Tanczos Nandor: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Tanczos Nandor: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13011] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Before I begin to address some of the various amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper I shall address a comment by Brian Connell who criticised the Greens for supporting rehabilitation and the end of private management contracts. I remind him that the Auckland Central Remand Prison is a remand prison. It does not have convicted offenders so the question of rehabilitation cannot be compared. One would think that that member would understand the difference between a remand prison and an ordinary prison. 
I move on to some of the amendments negotiated by the Green Party with the Government. The first I shall address is the question of non-voluntary segregation which is particularly important in light of the real problems with the behaviour management regime that have come to light in the public service. The bill as introduced included in clause 57 the opportunity for the prison manager basically to direct the segregation of a prisoner for the purpose of security good order or safety. In the original bill the prison manager makes that order the prisoner must be given the reason in writing and the chief executive must be informed. That expires after 14 days unless before it expires the chief executive directs that it continue in force and the chief executive reviews the order at intervals of not more than 3 months. 
The Greens were concerned about that because we felt it left open the potential for some abuse. The amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper allow that when the prison manager makes the order it expires after 14 days but it must be reviewed by the chief executive at intervals of not more than 1 month and that it must expire after 3 months unless a visiting justice directs that it continue in force. The visiting justice must review the order at intervals of not more than 3 months. We felt that was important because it gave some independent outside scrutiny. It meant that the question of someone remaining in segregation was not simply left up to the corrections authorities. 
Another thing I would like to address is the protection for potential whistle-blowers. I direct the Committee to clause 140 in the original bill where it states that everyone who commits an offence is liable to punishment. Clause 140(1)(e) states: “holds any communication with or makes any sound recording of a prisoner:” and paragraph (f) states: “makes any visual recording of a prisoner (whether by photograph film videotape or otherwise):”. 
The Greens were concerned that this provision could potentially punish whistle-blowers and people who were aiding whistle-blowers within the corrections systems and we did not want to make it a punishable offence to bring to light or public attention real abuses within the system. As a result of our negotiations with the Government we now have a situation where before anyone is subject to any penalty the department will have to show that the communication might prejudice the maintenance of the law the safe custody of the prisoner the safety of any other person or the security of any prison. That means that if those things are brought to light for the public good and for the purpose of exposing abuses within the system they are not punishable offences. We think that is also important. 
Another thing I would like to address is the question of the complaints system. The Green Party would have liked to see a fully independent complaints authority but we recognise that there would be substantial fiscal burdens as a result of that so we negotiated an amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper by which the prison inspectorate reports to the chief executive and the chief executive in his or her annual report has to include the work undertaken by the inspector of corrections including statistical information about the disposition of complaints made by persons under control and supervision and comments and issues arising out of complaints or visits during that period. Again that relates to clause 182. 
The last issue I would like to touch on is a minor thing but we thought it was important. Under the bill as it was introduced clause 49 stated that prisoners must be assessed on entry. It now explicitly requires an assessment for mental health as well.