Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2)

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I rise to complete the call interrupted by the rising of the House just a couple of weeks ago before the adjournment. The Labour Party supports the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). Significant progress has been made in this area over the last decade, but much still needs to be done.

I will note some of the progress that has been achieved over the last 10 years under Labour. The number of prison escapes per 100 prisoners was just one-sixth of the number of escapes 10 years ago, under the previous National Government. That means a fall of 84 percent in the rate of escapes. Drug taking in prisons is down by 84 percent. Fewer inmates are returning positive drug-tests. Labour made it significantly more difficult for people to escape, by putting in 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing. A lot of progress was made in the area of increased security and surveillance against contraband, such as new security fences and electronic devices and monitoring. Increased surveillance included a doubling in the number of drug-dog teams, to 12.

All those operational initiatives need support, and this bill aims to complement those operational initiatives. It aims to crack down on drug use in prisons, eliminate the illicit use of cellphones, enhance powers of search in relation to inmates and to those working in prisons, and adopt a zero-tolerance approach towards staff who pass contraband to prisoners. Penalties will go up from 3 months to a year in prison, and the maximum fine will double to $5,000.

The bill authorises the electronic detection and jamming of all cellphones used within prisons, and it extends prison powers to enable inmates’ mail to be screened for unlawful or harmful communications. In doing so the bill makes consistent the ruling that applies to both telephone communications and mail. Finally, the bill creates a penalty for publishing unauthorised communications from inmates that may prejudice the interests of victims.

The men and women of our corrections service do essential work for the community, and we, rightly, expect that our prisons will be secure, safe, and lawful places. This Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) will give those in our corrections service more of the tools they need to do their job. It is a good bill, it is a practical bill, and it was developed by the fifth Labour Government. It was improved in the select committee and was progressed by the current Government to its second and third readings. I call on the House to support this bill. Thank you.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I rise in support of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). As the previous speaker, Phil Twyford, indicated, this bill is supported pretty much without contest between parties or across the House. The fact is that this bill raises and deals to a number of issues that have been waiting in the wings for some time, and it is good to be able to get around to dealing with them.

During the course of the select committee process the Law and Order Committee heard evidence in respect of various parts of the bill from not only advisers but also those working within and outside the prison system. I would like to address some of those issues now. One issue was around the carriage of firearms within prison facilities. The legislation expands the ability of prison staff to be able to use firearms in response to sick or injured animals, and to put them down for humane reasons. To ensure this is clear, the words “sick and injured” were inserted into the bill before the word “animals”. That may seem an unduly precise point to make, but it is the case that firearms are also used for pest destruction and those sorts of activities on prison farms and prison property. Those things were not accounted for in the previous legislation because of concerns, obviously, around firearms and prisoners, and around the health and safety of those living in the vicinity.

It is sad to note, though, that there needed to be some specific powers around the authority to search property. We have found over recent years that the people who come under the most pressure within the prison system are prison officers, particularly from gang members who live within the prison system and who contact gangs on the outside to “get to” prison officers. Unfortunately, under the previous administration—not that that is necessarily an issue—we had prison officers bringing contraband into the prisons. They did not have to undergo search procedures as they came to and from work; neither were their staff lockers searched. This bill means that searches can now be made, without needing a specifically obtained search warrant, of staff quarters and personal areas such as staff lockers during the course of business. It also means that the prison service has the ability to search officers as they come to work, to make them go through a screen, and to check them for contraband coming into prison. It is as much for the protection of the prison officers as it is for the prevention of contraband items inside prisons.

Prisoners may be required to submit to drug or alcohol tests. Previously, drug testing had been on a fairly predictable sort of a regimen. Although people were subjected to random drug-tests, when we scrutinised that we found that the random drug-tests generally happened on a particular day of the week and were fairly predictable. Prisoners could look out the window and see parked outside the drug testers’ vehicles, which they recognised, and they knew they could acquire in one way or another a little sample that they could put in the bottle when it was their turn from some mate who they knew was clean.

This means that the sorts of statistics the previous speaker referred to may not necessarily be that believable because of the predictability of the drug-testing regime. Although we have had an 81 percent drop in recorded drug-use inside jails, the reason for that may have more to do with who is supplying the sample than with who is taking drugs. If any DNA test was done, we might well find that “Prisoner A” was actually supplying 856 samples that went into bottles, and that he was paid well for it.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

Just like my Labour colleagues who have spoken on the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2), I wish to congratulate the Government on progressing this bill—a bill that the previous Labour Government introduced. Fortunately, we have here a bill that has been appropriately scrutinised by the Law and Order Committee.

