Lole-Taylor Asenati: Corrections Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Corrections Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:628. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LE’AUFA’AMULIA SENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 Malo fa‘afetai lava. I am pleased to speak for the first time on behalf of New Zealand First on the Corrections Amendment Bill. New Zealand First has and will always put the safety of our community as a priority as well as supporting law enforcing officers and staff to carry out their roles effectively and efficiently. With the dramatic increase in the drug supply and the severity of assaults on corrections officers and staff in recent years we acknowledge the need for prevention.  
The supreme function of the Parliament is to ensure that self-interest and the evils that come with it are contained. It has been said that enforcing the rule of law and maintaining public order are inseparable and that they form the bedrock of a civilised society and sound liberal democracy. There are two fundamentals involved in this quote. The first is enforcing the rule of law. In this case it is the way in which the Department of Corrections implements and interprets the law through the way it operates using its operational manuals. It also applies to the way it deals with prisoners or offenders both those in the custody of the prison services and those under the supervision of the community probation services.  
The second is maintaining public order. This would apply to increasing public safety as well as the safe and humane containment of prisoners. In the case of community service it would be with the safety and appropriate application of monitoring processes for offenders and staff in order to reduce reoffending through comprehensive and suitable rehabilitation programmes. We can have neither without the right and relevant bills and legislation passed within Parliament. It is therefore imperative that this Government produces the best possible outcomes regarding our increasing crime statistics.  
There is a constant battle with these statistics and it is time Parliament initiated serious solutions and prevention. Most discussions of a bright future particularly in today’s society rely on a smiley face and giggle as an appropriate response to all difficult questions particularly those around the safety and security of our community although education and assets are part of that list as well.  
This Corrections Amendment Bill more or less formalises what has already been implemented as part of the prison service daily routine. I know this. I spent the last 6 years in the Department of Corrections as a regional adviser. You may call it exercising common sense which unfortunately is something that is not very common in the way the Government operates at the moment. But it is important that those corrections staff on the floor ought to be recognised for their ability in applying discretion and good judgment where warranted.  
It is about time that the Corrections Act was amended in order to address so many loopholes it has had for so long. Improvement to the way health services operate at prison sites is long overdue and yes this Government has finally got something right. Why it took so long—who knows? Perhaps the Minister of Corrections needs to have a cup of tea with the right stakeholders who know better without inviting the media. Often decisions have been made by those who sit in their ivory towers without any knowledge or awareness of how things work in the real world in the prison service or the prison sites or even the community probation services. The Minister would do well to seek input especially from those staff who work on the floor because they know what works and what does not.  
As for the contract management of prisons I notice in the bill—clauses 16 17 and 18 and also from clauses 42 to 45—that those amendments should have been introduced before private contractors were engaged for the contract management of prisons. It is astounding that these amendments are introduced almost 2 years after the engagement of Serco as a private contractor to manage the Mt Eden Corrections Facility.  
There is no question that New Zealand First supports some improvements that this bill will make. At the same time it is also important that suitable training programmes for corrections officers are developed in order to facilitate better enforcement. The amendment bill will also do well in providing a clear process for the area of prisoners claiming lost or stolen property. There are many thousands of tax dollars and working hours wasted on processing prisoner property claims. Many of these claims are spurious. There should be clear regulation laid down to define liability. Where a prisoner has been issued property he or she has the care and control of their property. There should be no avenues or recourse if this property is lost traded or stolen once issued. A substantive amount of these claims are made when prisoners deal with each other. This is called trading and we know that it is illegal and difficult to detect. There is a significant number of hours taken up in investigating these claims. These hours could be used for the maintenance of safety and security in our prisons. The Corrections Amendment Act 2005 failed to address this and now we have this amendment that has also failed to address that.  
I am furthermore baffled about consideration for the reintroduction of sections 33 and 34 of the old penal institution legislation of 1954 which was replaced by the Corrections Act 2004 and then by amendment in June 2005 to remove the power of adjudicators and visiting justices to prescribe the loss of remission as a penalty. This section would have given the power to a visiting justice or adjudicators of the corrections facility to apply and if the inmates—prisoners and offenders as we now call them—under the section were proven guilty of offences such as assault on a prison officer he or she may have had imposed certain disciplines named in section 3(a) which is “Loss of Remission on Any Sentence”. This would have meant that offences by prisoners towards prison officers could be dealt with within the corrections system and a no-nonsense message would have been clearly given to prisoners or offenders. It worked when it was in place and I unarguably affirm its importance in this case.  
I found it interesting to hear Jacqui Dean mentioning her view of turning prisoners’ lives round. That view should reflect in the way they rehabilitate the prisoners or offenders. Unfortunately this amendment does not take that into account. I question whether this amendment effectively caters for the second-highest ethnic group of the prison population which is those from the Pacific. The bill does not give any serious consideration for provision of appropriate and suitable rehabilitation programmes for Pacific prisoners despite the introduction and establishment of the Vaka Fa’aola Pacific Focus Unit at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility. For so long the Department of Corrections relied on one Pacific criminogenic programme Saili Matagi which is just a tick in a box because this programme only takes up to 10 participants at a time and with its criteria it is rather restricted to those with a violent criminal offence or violent criminal background. Furthermore the local Pacific community service providers who are keen to be involved with the rehabilitation and reintegration of the Pacific prisoners and offenders are not being effectively engaged to assist with the successful reintegration of Pacific offenders. Yes let it be noted that New Zealand First is in support of this amendment bill to go to select committee.