave the Treaty reference in there?

Well, I’ve actually answered that question four or five times out of respect for the members that keep asking it.

In relation to my comment around being colour-blind, if the member had been listening she would have heard that both the Police and Corrections were accused of being racist. I was very clear that I reject that accusation and that both services, in my view, are colour-blind. Now, that does not mean that our corrections officers aren’t deeply passionate about delivering programmes and caring for and looking after people—not just one ethnicity, multiple ethnicities inside our corrections system. I’m extremely proud of the work that they do. But are they racist? No, I completely reject that.

In relation to the question around the removal of the Treaty provisions, again I’d say to the member that, yes, it was a Cabinet decision based on a coalition agreement.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair; thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’d like to support those who have echoed frustration in the Chamber in relation to the removal of the Treaty clauses in this legislation. Just because it hasn’t been done in the past, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done now—now and for the future, because by locking in Te Tiriti o Waitangi into the legislation, it is for strategic purposes, it is for iwi Māori to know that there are protections in there, and it’s above and beyond obligations to a coalition agreement because the original agreement was Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed in 1840; kia ora tātou.

Now, I want to ask the Minister: what hui did he have to inform his decision to remove these Treaty clauses? Maybe hapū and iwi missed the memo that there were hui held to consult. Then what advice or analysis was provided from officials in terms of the potential impact that not having Te Tiriti clauses could have on Māori in prison? We have, what, 68 percent of wāhine Māori incarcerated, and 53 percent of Māori overall. Because the original intent—and this is what I found; that our officials provided advice and said that Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause which is being removed is the most critical to achieving the original intent of the Treaty provisions, which is to ensure Corrections consistently focuses on improving outcomes for Māori. That’s the point of having Te Tiriti provisions: it elevates and it provides focus at a strategic, CEO-down, across the organisation.

May I pause and reflect on our visit to Waikeria Prison and the Te Ao Marama Unit, and meeting with Whaea Katarina, the kuia of the corrections facility. She was very clear on the way that they as hapū and iwi of that rohe embed themselves in that facility. Waikeria is working as a firm relationship with the tribes of Waikeria.

I think that that comes from a long relationship; I think it comes from something that iwi Māori have reached out to. But is that happening across the system? Do we have strong relationships, hapū, iwi? Do we have kaumātua kuia groups operating in each of the facilities? In Waikeria, the taumata sat there and they listened to the kōrero, and they shared the benefit of how they are trying to include cultural activities for these incarcerated whānau, and the fact that—I know, I’m going to go on to cultural activities too, because they’re hand in hand: connection to whakapapa, knowledge of who you are, and then the ability to execute those cultural activities are fundamental for protections in terms of te iwi Māori being able to go out into the community, go out into their families, and be strong individuals contributing positively to society.

Now, reflecting again on the Te Ao Marama programme: Hinewirangi Kohu-Morgan dedicated her life as a wahine Māori to work in Waikeria. This is, again, on purpose. She dedicated her life to sexual offenders. She passed recently, and her daughter is carrying on that legacy in Waikeria, and it was wonderful to see her daughter come and mihi to us as the Green Party, in there.

I believe that we need to lock in Te Tiriti o Waitangi to ensure—strategically and operationally—we have firm plans, we have accountability, and monitoring of the system across the board, not by chance. Just because Waikeria is amazing in what they’re doing to help strengthen our whānau that are incarcerated, it does not mean that it’s consistent across the system. And that’s the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in providing that framework that we have heard in this Chamber: Te Tiriti framework provides protections and also overall accountability of the CEO, all the way down.

I acknowledge those that came into this Whare, the mōrehu who came and are the victims of State and faith-based care. Many of them are in the system, and when we think about the stories shared at Waikeria Prison and the way in which those experiences have impacted upon them, their ability to go out and participate in cultural activities, to be able to tuku mihi—to give a mihi—to be able to karakia and waiata with confidence, to be able to participate in programmes like those of Hinewirangi Kohu-Morgan are supremely important. But they cannot be by chance.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I support that kōrero of Hūhana Lyndon. I appreciate the Minister has got out there and spoken with different groups. I’d be really interested in that.

One of the absolutely overwhelming facts that we hear, Minister, is that, as Hūhana Lyndon said, once our people get a bit of reo, once our people learn a bit of culture, it changes their lives—it changes their lives. I have seen it in my life. I’ve seen people turn around from nowhere to all of a sudden standing up, being proud, because they know how to speak a little bit of Māori, because they know their whakapapa, because they’re able to stand up in front of their kaumātua and kuia and introduce themselves, their maunga—their river—their whakapapa. It’s one of the most beautiful things.

I just ask the Minister, who, as I said, I know has got out there and I’ve seen him at different hui: was he here in 2019 when the Hōkai Rangi strategy was launched in Parliament here by Kelvin Davis? I ask the Minister: was he here that day and did he support what Minister Davis was saying at the time, that the aim was to reduce that Māori population from 52 percent, I think it was, down to 16 percent, was the goal? Of course, that hasn’t happened, but did he support the principles of what Hōkai Rangi was all about, which was more about treating the individual, looking at the history, the background, of that individual, rather than just a heavy approach and hammering the individual?

Some of the stuff that Kelvin did, I think, was something that should have been bipartisan, could have been supported by a National Government too, as some of the work that Simon Power did in the past was supported by Labour and other people. Simon Power was a National Party Minister; he had gang members coming into Parliament. Why? Because he wanted to find a way forward so that our communities could all work in tandem. So we had political parties working in tandem from both sides, a strategy driven by a person in National, and there was no reason for Labour to oppose it—looking at the depth, looking at the background of some of these gang members, and looking at the history in terms of jails. Is the Minister still committed to the principles of Hōkai Rangi? I’d like to know that.

Did the Minister also—and I’m not sure if I saw him—attend the justice conferences that Andrew Little initiated? Ināia Tonu Nei was incredibly important. Yes, I know he’s out there, but I want to know, what level of work has been done on the ground? At that time, we had Julia Whaipooti—I think it was—and Zac Wallace, who was a long-time prisoner in Paremoremo Prison, who was working at ground level; Deirdre Nehua. These were the people who were working for us at ground level. We had contracts in terms of prisoners coming out of jail and we were housing them around our marae at Ngā Whare Waatea. What level of contact has the Minister had with some of these groups? I would hope that a coalition agreement would not mean the end of a relationship with Māori and special groups and people who’ve made a contribution. And I don’t even know how these people vote, actually, to tell you the truth, but they have a huge commitment.

