Corrections Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: I present a legislative statement on the Corrections Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I move, That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

First, I would like to start by thanking the Justice Committee for its consideration of the Corrections Amendment Bill. The Justice Committee received 72—whitu tekau mā rua—submissions on the bill and heard 19—tekau mā iwa—oral submissions.

The bill is important as it modernises the Corrections Act 2004. It aims to improve rehabilitation, reintegration, and safety in prisons, our whare herehere. Corrections operates in a continuously changing environment and the prisoners Corrections manages are increasingly presenting complex issues. Many of these prisoners have histories of violence and antisocial behaviour. The violence and aggression in prisons poses an ongoing challenge for Corrections, including for front-line kaimahi or staff.

Kaimahi safety is one of my priorities, and this bill’s new intelligence powers will support not only kaimahi but prisoners and the public to be safer. The new intelligence provisions directly respond to the reality of the wero, the challenges that Corrections faces every day, and is a key part of this bill. These new provisions give Corrections new and clear powers to improve prison safety.

These provisions also include safeguards to ensure transparency and limits of those new powers. As an example, a tauira, Corrections’ recording of prisoner phone or video calls would cover all prisoners, but to protect prisoner rights to privacy, the focus of monitoring for intelligence purposes will be on prisoners who pose a serious risk of harm to prison safety and the public. In using these powers, Corrections will be looking for prisoners who seek to introduce contraband such as drugs, tarukino, into the prison and to identify prisoners who seek to physically harm other prisoners or members of the public.

The bill also helps to ensure the internal disciplinary process in prisons is effective alongside strengthening processes for the authorisation and the use of non-lethal weapons. These are, again, important tools for staff or kaimahi safety.

Rehabilitation is one of the Government’s priorities and is very important for this Kāwanatanga. The bill enables limited mixing of remand accused and convicted prisoners for non - offence-based programmes which will support the extension of rehabilitation to remand prisoners.

The bill also makes a series of other amendments that improve Corrections’ ability to operate prisons, whare herehere, safely and efficiently; strengthen kaimahi safety; and support prisoner wellbeing. The Justice Committee has strengthened the bill to ensure it provides Corrections with the necessary tools to continue to maintain the safety and security of prisons. Kei te mihi ki te Justice Committee.

Tom Rutherford: Hard-working.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Hard-working. I want to be clear that Corrections will continue to do the mahi with hapū and iwi to deliver culturally responsive rehabilitation to improve outcomes for Māori notwithstanding the committee agreeing to the removal of Treaty of Waitangi provisions in the bill. Corrections remains committed to working closely, doing the mahi with Māori to continue strengthening its operations to address the over-representation of Māori in the Corrections system. It’s good to see the recent appointment of the Māori Deputy Chief Executive to his role.

For example, the Te Mana Wahine Project based at Christchurch Women’s Prison is designing a range of interventions with local iwi, hapū, tangata whenua, and Māori providers. One of the initiatives from the project is a 10-week group session guiding wāhine Māori to better understand their own identity, to identify their goals and aspirations. At Northland Region Corrections Facility, Ngāti Rangi, as mana whenua, have been integral in the ongoing design of rehabilitative practice at the whare herehere. This includes rongoā, tikanga, kapa haka support to build positive whānau relationships in the community.

With regard to other changes, the chief executive tumu kaimahi power to authorise the monitoring of visits will now be unable to be delegated to a prison staff member to recognise its potential to impinge on prisoners’ relationships. I know that there are concerns, raruraru and āwangawanga, about the impact this monitoring could have on family relationships. But this change is important, as Corrections knows that some prisoners use these unmonitored visits as an opportunity to have a kōrero about actions that could undermine the safety and good order of the prison.

The Justice Committee has also agreed that Corrections should be required to report annually on its use of intelligence powers. This is an important change that will boost transparency and accountability.

The komiti has also removed the ability for a prisoner to request a rehearing of a disciplinary charge before a visiting justice when a hearing has proceeded in their absence. This is an important change that will ensure there is a more timely and effective disciplinary process in our prisons. I acknowledge that this may have had some impacts on natural justice, which is why Corrections officers will now be required to provide evidence that the prisoner has refused to attend the hearing.

The Justice Committee has also made some changes to the process for prisoners segregated to address their risk of self-harm. This bill proposes a requirement for these prisoners to be visited daily by a health professional. While this already happens in practice, it’s important that the legislation sets this as a requirement. During these visits, staff will consider whether the decision to segregate these prisoners should be reviewed and whether their at-risk assessment should be reviewed.

The hard-working Justice Committee—very diligent—has replaced references to non-lethal weapons with less lethal weapons. This is in response to feedback from submitters and to recognise guidance released by the United Nations—that austere body—that all weapons used can potentially have fatal consequences.

The definition of “prisoner calls” has been updated to include video calls in addition to audio calls to better reflect the original policy intent.

The bill now provides for the expanded use of body imaging searches of prisoners to further prevent introduction of contraband such as tarukino, drugs, and cellphones from entering prisons. This will ensure the legislation provides flexibility to adapt future technologies and better supports kaimahi safety. The bill also now exempts communications between prisoners and advocates acting in their statutory role under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act from being monitored for intelligence purposes.

I also referred an Amendment Paper to the very professional committee, which they agreed be incorporated into the bill. Thank you to the chair of that committee. This paper was one of 100-day commitments. It emphasised the importance of rehabilitation for prisoners. The bill now creates a strong expectation for Corrections to provide remand convicted prisoners access to rehabilitative programmes such as special treatment units for sexual and violent offending. Kei te mihi ki ēnei mahi. [I acknowledge this work.] It also has stronger requirements for Corrections to provide remand prisoners with access to non - offence-based programmes.

