Ardern Jacinda: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1361] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I acknowledge to members—obviously I am a new member here—that following that intervention from the Minister I despair for the justice sector and particularly for corrections. That was a very un-ministerial intervention. I would have expected at this stage of the debate to be discussing the substantive issues within the bill. Instead we heard from that Minister a tirade of what I would call half-truths. There were claims that Spring Hill Corrections Facility was charging people to visit the prison. To clarify that I say yes there was a charge; it was for a charitable event put on by Spring Hill Corrections Facility to raise money for the community and those who went along to participate described it as a chilling experience. 
In dwelling on that issue I say that the Minister mentioned the escapes from prison under this Government. There were fewer escapes from prison under Labour; we pointed out our record of a reduction of 84 percent in escapes. The Minister claims that was because prison was such a pleasant experience. The new Minister came in and overnight prison became a chilling-to-the-core experience it became a God-awful place and suddenly prisoners were running for the hills. In fact they are now escaping because the new Minister is in place— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As I understood your earlier ruling you ruled that the Minister was on the edge of speaking to Part 1. We are now in fact getting a— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I take the member’s point. In reality even if one member strays that does not justify another one responding to things that may be irrelevant to the bill. There are ways in which members can make those illustrations as long as they draw them back to some portion of the part of the bill that is under debate. That does not exclude analogy or comparison. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Without challenging your ruling could I seek some clarification? Are you now saying that if a Minister makes through the Chair a number of claims that may be incorrect—to be as charitable as one can—there is an inability to rebut those claims within the debate even though the Minister has brought them into the debate? I am sure my colleague was going to go on to the specific part and clauses of the bill but she was first addressing things that the Minister had said which were factually incorrect. I just seek your guidance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: In effect that is right and I should have moved earlier. It has been a two-way thing and we are just tightening up on that. It is probably my error that I did not lean on members a little earlier. This debate is specific to Part 1. Members can as I say make those comparisons. If there is inaccuracy a response must be drawn back to the bill. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Thank you for that clarification. I do not want to hold up the Committee’s discussion of this bill; obviously on this side of the Chamber we are in agreement with the bill going forward given it was Mr Goff’s. I want to point out that we are in fact debating an amendment bill: an amendment to legislation that was drafted in 2004 again by the Labour Government despite the claims again by the Minister that there were 9 years of inaction by Labour. That is again simply a half-truth and an outrage. I am very pleased that we are again able to debate in this evening’s sector of discussion and debate another one of Labour’s well-crafted bills. 
There are two things that I want to dwell on. The reason for this bill was not to change dramatically what was contained in the original corrections amendment legislation; it was to tighten up based on technological advancement provisions that already existed in that legislation. Obviously the Government agrees with that tightening-up as well. There have been technological advancements and we have through practice recognised from the implementation of the original legislation that we could improve certain provisions around contraband. 
I want to dwell specifically on some of the outcomes of the Law and Order Committee’s discussion around Part 1 of the bill. The select committee came back to the House on clause 22(5) which stated: “knowingly has in his or her possession any unauthorised item while in prison.” I want to dwell on that. The word “knowingly” was used in that clause. The select committee came back and said that was perhaps too open for debate and was not clear enough for the courts and I think very sensibly recommended that we replace “knowingly” with “without reasonable excuse”. That shifts the onus from the court having to determine what knowledge was held by the individual or the accused and reduces the likelihood of innocent behaviour being captured. I think that is rightly so. Because the language in that provision has been tightened up we have seen an increase in penalties attached to that particular provision as well and that makes absolute sense. 
I will not dwell on the other recommendations made by the select committee that roamed across Part 1 because as members will see from the commentary on the bill they are quite common-sense ones and merit the support of members of the Committee. 
I would like to dwell though on one other aspect of Part 1: the discussion around contraband. We have already discussed the issue that we— again I say “we” because the original bill was drafted by Mr Goff—have tightened up the search and seizure powers the provisions regarding strip searches and done a number of things that will enable us to tighten up on the occurrence of contraband. One of the biggest contributors to contraband however is the issue of the management of prison numbers and the ability of prison staff to deal with those numbers. I think the Minister has questions to answer on whether she believes the level of the current prison muster which is set to increase under this Government’s flow of legislation does anything to prevent offending. It does nothing to address the risks that we know contribute to offending but rather looks at the other end of offending around sentencing.