Dean Jacqui: Corrections Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Corrections Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am rising to speak to the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. I accept that there are a number of points at which the Labour-Greens and National points of view diverge and those have been well canvassed in this House and indeed through the select committee process. On that I want to thank members from across the House who worked very proactively on this Corrections Amendment Bill noting our differences and noting also that the Labour-Greens are putting in minority views on this bill. It is accepted that we have different philosophies around this kind of stuff but even so it is my belief that this bill delivers on its intention to reduce barriers to the effective and efficient running of prisons. 
Overall current legislation does provide a pretty good framework for our corrections system but there have been certain provisions identified as barriers to managing prisons in a manner that is safe and a manner that is secure and humane to prisoners but is also effective and efficient and this bill removes those barriers. 
The main provisions of the bill include making it an offence to water-load before drug testing. Water-loading is when prisoners know there is a drug test coming along and drink litres and litres and litres of water thus diluting their urine sample. The provisions in this bill now make it an offence for prisoners to do that. The provisions to make strip-searches of prisoners more effective by having just one procedure have been spoken of many times in this House during the course of the debate on this bill. My contention is that the use of lights and mirrors and certainty around the procedure of strip-searching which let us face it nobody likes—certainly the prisoners do not like being strip-searched. Why would they? Certainly prison officers and personnel do not like the process of strip-searching. But providing certainty around the circumstances and certainty around the procedures of strip-searching—also I would also argue with the Opposition’s contention that it is more intrusive. In fact I would argue the opposite—that using a remote mirror and lighting system is personally less intrusive. So that is strip-searching. 
Another provision in this bill a most important one is ensuring that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections can delegate powers and functions to an organisation contracted to manage a prison. Again it is understood that the Opposition cannot see past its philosophical objection to anyone else running a prison but what we have seen during the course of the examination of this bill is the benefits that new thinking can bring into the prison system. I understand that the Opposition is closed to the possibility that benefits could come into the prison system. Using new experiences and using new personnel but maintaining those very high standards that are maintained by the contracts can have a beneficial effect both on the corrections system and on the welfare of the prisoners. 
Another provision in the bill is to allow money earned by prisoners working in prison to be paid to the chief executive and some of that money to be applied to the prisoners’ board and other associated costs such as child support. This is an important provision bringing some responsibility back into prisoners’ lives. 
Another provision of the bill enables the Department of Corrections to respond quickly and flexibly to technological advances or policy changes. One example that we had in mind was being able to access SIM cards out of cellphones which although in themselves illegal to be held in prison can be used by corrections staff in the investigation of some offences. It also improves health services by legally recognising the role of health centre managers giving them status in prisons. 
Supplementary Order Paper 171 which was introduced by the Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley during the Committee of the whole House stage ensures that prisons remain smoke-free. How anyone could have objection to that is quite beyond me. The Opposition might not like the process but why would you oppose a measure a Supplementary Order Paper that reconfirms that the prison environment is to remain smoke-free? The benefits are clear. The benefits to prisoners are clear in terms of their personal health and certainly the benefits to corrections officers are clear in terms of being able to work in a smoke-free environment. But also most important the incidence of fires in prisons has reduced almost to nothing. I think you have to stick your finger in a power socket to make a fire these days. OK some people try that on but the opportunities for lighting fires and then requiring prison officers to run and put out a fire in a hallway while other prisoners are locked in their cells breathing dangerous gases are now almost a thing of the past. I applaud the Minister for bringing in this Supplementary Order Paper and dealing with this problem. 
I just to go back to the purpose of this bill which is to ensure that front-line staff can manage prisons without putting their own health and safety at risk and without compromising the fair and humane treatment of prisoners. I commend the bill to the House.