I wish to reinforce what my Labour colleagues have already articulated in relation to this bill, in that we will happily support legislation we believe to be in the best interests of New Zealanders. Given that this bill was introduced by Labour, it is, of course, in the best interests of New Zealanders. We support the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) wholeheartedly. It is fair to say that Labour is committed to having a modern, effective, fair, and accessible justice system, which makes offenders more accountable, reduces reoffending, helps the victims of crime, and in turn strengthens our communities. It is this commitment that drove the significant level of progress made by Labour during its time in Government.

Let us reflect on that progress. As my colleague Phil Twyford mentioned, the number of prison escapes per 100 prisoners was just one-sixth of what it had been 10 years ago under the last National Government. What does that mean? That means that the escape rate fell by 84 percent. The amount of drug taking in prisons was less than half of what it was when the National Government left office in 1999. The Labour-led Government was able to put effective measures into place to lower the number of drugs making their way into our prisons. This is reinforced by the fact that fewer inmates were returning positive drug-tests.

Under the previous Labour-led Government it was significantly harder for prisoners to escape, due to the additional 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing that was constructed. Labour made progress in its fight against contraband through increased security and surveillance. Increasing the surveillance has included doubling the number of drug-dog teams to 12, and setting up regular checkpoints outside prisons to screen visitors and staff. On top of that, new security fences, electronic security devices and cameras, closed-circuit television, motion detectors, and microwave sensors will be introduced.

I will say it again: Labour is committed to having a modern, effective, fair, and accessible justice system. It was this commitment that ensured that significant progress could be made in this area under the previous Labour Government. But Labour recognised, and continues to recognise, that there is always more work to be done and more progress to be made. Labour has never been a party to rest on its laurels, which is why the Labour-led Government introduced this bill to the House on 3 December 2007. Labour’s intention was—and continues to be—that this bill would complement all of the operational initiatives that I mentioned earlier.

The bill aims to crack down on drug use, to eliminate the illicit use of cellphones in prisons, to enhance powers of search in relation to inmates and for those working in prisons, and to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards staff who pass contraband to prisoners. Penalties will be increased from 3 months to up to a year in prison, and the maximum fine will be doubled to $5,000. The bill aims to authorise the electronic detection and jamming of all cellphones used within prisons, and to extend prison powers to screen inmates’ mail for unlawful or harmful communications. Mail, as well as telephone communications, can be subject to surveillance. The bill aims to create a penalty for publishing unauthorised communications from inmates that prejudice the interests of victims.

As Chester Borrows said, there is no contest regarding this bill. There are measures that need to be put into place to further increase the safety for New Zealanders. We want our prisons to be drug-free. We want our prisoners to be prevented from engaging in criminal activity with outsiders while serving their time in jail. All of these things we agree on. So Labour supports this bill wholeheartedly.

To conclude, I say that we will be voting for this bill; we wrote it. This bill meets the public’s expectations in that it has been subject to select committee scrutiny and New Zealanders have been given the democratic right to participate in the process. This bill is in the best interests of New Zealanders, and Labour supports it wholeheartedly. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

I stand to support the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill will improve the way our corrections facilities are run—addressing the rules of the house, so to speak. The bill provides corrections institutions with increased powers of search and detection—as well as drug testing—in order to remove contraband and increase control of prisoners’ communications with the outside world, particularly around the use of cellphones and the screening of mail.

Although we hear about the previous Labour Government’s commitment to build 17 kilometres of wire fencing, technology—with its associated power of miniaturisation—has given us minuscule electronic communication devices that can easily be concealed. The Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) seeks to update legislation to respond to the increased capability of communications. It also uses such advancements in technology for the detection of contraband. The bill will make it harder for people to bring prohibited items into prisons, make it easier to detect such prohibited items, and increase the punishment for prisoners and others for bringing in or using such items.