There were so many expectations that our justice people put in place. We had major hui here in Wellington. We had major hui in Rotorua. What is the future looking like in terms of Māori working in tandem with the Government? What’s that looking like? Is there a plan? It does distress us that the Treaty is being put aside because of a coalition agreement. The one underlying principle and priority from these hui was that the Treaty is an integral part of rehabilitation. I just asked a few questions there in terms of the background and has the Minister been involved in some of these kaupapa in the past, and are they still important going forward?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, to the previous speaker, Hūhana Lyndon, first—it’s great to hear that you had such a positive visit and experience at Waikeria Prison. Like I was saying earlier, it’s good to see members that are interested in taking a keen interest in terms of what our people are doing. I’m extremely proud of what they’re doing.

In relation to consultation about the removal of the Treaty provisions, the Treaty provisions have never been part of the Corrections Act. It’s very hard to be able to understand what the impacts are when they’ve never been part of the Corrections Act.

Coming to the Hon Willie Jackson, yes, I was definitely around in 2019; yes, I definitely support the initiative that Kelvin put in place and acknowledge him for that; yes, we’re working with iwi and hapū, as he knows; and, yes, we remain committed to making sure that we continue to develop and deliver the programmes that we think will do the best and move us towards, when people rejoin society, giving them the best possible chance of reintegration and making good decisions in their lives.

Just before we move to the next call, just some reflections. I want to acknowledge that there have been a lot of questions around the removal of section 6A, the Tiriti provision. A lot of that stuff has been addressed. There is still some new material coming up, but I would encourage members to not repeat arguments that have been made by themselves or by other members.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I acknowledge that guidance. There is a point in clause 6 that I did want to make that hasn’t been touched on, and that’s in clause 6 where it says, “After section 6(1)(h), insert: (ha)”, it’s on page 7 of the bill as reported back.

The issue I intend to raise pervades this legislation, and it’s this: that this is about “accused prisoners may, so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances within the resources available, be given access to activities including non-offence-based programmes”, and so on. Now, the law does generally one of three things: it prohibits something, it requires something, or it gives someone a power to do something. My concern with this clause and clauses like it—and there are several through the legislation—is that it does none of those things. It just loosely waves in the direction of what—because it’s clear that the Corrections department can provide programmes, but it doesn’t require anything.

In particular, the expectation being placed on the department is watered down by at least three qualifiers, because one of the challenges that we’ve heard from the Ombudsman is that the department simply doesn’t provide sufficient rehabilitative programmes and people get to the end of their stay—however that may occur—and they haven’t received the attention that they need and deserve. In this clause, and in other clauses throughout, it says “accused prisoners may,”—so it’s not mandatory—“so far as is reasonable”—the first qualifier—“and practicable”—the second qualifier—“in the circumstances within the resources available,”—the third qualifier. If we have a genuine intention to deliver these programmes, what on earth is the point of this? It, basically, says, “If you feel like it, if you want to, if you can be bothered, if you’ve got the time available and the staff spare and some space.”

Now, if we are genuine in providing good programmes both to accused prisoners and other prisoners, then why on earth are we not saying, “Corrections is required to provide programmes.” I accept, and the Minister well knows, through exchanges we’ve had, that Corrections has not met minimum standards, let alone exemplary standards in respect of how it addresses and provides for prisoners in terms of their basic rights. But we need to do more, and a clause like this which says, “Accused prisoners don’t have an entitlement to any programmes, but they can have them if the chief executive and department wants to give them as far as is reasonable, as far as is practicable and within the resources available.”—it may as well say nothing, because that’s, essentially, what it does.

I think there is a genuine expectation, both by the community, who want to see people come out of prison better than when they went in, and by the people who are detained, to get the help they need. This can’t be dismissed by saying they do a great job because, I’m sorry, Minister, they don’t. We have the words of the Ombudsman on numerous reports and in person to the Justice Committee saying that’s not the case. I’m interested in whether the Minister would consider tightening this up and making it much more of an entitlement on the part of the detained person, and an obligation on the part of the department, to provide these kinds of programmes—rather than just a wish, a loose wish. I’d be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

Thank you for the member’s comments. Look, at the end of the day, that clause means that we want to put Corrections in a far better position—much stronger position—to be able to deliver rehabilitation programmes. The reality of it is—and I’m sure that the member has visited one of our corrections facilities, and he will see that there is an up-tempo, very challenging, and dynamic environment. Corrections over the last few years have been operating severely under capacity in terms of numbers. We are starting to fix that. For the first time in a long time, we were above the rate of attrition and doing very well with recruitment, training, and deployment of new corrections officers.

To codify it and not give them the flexibility and the ability to be able to recognise the environment that they work in would mean that you could be putting Corrections in a position where they’re breaking the law. And we’re not going to do that. The whole focus of this legislation is to make it safer for both corrections officers and prisoners, and for us to be able to deliver more rehabilitation to those that need it—and that’s exactly what this bill is going to deliver.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would also like to first thank Mr Chair for allowing us to take a number of calls around the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause. This is incredibly significant, and this is incredibly significant for the Opposition to hear as well, because this removal took place after the select committee stage, so, in fact, no submitters have been able to comment on this. Hence a lot of people have been questioning around modelling and to what extent, so I want to thank the Minister for that.

I hope Mr Chair will be happy to know my question is not related to Te Tiriti. However, the first question I have is related to non - offence-based programmes. I want to thank the Minister for talking earlier about the importance of having the non - offence-based programmes for people on remand who are still awaiting trial. One of the things we know within the prison system, within the correction system, is the disproportionate number of people who are neurodivergent or who have dyslexia. I wanted to check whether the non - offence-based programmes that have been named here have considered the neurodivergence and also the dyslexia that is experienced by our prison whānau and whether these non - offence-based programmes would then be tailored to the people who may not learn in a one-size-fits-all manner within this programme system. That’s my first question to the Minister.

Now my second question is on clause 5, which inserts new section 3A, “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”. I want to specifically focus on Schedule 1AA, which is after Schedule 1. Now, there are going to be people who are talking about other elements of the rest of bill and the transitional nature of the bill, but I want to focus specifically on Schedule 1AA when they talked about clause 2(1) around management plans. What I want to focus on, which would really pique my interest, is the provision that it potentially has in place that prevents a retrospective penalty or double jeopardy that is in line with section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). I have a question around the transitional plan, in terms of whether the Minister has considered, as part of this transition and all other elements that we will be discussing that relate to the bill, whether that transitional plan has taken into consideration, when a person has been sentenced or is in the corrections system or is on remand waiting for a sentence, the risk of this bill creating a harsher punishment for these people, more so than at the time of their sentencing or at the time of their trial, ergo creating a harsher sentence, ergo double jeopardy.

