Webb Duncan; Mitchell MarkHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Mr Chair. I'm sure I won't take a full call here because I only have a short point to make but it is around a very important point and that is the use of what's now called less lethal" devices to restrain or suppress prisoners. My first point's a very very short one and that's new clause 21A which simply says: "In section 88 replace 'non-lethal' with 'less lethal'." My short point is a drafting one and that is that on my reading of section 88 as it currently stands it doesn't use the word "non-lethal" so you can't replace it with "less lethal". Now I may have that wrong but I'm sure your officials will be able to tell me where that is.The other point is this though—and I'm looking at clause 21 page 12 running on to page 13 of the bill. It says "An officer may only use a less-lethal weapon prescribed for use in dealing with a prisoner who is passively resisting a lawful order in the situation described in … [the section] if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing there is an imminent threat of injury or harm to the prisoner or any other person." Now threat of self-harm I can understand that the prisoner might not be resisting the officer but they're harming themselves so you need to debilitate the prisoner using these devices so that you can then go and make that prisoner safe. I can understand that kind of situation. But I'm a bit perplexed as to why we have on the end of the sentence "or any other person" because passive resistance is by definition not threatening any other person. You've got an ability to use these—and let's be honest; it's called a less-lethal device because it's known that there have been instances where people have died from this being used on them so we've got to be very cautious indeed about that. So if we've got someone passively resisting not self-harming but refusing how on earth can they be putting any other person at risk?This seems to be a kind of excuse to use a device that's totally unnecessary and it simply puts a lack of clarity into a section that because of the seriousness of these devices needs to be as clear as possible. My view is that those last words "or any other person" should be deleted because it's simply clouds that issue. That's all I'm going to say. But I do think that's an important point given that these are tasers and pepper spray that can be lethal.Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you Mr Chair. Look quite simply the fact of the matter is there are many many different situations and scenarios inside a corrections environment where a passive prisoner someone that's refusing to follow instruction could be putting other people at risk. Whether it be the fact that they might have just seriously assaulted another prisoner that needs some medical attention and they're blocking the doorway passively—the corrections officers might have to take action. Or whether it be a prisoner that has barricaded himself somewhere passively or put himself somewhere passively where it's taking three or four or five corrections officers to try and deal with them whilst at the same time someone else is requiring assistance—that may mean that they have to take action. It's a dynamic environment. Force is always a last resort for our corrections officers. They will always use de-escalation but there are going to be times with a passive prisoner where they may be putting other people at risk and they have to take action."