The bill will help achieve my priorities and support Corrections to achieve its core purpose of improved prison and public safety, as well as managing sentences safely, securely, humanely, and effectively. These changes in the bill will help tautoko and support corrections officers in the important mahi that they carry out on a daily basis in prisons. These changes will also contribute to better outcomes for victims by enabling greater oversight of prisoner communications, support the hauora or wellbeing of prisoners, and ensure our prisons operate effectively and efficiently.

I want to conclude by again thanking all those who have contributed to the development of this bill, this pire. It is great to see this important mahi progressed to this stage and I look forward to us debating, having a taukumekume and a taupatupatu, on the bill in more detail during the committee of the whole House. I commend this bill to this Whare, this House. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on the Corrections Amendment Bill. I will be choosing my words a little bit differently from the words that the previous speaker, Tama Potaka, has chosen to provide—a very vanilla and a very understated and slightly inaccurate version of the events that have come before us as we get to this stage, which is the second reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill.

Can I just say, as a way of providing a little bit of background, that this bill once served a mighty purpose. This bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government around the middle of last year. And this bill, ordinarily, one would say, contains several measures that serve a mighty purpose to improve and to update the Corrections Amendment Act for the benefit of both the safety of prisoners, for staff, and for modernising some of the practices that happen in our corrections facilities. But what has happened and what has transpired through the process getting to this stage is the bill has radically changed, in so far as I can only describe it as having been gutted. It has had a very serious amendment made to it, which means that the bill is no longer recognisable in so far as its intent. It is no longer underpinned and grounded in anything that it needs to be able to do and to have the efficacy that is required, so it should come as no surprise to anybody in this House that whilst Labour introduced this bill, this is no longer a bill that we will be able to support.

If we take a couple of steps back, before we start to specify directly what’s so incredibly wrong with this bill now, as it stands, what it could have done was set out a series of measures—it was going to, as the previous speaker so blandly acknowledged, modernise the Act by introducing some new powers, enabling the Corrections department to monitor and collect and use and disclose prisoner communications and information sources for intelligence a little bit more modernly, a little bit more robustly, because times have moved on. It was also going to make changes to the disciplinary process, as has been described, in prisons to ensure that the process is more timely, to ensure that it incentivises the conduct of good behaviour, and it was going to enable some limited mixing of remand prisoners and convicted prisoners so that they could complete rehabilitation—I want to hold on to that one point for a little bit longer. We were also going to strengthen the processes for authorising the use of lethal weapons within our prison facilities.

But if we go back to the point above, this is all about rehabilitation, because this is what the Corrections department should be all about. And when we think of that third point—enabling the mixing of remand prisoners and convicted prisoners to complete rehabilitation programmes—there have been some adjustments in this bill. But the changes made at the Justice Committee were twofold, so let me explain. It enabled Corrections to provide access to offence-based rehabilitation programmes for remand convicted prisoners as well as remand accused prisoners, as introduced. And, look, the Minister of Corrections has made an absolute song and dance about that on many occasions, touting that as being some sort of massively innovative measure that he has introduced into this bill. The reality is, he’s just extended it slightly. We acknowledge that people in prisons are on remand for far too long, and, therefore, for many people, there’s been no opportunity to engage in any rehabilitative process. We can see there’s a need for that, hence the fact we introduced it.

But the second change that was made through the select committee process was that Cabinet directed that Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions, the principles that were grounded in the Treaty, be removed from the bill—including the removal of the definition of “cultural activities”. There was a suite of clauses that were to be there that were to be there for the explicit purpose of guiding everything else that I’ve just spoken about. None of those measures are now grounded in the appropriate legislative foundation explicitly outlining and explicitly stating how we would give effect to the Treaty, because we need to for no other reason than we need to. And if we do need another reason, we only have to look at the fact that Māori are severely overrepresented in the prison system.

At some point, we have to do better. At some point, someone’s got to get up, make some changes, embed things in a legislative way where this Parliament actually says to a department, “Here are our expectations. We don’t want you to write up a strategy document; we’ve got that. We don’t want you to just report back once a year or every now and again that you’re on track, that you’ve got this operationalised in a way that will actually make a difference. We are setting out our expectations to say this is a legislative foundation and, by hell or high water, you bloody well better make the mark work.”

So I’m livid at the fact that this has been changed, and this is an absolute kick in the guts for all the people who have contributed to informing those principles. Iwi and Māori experts throughout the country had been involved in the development of these draft Treaty provisions, as rightly so. In the Cabinet paper, Mark Mitchell had the audacity of saying that Corrections had already operationalised the programmes. And, look, they may well have, but we can’t necessarily take the word of a department who at the moment are struggling to do the bare necessities correctly. They are struggling to provide the legal minimum requirements—for all sorts of reasons. It’s not from a lack of wanting to, but we’re now asking that same department to say, “Hey, we’ll leave it up to you about whether we actually ever start making any progress and redressing all of the things that are wrong with the imprisonment rates for Māori.”

