Tanczos Nandor: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14507] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Let me begin by making a couple of remarks in regard to comments made by previous speakers. First I agree with Mr Ron Mark about the handling of prison corruption. I have to pay my respects to Mr Mark for working so hard and tirelessly over a long period of time to draw to the attention of this House and bring before an inquiry allegations of prison corruption and allegations of abuse. I think it is a testament to him that he managed to succeed in opening the lid on a number of those issues. I thank him for that. I agree that there is a real issue in terms of addressing the systemic problems within the Department of Corrections. That is why I worked so hard for a number of years to get an independent prison inspectorate which we finally got in the form of an Ombudsman for prisons with resourcing to do investigations. I think it is interesting that the media which pays so much attention to allegations of corruption and problems and difficulties showed absolutely no interest in the solution in terms of an independent prison inspectorate. I think it was the day that Mr Henare got biffed and that kind of forced everything else off the headlines because that is much more important news than trying to solve the serious problems in the Department of Corrections. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Don’t blame me bro. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I certainly do not blame Mr Henare for that. 
I would like to correct Mr Borrows. He quite rightly referred to real issues around contraband in prisons—and it is a serious problem—but he referred to Mr Scott Watson in regard to the allegations of him sending obscene pictures of himself to people. My understanding is that those allegations have been entirely disproved and that the pictures were shown to have not come from the prison he was detained in at the time. It appears to be one more attempt among many to smear his character—like the false rumours deliberately spread that he had an incestuous relationship with his sister; like the false rumours that he had an extensive history of violence. It seems to me that the intention of the rumours that keep cropping up is to ensure that he remains a loathed figure in the public mind and therefore his case remains less likely to be revisited. Fortunately those attempts are not working. 
I come to the bill. The Green Party opposes the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill has some necessary elements and as I have already said contraband in prisons is a serious issue. There is no doubt about that. But a number of the bill’s provisions are truly repugnant to the Green Party and on balance—and it is a balancing act—we came to the conclusion that we have to oppose the bill in order to take a stand against these unreasonable impositions. We think there are a whole heap of issues in this bill that need to be addressed. 
The first issue is the extension of search powers in regard to staff lockers and areas of prisons that are exclusively for the use of non-prisoners. That is interesting because there is already under the current legislation a search power for those areas and of course there has to be. There is no doubt that if there is any suspicion that staff are involved in smuggling contraband into prisons and making it available to prisoners there needs to be a search power to get to the bottom of those suspicions. What is interesting is that this bill brings in the power to search without even the need for reasonable grounds to believe that an unauthorised item might be present. In fact there is not even any need to have grounds to suspect that the staff member might have an unauthorised item present. In fact it goes further. There is no reason even to believe that it is remotely possible that the staff member has an unauthorised item. The bill still provides a power to search in those circumstances. No grounds are needed whatsoever. Therefore there are absolutely no safeguards for prison staff against what is a significant breach of their rights and an imposition on their privacy. That is entirely unacceptable and it is another attack on the integrity of prison staff most of whom are conscientious people and most of whom enter the profession to provide service. It is a profession within which morale is already extraordinarily low and I think that this provision will simply bury it. It is just unacceptable to provide a power to search without any grounds being required whatsoever. That is probably our biggest concern but we have others. 
The current section 108 of the Corrections Act in relation to the withholding of mail from or to a prisoner allows mail to be withheld where a manager believes on reasonable grounds that the letter is likely to threaten or intimidate a person to whom it is being sent or endanger the safety or welfare of any person or pose a threat to the security of the prison or promote or encourage the commission of an offence or involve or facilitate the commission or possible commission of an offence. That seems to me a fairly broad net and it is pretty hard to see what one would want to catch in fairness that that provision cannot catch. The bill extends the right to withhold mail where the manager believes on reasonable grounds it is likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law but that is not a definitive list. The Green Party is concerned that this provision is extraordinarily broad vague and ill defined. What on earth is meant by “prejudice the maintenance of the law”? Half the activities we see in this House prejudice the maintenance of the law in my opinion. Could that provision include a legitimate political activity? It seems to me that it could prejudice the maintenance of the law. It seems to me that law reform efforts and legitimate efforts by people incarcerated in prison to advocate for law reform would be captured and at risk under this definition. What about criticism of Government policy or legislation? It seems that if a prisoner writes a letter critical of the Government then that would be grounds for withholding mail under this bill. I do not believe that we can allow such an ill-defined extension of the right to withhold prisoner communication. 
The other area that I think needs to be touched on is the exception from liability during a state of prison emergency and epidemic emergency. New section 179E(1) in clause 27 states: “There is no cause of action against the Crown a Minister of the Crown an officer or employee of a Minister of the Crown the chief executive … to recover damages for any harm or loss that is due directly or indirectly to—(a) any act or omission by any person that occurs while carrying out his or her functions duties or powers under a provision of this Act or the regulations that has been modified by Order in Council under the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 while an epidemic notice is in force;”. Subsection (1) also lists other situations. That is a stand-alone provision and again seems to me to be dangerously broad in terms of exempting the Crown from liability for any action taken while an epidemic notice is in force. 
In the few seconds remaining to me I will touch on clause 6 which is entitled “Religious and spiritual needs”. Although there are restrictions around the possession and consumption of alcohol in prison the amended section 79(3) in clause 6 states: “Section 129(a) does not apply to a prisoner who during a religious service (whether inside or outside a prison) consumes wine provided at the service by a prison chaplain or minister of religion for the purposes of the Eucharist Holy Communion Mass or Communion.” That seems to me to be a blatant case of religious discrimination. I am a member of a faith whose holy sacrament will not be allowed by this provision. In fact if an elder of the Rastafarian faith was to attempt to administer a sacrament to someone in prison the elder probably would not get out! Although I realise there is a certain level of amusement about the notion I think it highlights a real issue that a particular faith in this country is actively persecuted by the law and by the Government. 
Hon Member 
: What’s that? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: The Rastafarian faith. I think that is a matter that this House needs to direct its attention to at some stage.