I wanted to check if that has been a consideration by the Minister or by the officials around this, because one of the things that is in the regulatory impact statement, in the table on page 31, talks about monitoring. As an example, it talks about the fact that this may affect section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, around the rights to freedom of expression, because some prisoners may have expressed that they are not able to express themselves fully if they’re being monitored—which implies that there is a level of consideration that they may feel that the treatment they are getting is harsher than when they were first sentenced. I want to know whether that has been considered and, upon balance, whether the Minister or the officials have considered for certain provisions in here to not be applied to prison whānau with a certain duration of sentence or to prison whānau on remand, waiting for sentence, that potentially will make their treatment worse than when they were sentenced or worse than when they were trialled.

Those are the two questions: whether neurodivergence and also dyslexia have been considered when we’re talking about non-offence programmes and what that would look like; and also in terms of Schedule 1AA around the transitional phase and whether we are looking at any potential issues with section 26 of NZBORA around retrospective penalty and double jeopardy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I think what you’ve highlighted—and it’s true that Corrections deal with a wide range of very complex issues: from addiction issues to mental health issues. I think you raise a very good point around neurodivergence and people with dyslexia and whether those needs can be met. I can’t give you a very definitive answer on that. The only thing that I would say to you is that Corrections are very sensitive to this. They’ve got very good processes in place. They make sure that the prisons are supported in the best way that they can be.

In terms of transitional planning, I think that you’ve highlighted one of the issues that the previous speaker was talking about, and that’s how dynamic the environment is, and a lot of that stuff is outside Corrections’ control, in terms of someone that’s going up for parole may get parole or may not get parole, how long are they going to be in the system for, and whether they are going to be there long enough to be able to complete a programme. These are all very specific issues that Corrections have to deal with on a daily basis, but they’ll take all of those matters into full account when they’re making a decision in terms of when they are delivering a programme, always, always with the priority being how they give that person the best possible support and the best chance of being reintegrated and making good decisions when they leave the corrections service.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take a call. I have some follow-up questions around new section 6A—the removal of the Treaty provisions—based on some of the answers that the Minister, the Hon Mark Mitchell, has provided to the committee today. Hopefully that won’t be too repetitive, but there was a comment made by the Minister which, roughly, said Corrections are not responsible for the people who come into prison. That was as a response to concerns that have been raised by this side of the House about the overrepresentation of Māori within the corrections system.

I understood the Minister’s comments to mean that it’s not Corrections’ fault who ends up in prison and what the make-up of that population is, because they’re not the ones who are putting people into the system in the first place. However, the way that people are treated while they are in prison directly impacts what they’re going to do when they get back out into society. We’re talking about recidivism, and so, actually, if prisons are environments that are hostile and that use punishment and retribution as a tool to control and restrain people—or, put simply, if you treat people like animals, they’re going to act like animals. So, actually, Corrections does have a responsibility and does have some control over who is coming back into the system due to the way that they are being treated.

That leads me to questions that I have around amended section 85, which replaces references to “non-lethal weapons” with the term “less-lethal weapons”. I would be really keen for the Minister to talk to us about what some of the weapons are that are used within Corrections and how appropriate it is to continue to use some of those weapons that cause extreme harm to people who are on the receiving end of those weapons. So my question around “non-lethal” versus “less-lethal” weapons is: could the Minister define what non-lethal weapons are, and could the Minister define what less-lethal weapons are, and what the rationale was for changing that terminology? I think, if the Minister could provide some examples of the weapons that are used, that will really provide some clarity. I was really concerned to see there isn’t even a definition for what “less-lethal” means. So, if the Minister could talk to us about his understanding of what less-lethal means, that would be really helpful. Does not including a definition of “less-lethal” leave an open risk as to any lethal weapon being used against incarcerated people? I would appreciate it if the Minister was quite clear about the difference between those two definitions and what those might look like in reality.

When I went to Paremoremo prison a month ago, I asked the officers what they thought about the changes in terminology, and I asked the prison director, Steve Parr, to show me what weapons they use and have at their disposal. I was happy to see that the first thing they did was point to their mouth, in terms of de-escalation and communication as the first and most important tool they have access to. But I know that, in reality, there is still use of weapons that really degrade, humiliate, and harm people in prison. I know that corrections officers are not able to access the same type of training that maybe police officers access. With police, as you know, as the Minister of Police, they’re able to access de-escalation training and training that helps them to accurately perceive threat within an environment. But corrections officers don’t have access to these same types of training.

There has been quite a bit of media around the use of different weapons within the corrections system. There has been some focus on Cell Buster extractions, which is, obviously, the process of gassing a prisoner in order to restrain them. There was one particular incident that was reported on by Guyon Espiner in 2020, which was about an asthmatic woman in Auckland Women’s Prison who had four canisters of gas put under her door and the officers stuffed the door with towels in order to not allow the gas to escape from the cell, and this ended up being taken to court in the Cripps v Attorney-General case. But that’s the reality. People are still being gassed in prison. Can he talk to us about some of those weapons and how is this consistent with the United Nations guidance around human rights that states that chemical irritants should not be used in closed environments without adequate ventilation or where there is no viable exit owing to the risk of death or serious injury from asphyxiation?

I’d also like to ask some questions about the use of spit hoods within prisons and with people who are held in custody. I know the Minister likes to borrow laws from Australia. I did a bit of research and found that New South Wales and South Australia have actually outright banned spit hoods and the use of those spit hoods. My question is: can the Minister, please, clearly outline some examples of weapons that are used within Corrections to restrain people in prison, and be really clear with the committee about the differences between non-lethal and less-lethal weapons—what those actually look like? And what will the changes to this piece of legislation mean for the upholding of the dignity and humanity of people in prison?

Like I said before, if you treat people in prison like animals and you strip them of their humanity and their dignity and you humiliate and harm them, that is going to further entrench the harmful attitudes and behaviours that they have, because they’re going to believe that everyone out there is going to hurt them. Hurt people hurt people. If we are cruel to people while they are in custody, the likelihood that they come out—most people in prison will come back into the community at some point. If we degrade them and strip them of their humanity during their time in custody, what is the impact of that in terms of when they come back into the community? Are they going to believe that violence is a tool that they can use to negotiate and navigate life?