It’s an absolute cop out, and I’m really disappointed that the Minister has done this and that we haven’t, so far, been able to hear from him. It’s an absolute cop out, because the coalition has explicitly shown that it would rather do a poor job of amending this bill, it would rather get it wrong and it would rather waste the opportunity of getting it right, than it would to be seen in participating in what is only an imaginary separatism agenda that they have created to form a base. I just think that that is shameful; it is a dog whistle. There is absolutely no reason to have this removed from this legislation apart from the fact that you want to go on the talking trail and after-dinner circuit and tell people that you’ve done it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please don’t use the word “you”.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Apologies, Madam Speaker. So that is, if we’re ticking off a list of priorities, then the Government have certainly managed to tick that one off, and I think it’s incredibly shameful.

Mark Mitchell also said, and he noted that officials considered, quite rightly so, that it would likely raise concerns. Removing these provisions would likely raise concerns given the significant overrepresentation of Māori in the corrections system. Well, he certainly put paid to that, didn’t he? Because he did so at the last minute. He ripped them out without any ability to go back and to consult, without any ability to reopen submissions as he had done a month prior when he wanted to extend the ability for remand accused people to have access to rehabilitation. And we were certainly able to ventilate that, to open that back up for submissions, to hear from experts, many of whom provided incredibly valuable information—and I’d like to take the opportunity to thank them. But when it comes to this, there was no such opportunity provided.

The cynic in me says, if this was part of the Government’s 100-day plan, then there was no reason why this removal of these principles shouldn’t have been well signalled, shouldn’t have been well accounted for, and shouldn’t have been included in the Amendment Paper that was taken that did afford the opportunity for some feedback. It feels a little rough that it wasn’t done that way, that it was simply done at the last minute, and there has been no means to be able to take any recourse. But here we are at the second reading and this is the only opportunity we have to ventilate those concerns—and I encourage my colleagues to also do the same.

As I said, it’s disappointing. The Corrections bill does need to be amended and it does need to be modernised. There are things within this amendment bill that are worthy and that are good, but they have all been overshadowed by this despicable move, and Labour does not commend this bill to the House.

I omitted to say before the previous speaker that the question is that the motion be agreed to. So I will say now, the question is that the motion be agreed to, and call on Tamatha Paul, who was on her feet prior to me saying that. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. The three things that I want to cover off and focus my attention on in regards to this bill today is, one, the process that has led us to the second reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill, and particularly focusing on the removal of Treaty provisions. The second point I want to focus on is why we need Treaty provisions in the first place, and the third point is why I think that Corrections should not feel confident or comfortable to remove these crucial provisions from within their Act.

Let’s talk about the process first. Here’s a bit of a time line for you. The bill came to us at the Justice Committee, and the purpose of the bill was, in my view, to make it easier to spy on prisoners and to monitor their communications with the outside world more closely. It outlined a process for the Minister to sign off on the use of non-lethal weapons so that we can physically harm people in prison into acting accordingly, but not so much that we kill them. Finally, it allows for prisons to mix up accused and convicted people within prisons, going completely against international conventions like the Mandela rules, which are in place to protect the rights of people in prisons, because that is the truth about human rights: you have them by virtue of being a human being, regardless of your actions.

We had a whole range of people come and talk to us, and organisations, and tell us about what they felt about these changes. Some of those submitters even praised the work that Corrections had been doing in honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And that was the one opportunity that the public had to share their opinions and feedback on the bill. And then, on 2 May, we were advised that the Treaty provisions would be removed from the bill, and, even worse, nobody would get to have a say on such a major decision, because the feedback was already collected. And I guarantee you: if those people and those organisations knew what was being proposed by the Government, and the removal of those Treaty provisions, then they would have made very different submissions.

What’s worse is that we had advisers from the ministry come in and give evidence as to why they support the removal of Treaty provisions from Corrections. What concerns me the most is how deeply undemocratic it is that Corrections would recommend this on the basis that Cabinet told them to do it. We have an important democratic role on select committees to scrutinise the decisions of the Government on behalf of all New Zealanders. But how are we supposed to do that when the advice we receive is predicated on decisions made by Cabinet—not on evidence, not on the actual performance of the department, but on the opinions and views of Cabinet, as opposed to what we know to be true, which is this: not one person within Corrections can tell me that they are not failing Māori, and, in doing so, are not failing the whole country. Corrections have no leg to stand on when it comes to giving out advice on the Treaty.

But why do we need Treaty provisions in the first place? It’s no secret that Māori are overrepresented in the justice system, and I’m getting sick of hearing it and I’m getting sick of saying it. But I will repeat it for the record, because despite the fact that Māori make up just 17 percent of the population, we represent 52.8 percent of the total prison population. And for wahine Māori, that’s even worse—that’s even higher at 57 percent of the total female prison population. And just 30 years ago, that figure was 20 percent. In the span of my lifetime, the proportion of wahine Māori in prison has increased threefold, to the point where Māori women are the most imprisoned indigenous women in the world, and that’s compared to United States, Canada, and Australia.

It’s clear that Corrections and our Government have accepted this shameful reality, but have not accepted any actual responsibility for intentionally bringing us to this place. Why won’t they just be honest in saying they’d rather lock up young Māori and waste such great human potential because they’re too stingy to actually provide people with the stable home, a livable income, and actual opportunities to imagine a different life for themselves that exists outside of prison walls? What good is it for politicians and the leadership within Corrections and Justice to go on about how Māori are more heavily policed, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, more likely to get caught up in cycles of intergenerational imprisonment, if they’re not willing to do anything about it, or, more accurately, if they want to make the issue worse by acting as if the overrepresentation isn’t a consequence of colonisation?

