Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): 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. So 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."