The bill addresses important issues that the people of New Zealand have great concern about: the protection of citizens from crime, and the proliferation of crime from prisons. We understand that one of the primary purposes of our correctional institutions is to protect society. The availability of contraband and unauthorised means of communication, through cellphones in particular, keeps a prisoner locked into the culture of crime; it keeps feeding crime on the outside. When social and gang networks remain intact, they allow a continuation of criminal behaviour, undermining the protection of society. An easily accessible means of unauthorised communication can make prison into a pretence of punishment for inmates on the inside and a pretence of protection for citizens on the outside.

One of the key purposes of our corrections facilities is to remove criminals from society for the protection of that society. A Government’s responsibility is the security of its citizens, and this responsibility must be taken seriously. Time and again we hear the plea of victims to be cautious about the release of prisoners when they come up for parole, particularly in relation to violent crime, because when prisoners are released the victims lose their sense of security and protection.

On the other side of the issue, there are many genuine cases where inmates have made amends and have reintegrated back into society as responsible and contributing citizens. This is the highest aspiration for an inmate, and we want to support people in the challenging and oftentimes difficult task of reintegrating. That is why this bill is called the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2)—we want people to be corrected, not just incarcerated. It is blatantly incorrect for an inmate to be able to continue a life of crime from within a corrections facility.

Although this issue is always a work in progress, 10 years of consideration is too long. The bill is a catch-up on those lengthy periods of consideration. The previous Government was too slow in cracking down on crime being run from inside prisons. The current Opposition will claim credit for the fact that it penned this bill while in Government, but it may not be so quick to acknowledge the effective work of the National Opposition at the time, which goaded it—and, some feel, even shamed it—into addressing this issue because of the litany of problems plaguing prisons. The previous Government failed to deliver the big hit it promised: preventing contraband from entering prisons, which was enabling prisoners to commit crimes from behind bars. Consequently, the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) languished on the Order Paper under two successive Ministers of Corrections. However, this Government is addressing these pressing needs with no such hesitation but with utter determination, because public safety is an increasingly dire concern among New Zealanders. As the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, said in December: “The new Government places public safety above all other issues when it comes to the law and order and justice debate.”

The Labour Opposition may claim a strong record, yet under its watch we saw an alarming increase in crime rates in New Zealand. Crime has increased by over 11 percent during the last year. The number of grievous assaults is up by 11.7 percent, serious assaults by 13.7 percent, minor assaults by 13.2 percent, intimidation and threats by 7 percent, and group assemblies by nearly 20 percent. So we have seen large increases.

This bill will also ensure greater protection for New Zealanders by drastically reducing the ability of inmates to engage in criminal activities outside of prison. But the bill also assists inmates in their rehabilitation, and I will speak about that momentarily. Successful rehabilitation is the highest aspiration for inmates in our corrections facilities. We do not want to have to build more facilities year after year. As legislators, we must seek to be intent and committed regarding the rehabilitation of inmates to their families, their communities, and society as a whole. But too often, because there is a continuance of their lives in the outside world—through contraband and unauthorised communication—there is very little shift or change from the culture of crime that surrounded them and that, often, sent them to prison in the first place.

A strict and stringent prison environment is necessary. It is often the only opportunity inmates have to create distance and separation from their past lifestyle and associations. There is severely decreased opportunity for rehabilitation when associations from the outside world continue inside—and we all know they continue. We all understand the complexity of the criminal environment and the corrections facilities that people live in. Without doubt there are generational issues regarding the continuation of the culture of crime happening in our country. Where are the circuit breakers? What prison does is isolate inmates from continuing their activities in society, but it also severely limits inmates’ contact with their past associations. This separation enables greater effectiveness of drug and alcohol programmes by ensuring that access to drugs and alcohol stops.

The leading edge of this bill protects our society from crime being perpetuated from inside corrections facilities, but the hidden edge in this bill gives tools that will stop inmates from being continually surrounded by the culture of crime that sent them to prison in the first place—thus enabling a more effective opportunity for an inmate to rehabilitate.

We have delivered on our promise to introduce legislation that will enhance police tools, crack down on gangs, provide greater financial assistance to victims, create Fresh Start programmes for young offenders, make it harder to get parole, bail, and home detention, and increase penalties for crimes against children. Now we are clamping down on contraband and unauthorised electronic communication—amongst a raft of other measures—to make our corrections facilities even more effective. We want this legislation passed because it contributes to a suite of legislation introduced by the Government that works to bring a combined effect: providing New Zealanders with greater confidence that New Zealand will become a safer place for us today, for our children, and for our children’s children, who are tomorrow’s future. Thank you.