Tracey Mckintosh and Tā Kim Workman in 2017 published extensive research about Māori and Pacific people in the justice system. Prisons were introduced in New Zealand not to punish the lawless Pākehā that were running around raping and pillaging villages; they were introduced as a tool to imprison the dispossessed, disenfranchised, and to torture Māori. Prisons are a tool of colonisation, and the fact that they are packed with brown people just tells you that they are a reminder that colonisation still happens today. And without Te Tiriti, there really is no reason for Corrections to reflect on their decisions or the consequences of their actions.

I want to acknowledge that there is transformational, life-changing work happening between people in prisons and kaupapa Māori providers, iwi, hapū, and other organisations who utilise whakapapa, reo Māori, mātauranga Māori to help people to heal people’s views of themselves and of the world around them and reflect on the harm that they’ve caused. But prisons shouldn’t be the first and only opportunity for people to engage with who they are and where they come from, and Corrections needs to do more than give us empty commitments to honour Te Tiriti; it needs to be enshrined in their governing legislation so that every person exercising powers under the Corrections Act is bound by this obligation.

The last point I want to make is that I genuinely don’t understand how Corrections can feel comfortable or confident in honouring their responsibilities under Te Tiriti, to the extent where they think they can do away with it altogether. Corrections are not even capable of meeting people’s basic human rights, let alone further commitments under Te Tiriti. And the Ombudsman summarises it perfectly in his Kia Whaitake report. He said, “After considering all the evidence, I consider the senior leadership of the Department is overly optimistic about the organisation’s performance. This has a direct impact on the ability of the Department to undertake a true exposition on the issues that need addressing.”

I think the most stark and accurate representation of the corrections system is that prisons are a storage unit, a people storage unit of containment and management. And here’s some of the realities for some people in prison. They’re left in isolation for 23 hours a day, and in segregation for over a year, in some cases. Proper visitation rights for families and prisoners have not resumed since the COVID-19 lockdowns. Minimum entitlement to one hour of exercise in the open air per day is not being met. There are sixteen hours between breakfast and dinner for some people in prison, and CCTV filming people going to the toilet and undressing. And that’s why 19 percent of people in prison have attempted suicide, because the experience of being in prison is so deeply degrading.

To finish, I’d like to seek leave to table a letter that I received from Stephen Robert Wilson, currently sitting in a prison in South Auckland. This document contains medical records showing that Mr Wilson was paralysed down the right side of his body and parts of the left side of his body while being transported to Ngāwhā Prison from Kaitāia court. He wrote to us to describe how he has to lie on his back and shower himself in prison, on the ground because the facilities aren’t accessible. He has been awaiting parole and rotting in prison because it is impossible to find suitable housing that meets his needs, because Mr Wilson is in a wheelchair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is none. Thank you. Please carry on.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

TAMATHA PAUL: Thank you. Every aspect of Mr Wilson’s mana has been degraded. His dignity is stripped away every time he lies on the cold concrete floor to wash himself. It’s clear through stories like Mr Wilson’s, and through reports, that Corrections fails to meet basic human rights, particularly those conventions around torture and minimum standards for people in prison. We have to accept that even humans who have created harm are still entitled to basic human rights. Corrections is failing to meet these basic human rights, so the fact that they think that they can meet their obligations under Te Tiriti when they’re already failing to do the basics is laughable, and this bill just reinforces the worst parts of Corrections. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Corrections Amendment Bill. I think we’ve just heard, actually, from the Greens that we actually have a different perspective, maybe, on some criminal justice matters on these different sides of the House. What this bill is actually trying to do is modernise aspects of our corrections system. We on this side, on the Government side, accept that people do need to be locked up, they do need to be incarcerated to protect members of the community, and what this bill does is attempt to modernise some of the circumstances in which they are incarcerated and what can be done.

I also do want to say thanks to the members of the Justice Committee, from all of the parties. This was a bill, as I think has been outlined, that was started in the 53rd Parliament and came across to this Parliament. I do want to say that all members of the Justice Committee, regardless of what party they were from, actually did work diligently to make improvements to this bill, and that is reflected in the report that we made back to the House.

Again, I think the Minister of Corrections, in introducing the second reading, did talk about some of the more significant things that this does. I do think, with the Amendment Paper, being able to offer rehabilitation to remand accused and to remand convicted prisoners is important. Let’s get them on the track to some rehabilitation as soon as possible. Again, there are obviously other modernising provisions and, you know, language that was updated by the select committee.

I do note that this bill is some 46 pages long, and then there’s also the Amendment Paper. I have, obviously, heard from both speakers from the Labour Party and the Greens about their concerns around the removal of the Treaty provisions. Let me be clear: this Government, in its coalition agreements, does have a commitment to actually looking at how the Treaty is being operationalised across Government. That work is under way, and so putting in at this stage these provisions when that work is still ongoing is not appropriate.

I think the other thing we would say from ACT is we’re also looking forward to having a mature and grown-up conversation about what the Treaty means in modern New Zealand, and I do look forward to engaging with all New Zealanders and everyone in this House when we bring our Treaty principles bill forward so we can actually have some clarity about what the principles of the Treaty are, and we say that is the actual articles of the Treaty. So, again, I look forward to having that discussion—it seems like some of the members already want to have it, but we will do that in due course. So, again, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to voice New Zealand First’s support for the Corrections Amendment Bill and the Government’s intention to improve our corrections system.