Any clarity that the Minister can provide around non-lethal and less-lethal weapons would be helpful? And also, what training and guidance will Corrections staff receive on the use of non-lethal or less-lethal weapons, and what will the process look like if certain prisons want to employ different weapons? What is the process? What are the criteria for those weapons to be authorised for use? How are we going to make sure that there are sufficient protections in place to make sure that particular weapons don’t cause loss of life and don’t cause people significant physiological and psychological damage? How do we preserve and uplift the dignity and the humanity of people in prison? How do we make sure there won’t be deaths in prison due to the use of these weapons? Those are my questions on weapons.

Firstly, I’d just say that, if there’s violence perpetrated inside our prisons, you have to remember that a lot of the people in prison are there because they’re violent people. Last week, I was on the phone, doing a welfare check with a corrections officer who had been stabbed in the face with a shank. About a month before that, I was talking to a prison officer who was off work for two months because he had been assaulted by a group of prisoners. I just want everyone to remember that, actually, they’re looking after people who were taken out of our society because they’re often violent—they’re violent offenders who hurt people or kill people. It’s a very difficult and dynamic environment that our corrections officers are working in. They often go unnoticed; they’re under the wire, because unlike our other first responders, who are very visible in the community, they aren’t always seen, and they aren’t always recognised for the outstanding work that they do and the massive contribution that they make to us as a country around public safety. I want to put that on the record and thank and acknowledge them now for the work that they do.

In relation to the changes around tactical options for them, the change from “non-lethal” to “less-lethal” was driven in part by the report that came out from the UN. It was just quite simply around the fact that you cannot guarantee—anything that you use, you cannot guarantee that there may not be a lethal outcome. But, of course, dependant on the tactics that you’re using, that is reduced to the bare minimum. That’s why the change was made between “non-lethal” to “less-lethal”.

In terms of de-escalation, I agree completely with the member. The police are outstanding in de-escalation. You referred to the power of communication, and that’s the most powerful tool that they’ve got. It’s also the most powerful tool that our corrections officers have. Yes, they do a lot of work around de-escalation. We have world-class negotiation teams inside our corrections service. We have world-class special tactics teams. We have world-class at-height teams that are able to respond and support their colleagues on the front line.

In terms of some of the less lethal options that corrections officers have got, obviously, there are pepper spray and batons. That is absolutely a last resort. They don’t want to be in a physical confrontation. I don’t think anyone getting up in the morning to go to work wants to be put in a position where they’re in a physical confrontation, but they work in an environment with violent people, and sometimes those people are violent, and they have to have the tools and they have to have the training to be able to deal with that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have two short points. The first is around clause 8, which is on page 8 of the bill, and that is simply around a strategy focusing on improving outcomes for Māori. The Minister has, on repeated occasions, said that he agrees in principle with that as an objective of the corrections system. Clause 8, which is deleted in this version of the bill, says that, essentially—because it was a requirement under that clause, or it would have been a requirement—the chief executive has a strategy. That’s a document that says, “Here’s what we want to do, here’s how we’re going to get there, and”—providing requirements for monitoring the outcome—“here’s how we’re doing.”

The Minister’s thrown that out and, I guess, I’m asking the Minister—because he said on a number of occasions, “We can still achieve these things; we just don’t need legislation to do it.”—will he be requiring, as Minister, the chief executive to have a strategy, in place of legislation, which focuses on improving outcomes for Māori in the corrections systems? That’s my first and very short question.

My second question is, again, around the high degree of discretion given to the Corrections department generally, and the chief executive. I was looking, on page 10, at section 61CA, which is about dealing with at-risk prisoners. We heard and we sympathise with the things the Minister has said about how difficult the corrections environment is, but this is about, essentially, isolating at-risk prisoners, and this might be a prisoner who’s likely to self-harm. I understand that that’s necessary, but I was looking at the new insertion in subsection (8), and the general sense is this: if you’re going to put a prisoner in isolation to protect them from self-harm, it’s got to be under constant review by a health professional, because this is solitary confinement, which is, you know, a significant infringement on liberty and it can be quite harmful.

The requirement is that a health professional check daily whether it is still required that they are, essentially, isolated in solitary confinement. Except, subsection (8), once again, says that they don’t have to do it if they don’t think they need to. What the words are is: “While a direction under this section in in force,”—that’s the isolation direction—“the health centre manager must,”—in a bit of awkward grammar, by putting this in the middle—“unless the health centre manager is satisfied that it is not necessary in the circumstances, ensure that a registered health professional visits the prisoner concerned at least once a day.”

Why do we need that to say, “unless you don’t think it’s necessary”? We’ve got a prisoner who is at risk and in isolation, in solitary confinement—for their own health and welfare, I accept. Why is it so hard to say, “We need a registered health professional.”? I mean, that might be a nurse, and, as I understand it, there’ll be medical professionals, like nurses, on site in a prison available for this very purpose. Why are we giving a free pass if the health centre manager is—because the danger here is that you say, “I don’t think it’s necessary.”, which becomes “It’s all a bit too hard.” This is the real danger: it’s not necessary because the nurse is busy across the other side of the precinct, or something like that.

Once again, it really lacks, in respect of something that touches on quite important human rights about being kept in isolation, in solitary confinement, and whether that still remains necessary. So two questions: one on the strategy question and one on isolation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on from that kōrero, I’ve still got a couple of questions that are lingering. It’s very interesting that you’re in the Chair, Mr Chair.

I just wanted to follow up on, first of all, the Minister of Corrections’ answers in terms of racism, which were put forward, which I thought were interesting, and the Minister denying that there’s any racism in the police. I certainly accept—many of us accept—that there’s been a big effort in the last few years in addressing the racism. But surely the Minister must acknowledge that—and I’m sure the Chair might support him—in past years—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): This isn’t about the Chair, Mr Jackson.

Yeah, well, you have a good history there, Mr Chair. I’m just showing you some respect in terms of your history. I apologise if that’s upsetting.

There’s no doubt in my mind that there’s been a history in terms of racism and the police. I’d like the Minister to address that. We only have to look back to Tūhoe in 2007, 2008, and it was a terrible, terrible situation that happened there in terms of the raid on Tūhoe at the time, as we all know. Since then, of course, we had major apologies from the police to the people of Tūhoe. I do have a relevant question, also, in terms of section 19—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Looking forward to hearing it, Mr Jackson.

