Paul TamathaTAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you Mr Chair for allowing me to take a call. I have some follow-up questions around 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. And 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 aure that there are sufficient protections in place to make sure that particular weapons don't cause loss of life 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."