The Justice Committee that I’m a member of has strengthened the bill to ensure that it provides Corrections with the necessary tools to continue to maintain the safety and security of our prisons. We received over 44 submissions and we heard from 19 of them and, as we’ve heard through the debate already today, we received a number of good intentions and the committee was able to make a number of changes. On that basis, and with this going through the House, I will commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Marama Davidson: Madam Speaker?

The Hon Marama Davidson—and can I say it’s good to see you here, thank you.

I appreciate and will firstly acknowledge all of the love and aroha that I have received from across the House—is truly a beautiful thing. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this, the Corrections Amendment Bill. In actual fact, I will just pick up on some of the previous comments that I’ve just been hearing this morning and want to acknowledge the expertise of my colleague Tamatha Paul in this particular space.

Firstly, around Treaty principles, and I know that this legislation concentrates a lot on the changes and around the conversation of the role of Te Tiriti; the role of recognising the unique status of Māori as tangata whenua; mātauranga Māori leadership; kaupapa Māori practices methods, especially as they pertain to corrections work and their importance. We must not only not undermine that work but actually supercharge Tiriti, mana motuhake, the role of kaupapa Māori and Māori leadership in corrections legislation, practice, and provisions.

There was a comment mentioned earlier about this country having a mature conversation. My goodness, where has that member been? We have been having generations—generations—of conversations on marae, in community, in whānau. I’m really glad that we have got generations of experience of Māori, non-Māori, tangata Tiriti working together, living together, and actually improving our taiao, improving our social justice, improving our community relationships by having exactly that: a mature conversation, not one that whips into fear and racism; not one that whips and dials into ignorance. It’s actually one that upholds a vision for Aotearoa that builds us and brings us together in the very unique taonga that Te Tiriti is. So I’m just putting really clearly on record that in this current bill you have got the Treaty provisions around clauses 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, and 19, particularly that relate to access to mātauranga Māori as far as is practicable and that’s always sounding good and we need to ensure what that actually means in practice; so that’s good.

I also wanted to pick up—oh, jeez, that clock goes fast, doesn’t it?—in my particular contribution on the rehabilitation methods. I will draw on my experience as a former Minister for prevention of violence and the privilege that I had of working across Corrections and ensuring that Corrections itself was improving on the pathway to improving its own practice—to recognising, for example, having trauma-informed indicators of recognising the dynamics of when violence has been present in a person’s background; when they are using violence, when they have used violence, what are the correct trauma-informed and rehabilitative supports? The overwhelming—overwhelming—evidence of kaupapa Māori practices in a way that can actually apply to prisoners of all backgrounds, to rehabilitative efforts for people in prisons from all backgrounds, from all communities, that actually ensures full accountability—full accountability.

Now, listen, the thing about hohou te rongo [making peace between entities], the thing about true restoration and rehabilitative practice is it actually is about bringing fuller accountability and accountability that is beyond just prison bars, which often does not even begin to bring accountability—real accountability—to the people who have been caused harm, and that those rehabilitative efforts, especially the evidence kaupapa Māori - type practices that have been well, well praised by report after report after report, and if this Government is going to maintain a responsibility to ensure that they are being further supported rather than the ongoing funding cuts that we have continued to see through legislation after legislation in this House through this Government already. So I am again thankful for the opportunity to put on record the Greens—are we voting for this or against this?

Tamatha Paul: Strongly against.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Strongly against—strongly against—because of the points that I’ve just outlined, and Tamatha Paul tells me that it’s because it sucks. Strongly against this bill. So thank you, Madam Speaker.

The honourable member who’s just resumed her seat, I extend my very best wishes to you as well.

Can I just acknowledge the Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson as well.

On behalf of the busy and effective Justice Committee, I’d like to just thank all the officials and the advisers for their work on this bill. We made a number of significant and substantive changes to the bill, which I think have strengthened protections not only for corrections officers but for prisoners in prisons as well. I’d like to thank the Opposition members of the Justice Committee, in particular Dr Webb and Dr McLellan, for the constructive engagement on those changes too.

Look, the one thing I wanted to highlight was that before this bill went through the House—or it goes through the House—prisoners on remand would not have been entitled to rehabilitation. After this bill passes that will no longer be the case; they will be entitled to rehabilitation. The only reason that happens is because of the intervention of the Hon Mark Mitchell. That is leadership and that is why I commend the bill to the House.

Oh well, what a disappointing and shameful speech from that member. This is another day, another attack on the Treaty by this Government, who continue to use Māori as a political punching bag. I’m disappointed with that member. I thought he would do a bit better than that, given that he’s the great brown hope, but clearly not the case.

Can I just start off—I wanted to acknowledge the passing of Keith Locke, if I could just for a second, because he was a really terrific advocate for kaupapa right across society and kaupapa Māori too. I worked with Keith in the freezing works in the mid-1980s and we came to Parliament together in 1999—about the same time Simeon Brown was born. I just want to acknowledge him and his whānau and all of his advocacy, particularly for kaupapa Māori. And I was just saying to my whanaunga Marama over here: well done, in terms of going to his tangi. Nō reira e te hoa, e kore mātou e wareware tō kaha ki te kōkiri i ngā kaupapa Māori. Nō reira e Keith, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. [And so, my friend, we will never forget your strength in progressing Māori initiatives. And so, Keith, rest in peace.]