—which I’ll come forward to. I’m interested in the Minister’s response to that, because I think a lot of that past has affected what is happening today, although I acknowledge that there’s been a big effort in terms of addressing the past indiscretions and racism that was exhibited by the New Zealand Police.

I want to come to the deletion of clause 19, which inserted new subsection (2) in section 80, and this is an area that I’m not sure if the Minister has addressed properly, which talks about, now, “Māori prisoners and other prisoners detained in a corrections prison must have access to cultural activities, so far as is reasonable and practicable, regardless of the corrections prison in which they are detained.” I’m not sure if the Minister has answered this properly or correctly. How does he view this? I would have thought that this was something that the Minister would support. But is this another coalition demand? One would have thought that this was something based on need.

The reality is, with the Māori prison population being so high, why wouldn’t you have opportunities and give Māori prisoners the access to cultural support, as well as other prisoners of course—of course everybody should have access to cultural support. Given that Māori are filling 50 percent of the prisons, why would you delete that when we have overwhelming evidence that tells us that once that cultural support goes in, you get a turn-around in terms of some of these prisoners’ lives—you get an absolute turn-around. As I said in an earlier kōrero, once they get some awareness of their language, once they get some awareness of whakapapa, knowing who they are, knowing where they’re from, knowing who their tūpuna are, you get a hugely significant change. There is so much data to support that. I’m sure Minister Potaka over there would support me 100 percent. In fact, I’m sure he’s spoken on this, actually, and said that the way forward—in fact, I’m sure I’ll find something where he’s spoken about how the language, the reo, can change people’s lives. But here we have Minister Potaka, sadly, supporting a terrible clause like this, which takes away the opportunity for some of these prisoners to get access to cultural activities.

So the question is: is this a priority or not, or is this yet another coalition push to delete references to tikanga Māori, to te reo Māori, and to Te Tiriti? What is the background to this? I would have thought, given the Minister’s responses so far, that he actually supports the principles of what Kelvin Davis has said and what Labour has done—and we thank him for that support—that he would be backing this particular clause that gives priority to Māori and others to find a cultural base.

Look, sadly, I wish that I could stand in the Chamber and say that we don’t have pockets of racism in New Zealand, but we do, and that applies to all ethnicities. It’s incumbent upon all of us in this Chamber to continue to lead to make sure that we become a country where we can purge that.

In relation to Government agencies and ministries, I’m sure there are rotten apples, and if there’s any evidence of any racism anywhere, then that should be dealt with quickly, regardless of what Government is in power.

In relation to Hōkai Rangi, I’ve been very clear; I’ve said that we’re committed to that. This Government is firmly committed to increasing rehabilitation programmes and access for prisoners to have rehabilitation programmes, and that is contained within the bill.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m so grateful for this opportunity to address the komiti, but I’d like to pause and acknowledge the Minister for his sentiments in relation to our kaimahi, the staff, that are in Corrections and the important work that they do with those whānau that are incarcerated. I’d like to reflect on the staff and the engagements that we had at Waikeria on Monday, and the respect that inmates shared about the director, the deputy, and the staff relationships.

We know that healthy relationships can really build and strengthen a sense of whānau, but also having delivery of programmes that can support the staff to engage with Māori inmates is really important. I know that Corrections has done a lot of work around staff capability and capacity to engage with Māori inmates, and that’s a part of the responsibility when you have 53 percent of Māori in corrections, it’s important that we support and awhi our staff to be able to work in the prison context, knowing we have broken whānau in there, and then work out how to engage with them, just like the de-escalation training. So thank you, Minister.

Mine is but a small contribution, in closing, in relation to Te Tiriti and those provisions which will no longer exist in this legislation. And thank you to my colleague Lawrence for raising the fact that submitters did come before the select committee and gave their contributions, and at that time, Te Tiriti o Waitangi was tapu. But, as we know, the select committee has now removed it, and we haven’t had a chance to go back out to iwi, to community.

Now, I’m trying to be proactive in thinking about an opportunity to discuss or maybe find a meeting of minds with the Minister to see if—because of the coalition Government’s primacy of the agreement between the parties, rather than a priority on our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—we could look for a way in which—OK, we’re deleting Te Tiriti, but could we look at amendments that would provide a provision or just one clause that can lock in improving Māori outcomes so that at an organisational level, there is to be that ongoing commitment, whether it be workforce development, whether it be the delivery of services throughout the system, and operationally there is a commitment, knowing 68 percent of wāhine Māori are locked up right now, and then 53 percent of overall Māori. So that’s just a pātai, really, to the Minister: could we look at something else?

Is the word “Māori” also not allowed to be included in the legislation because of the coalition agreement? There’s been contributions from this side of the Chamber saying, “Actually, we are a high-needs population. We should be a priority population because of what’s happening right now.” Can we look at some other wording whereby we, as te iwi Māori, can feel and see ourselves within the legislation and, therefore, can use it when engaging with Corrections across the system operationally and at a strategic level?

My final pātai and contribution, following on from Matua Willie, is in relation to cultural activities. We have prisoners who are members of whānau and community, and when there is a death or a hui mate or there is a hura kōhatu—an unveiling—and other really important cultural functions, whether they be from the Pacific or from our migrant communities, the ability for them to be able to access temporary release is really important. I’m really mindful that those cultural responsibilities and the ability to participate, whether you’re a grave digger or whether you go to harvest kai or whether you sit on a taumata and deliver the karakia in the service, is something that enriches the lives of those that participate. I’m really mindful because—with the cultural activities part really not being clear anymore in terms of the compulsion for that to be available and with the knowledge that, often, Māori don’t get the temporary release, because of security concerns—how can we look to bridge that gap? What can we do?

So this is a proactive ask of the Minister about the way in which we can build something in this legislation to improve outcomes, particularly for Māori inmates. Kia ora.

Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. The member just referenced that in the coalition agreement there is the coalition agreement to remove the word “Māori” from legislation. That is incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, that’s not a point of order. If the member wants to take a call, that’s fine, but that’s actually not a point of order to be taken to correct. The point of order is where there’s been a breach of the Standing Orders. It’s not a point of order. The member’s welcome to take a call at some stage to correct anything.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m aware I haven’t heard any new information in recent times, but I’ll hear Dr Tracey McLellan.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As I made the opening contribution and I prefaced the fact that I had several questions, this is the first opportunity I’ve had since then to actually ask any of those questions, so I do ask for your indulgence to move through the list. I haven’t moved off the very first one yet, but I do have some to ask.

