Davis KelvinCORRECTIONS AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I move That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a second time. While the legislation governing—Matt Doocey: Mr Slushy". Hon KELVIN DAVIS: He shouldn't have said it. I knew someone from the National Party was going to raise the trigger word "slushies". Why on earth Simon Bridges thought that he should inject himself into the slushy debate is beyond me. It goes to show that there is no passing car too small for Simon Bridges to start barking at. What an absolutely silly thing to do. I was going to let it go. I was going to let it go but no as soon as I stood up they had to raise the word "slushy". David Bennett—he's got more brains than Simon Bridges. David Bennett—he had nothing to do with the whole slushy debate. He decided to stay right out of it and instead Simon Bridges threw himself under the bus. What a stupid thing to do. I was going to let it go but no—I'd better get on with the second reading. Way to go Matt Doocey good start—good start. Anyway while the legislation governing corrections is working pretty well the Corrections Amendment Bill will make a number of improvements to the safe humane and fair management of people in custody to prisoner discipline and to prisoner safety. It's important to note that the Corrections Act and therefore these amendments relate to how prisoners are managed in prison and it's not about the numbers of people entering prison. As members will be aware the Government is undertaking a broader reform programme to create a more safe and effective criminal justice system—[Interruption]—one that those guys over on the other side there are totally opposed to and yet let me say that the prison population has reduced by 7 percent in 12 months something that that side there never ever believed was at all possible. As the members across the way there will be aware the Government is undertaking this reform programme to create a more effective criminal justice system that improves public safety and better supports victims of crime that meets our obligations to Māori and that builds confidence in the criminal justice system. As first introduced the bill contains 16 proposals covering a broad range of issues and I would like to acknowledge the work of previous Ministers of Corrections because many of the proposals were developed under their stewardship. I would also like to thank all those people who made submissions on the bill during the select committee process. I believe that there were 17 submitters which is fewer than usual but the fact of the matter is I believe that that was more than made up for because of the quality of the submissions that were made. Many of the submitters had very constructive submissions with suggested changes that I consider will have improved the bill. I also wish to take the opportunity to thank members of the Justice Committee for their work and their diligent consideration of the bill. Unfortunately consensus could not be reached on some important adjustments on the bill and therefore the bill in front of us is no different than what it was when it was introduced last year. One of these adjustments relates to prisoners vulnerable to self-harm and I consider this to be the most important proposal of the bill. We know that more than 90 percent of prisoners at some stage in their lives have a diagnosis of drug or alcohol addiction or a mental health diagnosis and that many of them enter the corrections system with those undiagnosed illnesses or addictions. So the Government is committed to improving mental health outcomes for prisoners. Not only will the new build at Waikeria Prison include a new specialised 100-bed mental health facility which is the first of its kind in New Zealand but the bill will improve the care and oversight of those who are vulnerable to self-harm. The bill will require prisoners to be assessed on arrival have appropriate supervision and have an individualised care plan that outlines the approach to address the prisoner's risk of self-harm. To support this approach corrections is also investing $25 million into piloting new intervention and support services. That includes having a team of clinical specialists and a new model of care and taking a more therapeutic and long-term approach with vulnerable prisoners. Understandably there were a number of submissions to the Justice Committee on this proposal with significant support for its intention. However some concerns were raised over the use of strip-searching to detect items that might be used to self-harm and how we ensure it maintains a person's dignity and self-respect and these are legitimate concerns. Strip-searching can be distressing particularly if a person has existing mental health issues or is in fact a survivor of sexual violence. The use of strip-searching however must be balanced against the consequences of actually failing to detect an item on someone who is vulnerable to self-harm or suicide attempts. The safety of both prisoners and the staff is paramount. As the bill currently stands at-risk prisoners must undergo a strip-search when first placed in an at-risk cell and every time they return to the at-risk area from another area of the prison. That means that there could be a person who is at risk that has to have numerous strip-searches on any given day. However officials advised the committee that recent operational improvements to the model of care provided to people vulnerable to self-harm means an individualised approach to strip-searching can and should be introduced instead. This seems a sensible yet safe approach that will reduce the impact of strip-searching on vulnerable prisoners. As the select committee could not agree on this revision it is my intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper ahead of the committee of the whole House. This would give effect to an individualised approach which outlines the occasions on which prisoners at risk of self-harm must be strip-searched to ensure their safety. The second proposal I wish to discuss in more detail relates to police jails. The bill currently provides an authority for corrections to declare spare capacity within a police jail to be part of an already established corrections prison. This would allow corrections to operate such facilities with corrections staff that are appropriately trained in custodial roles. The purpose of this provision was to provide corrections with added insurance against unexpected stresses on prison accommodation—in other words because under the previous Government the prison population was rising so quickly and so rapidly under their regime they were at risk of actually running out of prison beds for prisoners and they needed to have another option which was spare police cells. The police cells aren't actually appropriate. They don't have the proper ablution facilities and there were a number of concerns about the use of them. However because of the great work that this Government has been doing the prison population has reduced plus with the builds that are occurring we should have more than adequate capacity and it will reduce the concern over the use of police cells. This provision was originally developed as an option of last resort for short periods of extreme capacity pressures. However like I said because of the decline in the prison population there is a decreased likelihood that prison cells will need to be used and in the longer term as I've said the completion of the new builds will add the additional capacity. Because of this it's my intention to remove the clauses relating to the police jails provision through a Supplementary Order Paper. There were also a number of minor revisions suggested by submitters and officials that I find compelling and therefore worthy of introduction via a Supplementary Order Paper as well. These—there are about half a dozen—relate to (1) placement decisions for prisoners with young children (2) information provided to prisoners upon entry to prison (3) the use of mechanical restraints during hospital visits (4) particular search powers (5) disclosure of recorded phone calls to intelligence and security agencies and (6) the delegation of a health centre manager's powers. Before I finish I want to address one criticism made by the National Party MPs in the committee's report back. The National Party view outlined in the report to the House references a provision that placed an expectation on prisoners to participate in rehabilitation. This was a provision requested by the previous Minister of Corrections. There is no question that rehabilitation is an integral part of the corrections system so to help—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why take it out? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: If the member just waits he'll find out why we'll take it out. To help prisoners live a crime-free life upon release corrections allocates significant resources towards assessing offenders and providing programmes according to their risks and needs."