We are concerned about this bill. I have been listening to some of the kōrero and it’s a sad, sad day when Treaty provisions are removed from this type of legislation. I’m particularly disappointed with those Māori members over there, because I don’t understand what Treaty principles they’re scared of. I was having a glance through—I’ve seen them a million times, as I’m sure these members have, over there—and I was looking at the general principles and some of the principles are: “The main purpose of the Treaty was to ensure that both parties … would live together peacefully and develop New Zealand together in partnership.” Oh, Jesus, how frightening! Isn’t that frightening! Wouldn’t you just want to remove that from the legislation after hearing that, Madam Speaker? I mean: “The main purpose was to ensure both parties … would live together peacefully and develop New Zealand together in partnership.”

Now, “The Treaty does this by assuring Māori that their interests will be protected and confirming citizen equality.” Again, for those members, because I’m just not sure if they’ve looked at what they’ve kicked out of this legislation—“The Treaty signifies a partnership between Māori and the Crown, and requires the partners to act reasonably and with the utmost good faith. Partnership requires that each party have a voice in how the relationship is managed. This requires good faith and consultation with Māori groups on decisions affecting them all.” Oh, Jesus, that’s so frightening too, isn’t it? Isn’t that frightening, National? Oh, well, we’d better get that out of there. We better get that out of the legislation. Also, “The Crown has a duty to actively protect Māori in the use of their lands, fisheries, forests, and other treasured possessions, both tangible and intangible, such as language, culture and sacred places.” And “The Crown has a duty to remedy past breaches of the Treaty.”

I do not understand the fear of the Justice Committee. I do not understand why they found that this was so necessary to kick out of legislation. I’m sure Mr Meager might want to explain this to me later on. Is it because they’re upsetting their mates on the other side? I just cannot work out in my mind why the chair, why the Minister, Tama Potaka, could agree with this, because I was looking at Minister Potaka and I was thinking: is there one—one—Māori advocate, one Māori friend of his who would support this legislation? I don’t think there would be one.

I was thinking about Kim Workman—what a magnificent advocate he has been for our people, a magnificent advocate. Tracey McIntosh—you couldn’t get better with these sorts of people, all talking about how important the Treaty is. They all know Minister Potaka so well. My uncle, Moana Jackson, one of his heroes—I wonder what Uncle Moana would think now. One of his best friends, Che Wilson. They’re buddies, you know. I wonder if Che Wilson would support this. Jamie Tuuta—I mean, he’s sort of the leader of everything. The Minister would have appointed him to everything. I wonder what Jamie Tuuta would think about this. Julian Wilcox—I don’t think the Minister will have a friend soon because he wouldn’t have one friend, one Māori advocate, who would support this rotten legislation.

It is rotten legislation, even though they have said that they will keep supporting tikanga Māori and what not. But the Prime Minister said earlier this year, in front of Māori leadership, that he will honour the Treaty. That’s what he said. Yet this Government is removing the Treaty provisions and legislation left, right, and centre. They say one thing and they do another. They have said they will not support the Treaty principles bill past a second reading, but then they do this type of nonsense. How can Māori have any faith in a Government that double talks—double talks. The Minister for Māori Development over there—yes, yes, we all like him. You know, can’t help liking him. However, he is part of the strategy. Stand up, Tama. Stand up against your mates in National. That’s what your Māori mates are saying. They’re sick of this removal of legislation. Now there’s an attack on the Waitangi Tribunal. So the Treaty is not being honoured and we’re stripping Treaty obligations out of Corrections.

This isn’t social policy. It’s petty point scoring for worse outcomes. It’s in coordination with what’s happening with section 7AA out of Oranga Tamariki. I have to say that I just don’t understand where this National Party is coming from, given the history, a proud history, and work from people like Bill English, who I caught up with over the weekend, and Anne Tolley. These are people who have—well, you need to have a talk to him, because you and the kid have no idea of National Party history. You know, you had a National Party who worked in tandem with Māori, Mr Meager. You worked in tandem with the Māori Party, inserted section 7AA, but now you’re removing it from legislation.

The Government assures the iwi social services community that they want to keep their services but just don’t want to be obligated to them. So how long will the assurance last? That’s the key. This legislation is offensive to Māori. Mr Meager doesn’t understand that. This is what people are saying. You are removing the Treaty obligations for the incarceration of indigenous people when Māori are so grotesquely overrepresented in our prisons. And you have the audacity, Mr Meager, to call that justice—you, the chair of the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Speaker is not the chair of the Justice Committee.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Madam Speaker—my apologies. We all seem to go down that track every now and then, in terms of—.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll get you back on track.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Madam Speaker. But the point today is these Treaty obligations need to be enshrined in legislation.

James Meager: Why?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You see, whilst I’ve heard—well, well, just listen, listen. We’re trying to explain it to you that it’s all right to say, “Well, yes, we can still do the Māori thing, we can do the mana wāhine thing, we can do all that.”, but if there’s no commitment, if it’s not entrenched, then anybody can come along and just change things. That’s why Kelvin Davis did such a wonderful job in entrenching this in legislation. That’s why he was an exceptional corrections Minister. No, he didn’t get everything right. No one gets everything right. But we had a move in terms of rehabilitation and getting tikanga Māori entrenched into the system. So I’m proud of the work that Kelvin Davis did.