I’m not going to ask questions on this, because, although I do think that some nuance has been lost in the ability to sort of delve into them a little bit more—and I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Corrections will feel like he’s answered the questions relating to Te Tiriti, and he certainly has attempted to address it on several occasions now, so I do appreciate that. However, without asking a question, I am going to make a couple of remarks before I move on. This is an acknowledgment that the Minister spoke—well, he raised it, and I’d like to come back to it—about the fact that Corrections has no control over who they deal with in the corrections system. I would like to reiterate what Tamatha Paul said about the recidivism rates for people who are incarcerated being so high that, inevitably, the Department of Corrections absolutely has control over who is going to come back through their doors. It is incumbent upon them to do anything they can to improve the recidivism rates by, I think, entrenching some legislative foundations to ensure that we get better outcomes.

Minister, Hōkai Rangi has been referenced on several occasions today. Whilst that’s the operational means by which some of the good things that we hope would be done in the corrections system could be done, as introduced by previous Minister the Hon Kelvin Davis, I note that that strategy runs from 2019 to 2024, which is this year. Can the Minister, before we move on, provide us with some details about what work is under way or what the time line is, given that we are more than halfway through 2024. Whilst we’re consistently, during this process today, being told that operationally—the fact that we’re removing, gutting, the reference to the Treaty out of the bill; operationally things can still happen. But the operational framework is on its last legs as well, so it’s not feeling like it’s very robust or that there’s much grounding in what we know should be done, so can the Minister please provide us with some information about that?

I’m particularly interested because, whilst, again, the Minister will feel like he’s addressed it and has attempted to answer it on several occasions, I don’t feel particularly satisfied with the response in so far as I don’t feel any further ahead as to why these provisions are being removed, particularly because I look at advice that the Minister received in February this year from his department. It clearly sets out, on several occasions, the benefit of having the Treaty provisions and the specific references that were grounded in that whole new section 6A, inserted by clause 7, that’s now being removed.

In lieu of not banging on a drum—that’s probably done and dusted now as we’ve moved on—I would like the Minister, though, to turn his mind to page 10. When we look at replacement section 51, amended by clause 11—and it may seem like a relatively simple clause—it’s looking at the fact that references to management plans are now changing to case management plans and are, I presume, providing a little bit more specificity about what that is. But, when we look at the replacement subsection 51(4)—“Each case management plan must be consistent with the resources available to the chief executive to manage the prisoner.”—as has been previously mentioned all the way through, or at several instances through, this bill, it’s replete with examples of where resources are afforded or where the chief executive knows that resources are available. I would like the Minister to reassure us, at this stage, the committee of the whole House stage, that the case management plans aren’t completely contingent on resources and that it doesn’t create a bit of a precedent in terms of how that interacts with every other aspect.

As we go through, I will have some further questions about how that relates, then, to the rehabilitative programme, how it relates to the ability to, therefore, go up for parole, and how it even relates for some of the reasons that can be made for ensuring that people are able to be transferred, because the Minister has prefaced his opening statements about the fact that he’s very proud of the fact that rehabilitation is supposedly a bit of a cornerstone of this bill, and yet there’s many, many fish-hooks, I think, in so far as the practical application.

It is incumbent upon this committee, because this is the only chance that we get to ask some of these very specific questions and because things often sound good when high-level statements and proclamations are being made, but there’s some really, really concerning parts of specific practical application here. That is another thing I would like the Minister to turn his mind to, if he could. As has been prefaced earlier by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb all the way through here, it is contingent upon resources being available. This is just one example. I do intend, or hope to intend, to move on to provide several more. So I’m going to leave it at that and give the Minister an opportunity to get some specific advice, if he is able to answer about case management and resources.

Actually, I will ask one more question just because it took such a long time to get another one. As we move on, I also note that another specific example is when we talked about replacement subsections 92C(2) and (2A), amended by clause 23, “Particular matters relating to imaging technology searches”: “(2) An image produced as a result of an imaging technology search for the purposes of detecting an unauthorised item must be disposed of within 24 hours.” As I was reading this, it immediately came to mind as yet another example of how there’s quite a lot of creep and increase in duty and staff duty within this bill. And yet we know that there’s certainly been a cost saving exercise that’s gone under way within the Department of Corrections. We know that there is no fat, absolutely no fat, in the back office. In fact, that’s been decimated quite heavily. I think that all sorts of documents that the department and the Minister refer to rely on the fact that staff safety is a number one priority, and yet you’re adding quite a lot of duty. They might not sound like large duties, but the disposal of stuff, the information gathering, and the intelligence cache that are going to be required do require extra resources.

So, in line with the case management question, can you also, using that information technology clause as an example, talk us through how you are convinced and how you’re confident that adding all these extra duties won’t overstretch an already overstretched department and won’t result in a variety of negative outcomes?

Well, first of all, I just want to reassure the member that there are no fish-hooks in the legislation at all. Yes, she is right that the legislation is designed to make our corrections officers safer and to make their operations more efficient so they actually have the time to be able to dedicate to things like case management and prisoner safety. It refers to resources because, for a long time, they’ve been operating under strength. In a service like corrections, when you’re operating under strength, you have to start making trade-offs, and you have to start making decisions in terms of the safety of your officers and the safety of the prisoners.

The good news is that in the last eight months, we’re now above the rate of attrition. They’re doing very well with their recruiting campaign. Every month now, I’m going to graduations where they’re recruiting, training, and deploying up to 140 new corrections officers. What that means is that those resources are starting to come back online. Those options are starting to become more available to them. They can just start delivering more rehabilitation programmes. That is quite simply what the reference to resources is—“as resources allow”—because that is what will govern what they can actually deliver on a day-to-day basis.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I’m sure I won’t take a full call here, because I only have a short point to make, but it is around a very important point and that is the use of what’s now called “less lethal” devices to restrain or suppress prisoners. My first point’s a very, very short one, and it’s on clause 21A, which simply says: “In section 88 replace ‘non-lethal’ with ‘less-lethal’.” My short point is a drafting one, and that is that on my reading of section 88 as it currently stands, it doesn’t use the word “non-lethal”, so you can’t replace it with “less lethal”. Now, I may have that wrong, but I’m sure your officials will be able to tell me where that is.