I’m proud of the work that the previous Labour Government has done in terms of making New Zealanders aware of their Treaty obligations. This is not about forcing the Treaty down people’s throats; this is about us working in partnership, working in tandem. The other side, sadly, led by fools like Mr Meager over there and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Was that going a bit far?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That is unparliamentary.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Unparliamentary; I apologise for that. I know that he can take it well. But the reality is this is about bringing society along and, seriously, we need Mr Meager, we need Mr Potaka over there, we need Mr MacLeod over there, too. Also, we need these Māori to be aware of what their people are saying, which is: entrench the Treaty, support tikanga Māori, support kaupapa Māori, and show some courage instead of being gutless Māoris. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill, which, of course, amends the 2004 Act, improving rehabilitation, reintegration, and safety outcomes for people in prisons, as well as enabling best practice operations for the Department of Corrections. As our hard-working and very able Justice Committee chair, James Meager, reminded us, the bill incorporates Minister Mark Mitchell’s Amendment Paper to deliver rehabilitation for rehab prisoners. This Government and this bill backs our around 10,000 corrections staff, who work every day to protect the public and ensure that offenders receive the help they need to turn their lives around. I commend the bill.

We’ve got a split call. The first call is from the Labour Party—Tangi Utikere.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Look, I rise and speak in opposition to the Corrections Amendment Bill this morning. It’s been made quite clear by previous speakers on this side of the House that when this bill was introduced, there was an intention that many components within the bill were to be supported, and, of course, the safety for staff and all personnel in prisons throughout Aotearoa New Zealand is always of paramount consideration. But the removal of provisions that relate to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is nothing short of foul. It is nothing short of foul, and alongside the definition of “cultural activities” and, basically, a complete removal of that is going to be not just disproportionate but it will lead to significantly worse outcomes in prisons, particularly by not meeting the needs of those who are there. This bill, I think, had the potential to do many great things, actually. But the reality is that it is, basically, undermined by the removal of that specific provision that relates to Te Tiriti, and so it is on that basis that we will not be supportive of it.

You know, prisons are very interesting places, and many members in this House who have had opportunities to visit or to be involved will reflect on that for themselves. This bill, I note, reflects and impacts directly on the work that visiting justices do, and I do want to spend a bit of time on that because some folk who are listening may not know what visiting justices do. Well, there are around about 20 of them in New Zealand, and prior to coming to this place, I was one of them for five years, as a visiting justice undertaking discipline hearings in prisons around Aotearoa New Zealand. Usually, it’d be two weeks, actually; often on a Friday.

The make-up is about 50 percent lawyers and 50 percent judicial justices of the peace, and what they do is they go into prisons every single week. They hear matters that relate to allegations of charges against internal discipline, and there is a range of particular penalties that might be imposed by a visiting justice. There is also a hearing adjudicator, and this bill seeks the functions and the powers that a hearing adjudicator would have. The powers that a hearing adjudicator has are at a lower threshold than those of a visiting justice, but visiting justices can impose self-confinement time or a loss of privileges for, in some instances, up to 90 days, or three months, and they can impose a monetary penalty and the like.

So the implication on those who are in prisons, whether they be prisoners or whether they be staff members, is still quite significant, and there are some changes in here that actually, in isolation, might not be that bad. They’re pretty straightforward, actually. They relate to, for example, including an audio link or a visual link rather than a specific audiovisual link—those sorts of things. But the reality is that the changes that are underpinned by the removal of Te Tiriti provisions mean that the operations and the way in which these powers would be exercised by visiting justices and also by hearing adjudicators is somewhat curtailed.

For example, the suggestion that the Justice Committee has made by majority is to remove the ability for a prisoner to request a rehearing before a visiting justice when a hearing had proceeded in their absence. Now, I’ve conducted many hearings in the absence of prisoners in prisons, but it would always be open to some form of response from a prisoner—for example, maybe there was an administrative error, or maybe there was a miscommunication. Why should any person who is charged with any potential misconduct be subject to having their rights, basically, curtailed on the basis of having some evidence from a corrections staff member to say that they were otherwise indisposed or they’d refused?

I’ve had many hearings, actually, where charges have been dismissed because of the nature of some of the information or the processes that were involved in prisons, and I know that my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson has said that, well, we can all do things better. But, basically, throwing out a provision that empowers a significant majority of the people who are in New Zealand’s prisons is not the right way to go, and that is exactly what this bill does. It seeks to curtail the provision that would have significant implications in a positive way to make real differences for everyone in prisons, not just for prisoners but for staff and the nature of the way that they go about their daily duties—and they do that so admirably—and also the community network that works alongside them, as well. So, on that basis, there is no other option but to oppose this particular bill.

Ka taunaki au i te pire nei. [I support this bill.]

Thank you. Yes, a very brief contribution. Short—not to the point.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Such a lack of respect for the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It really is disrespectful. What’s happened to this bill is actually indicative of the difference between this side of the House and our approach to corrections and the justice system and that side of the House, because it was, I believe, an ex-National MP who said that prisons are a moral and fiscal failure. And I would absolutely recommend to every MP to go and visit a prison, as you’re entitled to do under the Corrections Act, and to fully exercise that right, because it’s not a right to be shown around a prison; it’s a right to go yourself and choose what to see. So go and choose what to see in a prison. Go to the most confronting parts of those prisons—the high security wards, the cells where they’re being double-bunked. Go and see what those prisoners have for lunch, because it’s grim.

One of the real challenges is that prisons, as they’re currently framed, are dehumanising. They disassociate people from their family and from where they come from, and that’s a challenge. We’ve seen in recent days and weeks, as we’ve examined the Estimates and talked to officials in the Justice Committee, how much our prisons struggle. And this bill is adding to it. We’ve seen the corrections officials and Minister admit that they can’t meet their minimum obligations—minimum legal obligations—in respect of prisoners.