The other point is this, though—and I’m looking at clause 21, page 12, running on to page 13 of the bill. It says “An officer may only use a less-lethal weapon prescribed for use in dealing with a prisoner who is passively resisting a lawful order in the situation described in … [the section] if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing there is an imminent threat of injury or harm to the prisoner or any other person.” Now, with the threat of self-harm, I can understand that the prisoner might not be resisting the officer but that they’re harming themselves, so you need to debilitate the prisoner using these devices so that you can then go and make that prisoner safe. I can understand that kind of situation. But I’m a bit perplexed as to why we have, on the end of the sentence, “or any other person”, because passive resistance is, by definition, not threatening any other person. You’ve got an ability to use these—and let’s be honest; it’s called a “less-lethal” device because it’s known that there have been instances where people have died from this being used on them, so we’ve got to be very cautious indeed about that. So if we’ve got someone passively resisting, not self-harming but refusing, how on earth can they be putting any other person at risk?

This seems to be a kind of excuse to use a device that’s totally unnecessary, and it simply puts a lack of clarity into a section that, because of the seriousness of these devices, needs to be as clear as possible. My view is that those last words “or any other person” should be deleted because it simply clouds that issue. That’s all I’m going to say, but I do think that’s an important point, given that these are tasers and pepper spray, which can be lethal.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, quite simply the fact of the matter is there are many, many different situations and scenarios, inside a corrections environment, where a passive prisoner, someone that’s refusing to follow instruction, could be putting other people at risk. Whether it be the fact that they might have just seriously assaulted another prisoner that needs some medical attention and they’re blocking the doorway passively, the corrections officers might have to take action, or whether it be a prisoner that has barricaded himself somewhere passively or put himself somewhere passively where it’s taking three or four or five corrections officers to try and deal with them whilst, at the same time, someone else is requiring assistance, that may mean that they have to take action. It’s a dynamic environment. Force is always a last resort for our corrections officers. They will always use de-escalation, but there are going to be times with a passive prisoner where they may be putting other people at risk and they have to take action.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia orana. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to touch on some clauses that I understand have not been referred to in the committee stage at this point, and that starts at clause 36, which is part of Part 1. This is really important because it relates to the rights of prisoners who are charged with an alleged offence, internally, in prisons, Minister. New section 133A relates to the role of a hearing adjudicator. My experience of hearing adjudicators is that they are well trained and that they do an excellent job in the prisons in terms of conducting. They’re not just anyone; they have to undertake specified training in order to do that. This bill introduces a new change in that process, and it relates to the ability for a hearing adjudicator to, basically, proceed with a disciplinary hearing without the prisoner being present. Up to now, prisoners are expected and required to be present for proceedings of this nature. There is also an opportunity for a prisoner to appeal to a visiting justice a decision that a hearing adjudicator has made.

Now, I’ve spent five years as a visiting justice in prisons in this country before coming to this place, so I’m very, very familiar with this process. What does concern me, though, Minister, is that new subsection (3), basically, indicates that there is no right of appeal to a visiting justice solely against the decision of a hearing adjudicator, under new subsection (1), on the basis that the hearing adjudicator made the decision to proceed in the absence of the prisoner. I can recollect countless occasions where there would be prisoners who’d be brought to the hearing and, for some reason, it wouldn’t immediately become clear as to what the issue might be.

Now, there might be circumstances, for example, where the hearing adjudicator makes the decision to proceed with a hearing in the absence of the prisoner. Yes, there is an evidentiary threshold that’s required to be met, but there’s no further detail about what needs to happen. It just needs to be that the adjudicator receives evidence from an officer that the prisoner has refused. There are circumstances where there might be family bereavements and there might be issues that the prisoner is dealing with, that may not be apparent at the time, but that is the genesis upon which the prisoner makes a decision to refuse.

My question to the Minister is: as I understand it, the new section actually provides no discretion at all for a visiting justice, who is at the appellate level, to, basically, consider reasons for the failure to present the prisoner, and, if this is so, is he open to make changes in that particular space? It would seem to me that it would be an affront to natural justice if the visiting justice simply was not able to consider an appeal without all of the information. That’s the first one.

The second one is in relation to clause 40. This is where the visiting justices themselves make the decision, and they may actually make the decision that the prisoner is refused, etc. There is a requirement for the visiting justice to proceed with the hearing. If they do so, they must record the decision in writing and the reasons for it. Now, my experience with visiting justices is that the reasons that are recorded are in the prison’s visiting justice book. Often, it’s a ledger where there are maybe five compartments—date, who the person is, what the penalty is, whether it’s proven, and then a signature or stamp. Is that satisfactory for the purposes of the decision? It is extremely rare, in my recollection, for visiting justices to, effectively, dictate what in the courts would be delivered as a written decision. I’d like some clarity around what it means by “must record in writing the decision and reasons for it.”

There is also no expectation that that decision would be made available to the prisoner. In a court context, that would be open to the prisoner. But, if the prisoner chooses not to actually attend, the visiting justice goes ahead with the hearing, in the absence of the prisoner, and makes a decision, which needs to be recorded in writing. How will the prisoner know what the outcome of that is, apart from whether they perhaps are on their way to self-confinement or loss of privileges? I think there is an important distinction between the two, and there are a couple of other areas that I’d like to pick up on as well, but perhaps I could leave it there in the first instance.

I think the whole purpose of why this was put into the bill is to make the disciplining process more efficient and safer, leading to safety for our prison officers and the other prisoners as well. I think that the reason why—clearly the reason why the prisoner can’t appeal the fact that he wasn’t there is because he’s refused to actually attend. He can still appeal the actual outcome of the hearing, but he doesn’t have any appeal rights in terms of failing to appear, because he’s been given the opportunity and he’s chosen not to appear. In terms of whether or not there’s personal mitigating circumstances, that is very operational, but my experience is—and I’m sure it’s the member’s experience too—that Corrections will work around that. They’ll give them every opportunity to appear, and if there’s mitigating circumstances—like a death in the family or, for some reason, they just don’t feel up to it—then Corrections will take that into account and work around it.

The other point in terms of—of course the matter has to be recorded by the justice, and of course the prisoner will be informed of the outcome of that hearing.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you. I note your point about not going back and repeating information, so I’ve got a number of questions around the use of body image scanning technology, some questions around the increased monitoring and surveillance that happens through this bill, and then, if I have time, I’d like to ask some questions about the mixing of adult and youth populations within prison.