The last Government introduced a bill which struck a balance between the unfortunate necessities that accompany incarceration—the need to have information, the need to monitor communications, the need to exercise physical restraint and so on—but, at the same time, on this side of the House, we are committed to a corrections system that does what it says. That is building a corrections system over time which sees people better when they leave than when they went in. And we acknowledge that right now that doesn’t exist. It’s only in a few instances that we can achieve that. But we were making progress. And Hōkai Rangi—the Te Ara Poutama strategy; the corrections strategy—outlined that. It outlined the commitments to achieve a corrections framework that gave mana to the inmates and worked particularly in reducing the recidivism rates of Māori by providing tools to them to be better people when they leave than when they went in.

I’ve heard today, and I won’t repeat, the statistics of the significant overrepresentation of Māori in our corrections system. The Treaty of Waitangi clause in this bill was part of that. It was recognising that since the Treaty was signed, the Crown and the Government have failed. And one of the symptoms of that failure is the overrepresentation of Māori in the corrections system. And we don’t buy in to the narrative that treating everyone the same is addressing that failure, because the wrongs weren’t treating everyone the same, so putting them right isn’t going to be achieved by treating everyone the same.

It’s not like it was particularly onerous to simply recognise that there are cultural differences and an obligation to lift people up where historically they’ve been trodden down. And the suggestion by the Minister and the Government that “Don’t worry, they’ll do it anyway.” just doesn’t hold water, because the conduct and behaviour from the chief executive to the prison officers to the people who are in the kitchens is directed by the Minister and the Government. And this Minister and this Government is making it very clear that they don’t care about Māori overrepresentation in the justice system.

Hon David Seymour: Oh my God!

Hon Member: Rubbish.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, some people can moan, but then they can also point out that a hundred million dollars has been taken out of the Corrections budget. So $3.5 million of that is out of the high impact programme—the very programme that was designed to identify people and programmes whose lives could be transformed by modest changes. And you can have statements like, “We’re just saving $43 million by changing back-office expenditure.” But you know what that back-office expenditure is? It’s exactly the kinds of things that would make the Department of Corrections’ conduct not only compliant with Treaty obligations, which is kind of lofty and intellectual, but, at the end of the day, recognising each inmate individually and returning them to the community in a better space than they were and more equipped to be effective citizens than they were.

That Government is building prisons. Building prisons is to justice what building cemeteries is to health—it’s a sign of giving up. On this side of the House, we won’t give up. We will use all of the tools. Yes, there’s some good things here. The idea that remand prisoners should have access to programmes which aren’t offence-based but can address some of the issues which they face, which might be addiction issues or they might be education issues—yes, that’s good. But the idea that access to cultural programme is wrong—because that’s been deleted from the legislation as well. The idea that the corrections system should be an appropriate cultural fit—I mean, what is so alarming and frightening with that? In the way it’s framed in the proposed legislation, it’s not even Māori-specific. Certainly, Māori have a particular claim to have the services delivered in a way which is appropriate to their cultural background and to be culturally connected, where appropriate, with their whānau and with their iwis. And cultural programmes which do that have been shown to be more effective.

Now, these trials and programmes are still out there, but in the face of this kind of ministerial leadership, in the face of these kinds of budget cuts, it’s extremely difficult to hear, on the other side of the House, them say, “Don’t worry. Corrections is still committed to adhering to the Treaty of Waitangi.”, because it just lies fallow in their mouths. So I go back to my original challenge, which is to go to the prisons. Go and don’t just visit but look. Because when you look there and ask yourself, “What is the purpose of our corrections system?”, the purpose at the moment, from the other side, is simply to incarcerate, not to improve. So I hope that on that side of the House, they’ll change their approach, change their philosophy, and start improving people’s lives, rather than just hiding them away.

The Corrections Amendment Bill enables the Corrections Act 2004 to deal better with the challenges that Corrections faces today. It incentivises good behaviour, it strengthens processes, and it enables best-practice operations in prisons, particularly in efficiency and safety. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Members: Madam Speaker!

I believe Carl Bates was on his feet. Just to be clear, this is the balance of the Māori Party split call that wasn’t taken.

Madam Speaker, he called for the call before the other speaker had even sat down.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. She didn’t say “Point of order”.

No point of order required. The precedent that has been set—and I did see Carl Bates get to his feet first.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I just clarify something? Is it acceptable, then, to stand up and call before the previous speaker has sat down?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is the person I have called and who will continue.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: My point of order was a different matter. I’m asking for some guidance from the Speaker. Is it acceptable to stand and make a call—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): What’s the point of order?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The point of order is that I’m asking for your guidance and a ruling on this. Is it acceptable to stand and seek a call before the previous speaker has finished their call?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Seeking guidance is not a point of order.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, in that case, the point of order is, straight forwardly, that the person who is now going to speak had stood and sought a call before the previous speaker had completed his call.

And I have called that person—Carl Bates.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a bit of a nonsense. I have made the call, and the member is—

Hon David Seymour: I was just trying to help.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. We are taking the call.

Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is this a different matter?

TANGI UTIKERE: Yes, it is. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to seek some understanding about—this is a new point of order—at what point a member’s call is terminated.

I will take advice and come back to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill will improve the rehabilitation, integration, and safety outcomes in our prisons. It provides Corrections with the necessary tools to maintain and ensure safety and security in our prisons. It provides remand prisoners with access to rehabilitation. I commend the work of the chair and the Justice Committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to.