Starting with the body image scanning technology, we are supportive of introducing this technology as a way to reduce the need for rub-down and strip searches within prison, and my question to the Minister on the body image scanning technology is: what other steps can we take to eventually remove the need for rub-down and strip searches? I ask that because when I was reading the Turiki! Turiki! report by the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group, there was a statistic in there that said that 53 percent of women in prison have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime, and 15 percent of men in prison have experienced sexual violence within their lifetime. We can take those as conservative figures, understanding the under-reporting of instances of sexual harm. The reason I raised those statistics is because it’s clear that the experience of sexual violence is prevalent within our prison population and that things like strip searches and rub-down searches can be retriggering and retraumatising for people who have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime. In what ways can we move away from those strip searches and rub-down searches?

I also note the statement within the regulatory impact statement for the bill that staff at sites where imaging technology has been deployed report that it is harder to get unauthorised items into prison when body imaging technology is used, compared to strip and rub-down searches. Staff also report that physical searches can lead to prisoners becoming upset and confrontational, reducing staff safety. So we are supportive of moving towards this technology, but what are some of the barriers that prisons are experiencing in terms of introducing that technology?

I read in the regulatory impact statement that there are obviously privacy concerns around the use of that technology and the collection and disposal of those images. I’m keen to hear some more about how this bill makes that technology more prevalent throughout our prisons, but I’m also really interested in the disposal of those images too—given they are quite intimate; you know, taking imaging of somebody’s body—and how those will be disposed of, particularly given there have been some concerns around the way that, say, police officers, for example, collect images of people and how they dispose of those, noting the case around tens of thousands of images of young Māori being collected by police officers and not disposed of adequately in line with the provision set out within the Privacy Act. Those are my questions around body image scanning.

The next point that I wanted to move on to is around surveillance and monitoring, and I’m really interested in understanding how the Minister has been able to balance the ability of people in prison to maintain their connections with people on the outside with the importance of anticipating any risks to people in prison, noting the submission from the Law Society, which talks about how increasing powers to enable monitoring of in-person visits raises privacy issues. One of the guiding principles within the bill is that contact between prisoners and their families must be encouraged and supported, so far as is reasonable and practicable, within the resources available and to the extent that this contact is consistent with the maintenance of safety and security requirements.

Now, we know that people in prison’s having connection to their communities and their whānau and their friends is an important part of the rehabilitation process. They need to understand that people care for them and have expectations of them. They need to maintain these relationships in order to be able to reflect on their behaviour and their actions and to address that and to change that, but I guess what I’m concerned about is that increased monitoring and surveillance might reduce the ability for prisoners to have that connection, even though that’s a core principle within the bill. In the People against Prisons Aotearoa submission, they stated that incarceration is an isolating experience that, and separation from family and whānau, is a significant stressor on the mental wellbeing of incarcerated people. How can we maintain those connections with these new provisions and not put in unfair—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, that’s a really good question around technology. Obviously, we’re fully committed to that. We want to continue to roll technology out. We want to try and get away from, as much as possible, physical searches and strip searches, but you’re never going to be able to eliminate them completely, because, unfortunately, you’re dealing with people that are very inventive in the way they get contraband into the prison, which not only puts prison officers or corrections officers at risk but fellow prisoners as well.

In terms of the images, the images are kept for 24 hours and then automatically deleted. The only one that sees the image is the person that’s actually operating the scanners at the time.

Mr Chair, thank you for that. It’s good that we’re doing a whole lot of new material. I haven’t heard any repetition for some time as we’re working progressively through this bill.

I have a very short point, and it is actually about the collection of intelligence information. New section 127F, on page 24 of the bill, says that “(1) The chief executive may authorise an eligible employee to be an authorised intelligence person”. This is the person who can surveil prisoners, open their mail, listen in on their telephone conversations, and listen in on their visiting—do all of those things that are so highly invasive—for an intelligence purpose, which is a restrictive purpose. But I want to focus in on the words “eligible employee”. Now, it might sound like that means it’s a corrections officer who’s been identified. I dug around, because I was a bit perplexed by that. Section 111 of the principal Act says, “Eligible employee means a person who is an employee of the chief executive,”—that’s fine—“an employee of a contractor, an employee of a contracted provider, or a contracted provider”. These are not public servants.

Now, Minister, I think we’ve made a mistake here. I don’t think we intend for an employee of a contractor, who is not a sworn officer, to be able to search and surveil a prisoner, because that is an exercise of quite an extraordinary State power. I would suggest, and I suspect, that we always intend that it’s corrections officers who are employed by the department through the chief executive who are able to surveil prisoners and see this highly personal information and use it for intelligence purposes. There’s a bit of a slip here, because all of a sudden, we’ve got people who are three steps removed. It’s a person who is contracted to a person who is contracted to the department. That can’t be right. We can’t have people who are not answerable to the State being intelligence officers and surveilling prisoners. I’m going to leave it there, because it’s an important point and I’d really appreciate an answer from the Minister on that. Kia ora.

It’s a good point, because I agree with him that it is a big power—it’s at the discretion of the chief executive. Quite simply, why it refers to contractors is, of course, because we have a private prison that’s being run by Serco.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Further to what my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has just said, when we’re talking about authorised persons and the process that’s going through—because if I go back a step, the first bullet point under the intentions of this bill is: “explicitly empowering Corrections to monitor [prisoners’] communications and information sources for intelligence purposes to improve prison and public safety”. There are four parts to this bill, and this is one of them.

I understand, as the Minister very, very briefly touched on earlier on in his opening remarks, that the system needs a little bit of updating. The way that prisoners communicate with each other isn’t always by snail mail anymore; there are all sorts of other forms of communication, so that needs to be accommodated.

When I look at new section 127K, inserted by clause 33, which is just a little bit further on from the previous clause that was asked, I do think that the way that’s worded does lend itself to some future sort of misinterpretation. But new section 127K, “Monitoring of exempt prisoner communications and information sources”, says that the authorised intelligence person, who we know, therefore, is an employee appointed from the chief executive, “who is monitoring, collecting, or using prisoner communications and information sources under this subpart and who forms the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the prisoner communications and information sources are exempt prisoner communications and information sources must—(a) promptly stop monitoring, collecting, or using them”.

I just wonder if you could give us a little bit more information on how that process actually works. You can imagine a person, during the course of performing their duties as an authorised intelligence person, who is privy to information that they then have reasonable grounds to believe is exempt—let’s say it’s medical information. When they—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.