Lees-Galloway Iain: Corrections Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Corrections Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:631. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It gives me some pleasure to follow my friend from Manawatu Ian McKelvie although I must admit that I was out of my seat a little bit earlier than I expected. I thought he might take a little bit more of his call time but it was a good first offering on a piece of legislation in the House and I congratulate Mr McKelvie on that.  
As my colleagues from the Labour Party have already made clear to the House we are opposing the Corrections Amendment Bill but that opposition is based firmly on the fact that there is one aspect of this bill in particular that facilitates the operation of private prisons and it is that aspect of the bill that leads us to oppose it. We are fundamentally opposed to the concept of privatised prisons. We believe that incarceration is absolutely a role of the State. Here in Parliament we are a function of the State. We make the laws. The police enforce those laws. The courts determine whether or not people are guilty. All of those are functions of the State. The next function of incarceration—if that is what happens to a person who has been through everything else—should also be a role of the State. It is quite inappropriate that we should be calling on the private sector to have that function of incarceration. We would not offer that ability to anybody else privately—it is absolutely a role of the State—and it is for that reason that we are opposed to this bill.  
That is somewhat unfortunate because there are other aspects of the bill that we are not over the moon about but we are certainly interested in seeing what debate occurs at the Law and Order Committee and what submissions are made to the select committee on some of the other provisions of the bill. Our members on the select committee—unfortunately I am unlikely to be one of those—will be looking very closely at all the aspects of this bill. There are some provisions that we absolutely cannot support but there are some that we want to look into in a bit more depth.  
I am particularly interested in the provisions that change the structure of health care within prisons. I heard what David Clendon from the Greens said. Like I said we are not saying this evening that we are wholeheartedly in support of these changes but we are interested to see what the impact of them will be and what the implications are. What the bill does is remove the requirement for a medical officer. In fact it removes oversight from a medical officer and puts it in the hands of the health centre manager for a prison. That health centre manager may be a medical officer or may be a nurse. I am not opposed at all to the idea of using a broader workforce in health care whether it be in prisons or anywhere else for that matter but I do share the concerns that this may be a clever way of reducing the health care that is available for prisoners. It is probably driven more by a desire to reduce costs than by anything else.  
We are mindful of the fact that it could reduce health care but we are also open to the idea that it could have very good results. It probably more closely reflects the actual practice that is occurring in prisons at the moment and it could be a good innovation that improves health care for prisoners. If that is the case then we will be happy to support it but we would like to hear all the arguments from different sides at the select committee before we take a firm view on that. Obviously we do have the— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: You should vote for it then. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Mr Guy says we should vote for it then. I have clearly outlined why we cannot possibly vote for this bill. There is one provision that we absolutely on principle cannot support but we are quite confident that the Government will be able to progress this bill to the select committee and we will be looking forward to participating in discussions on it at that point.  
What I was going to say before I was interrupted by Mr Guy was that the Ombudsman’s investigation of the Department of Corrections explicitly said that health services should come under the purview of the health service rather than the corrections service and that is also where some of the concerns about the provisions in this bill draw from. But we want to hear the debate. We want to see what people have to say about it.  
Another provision here that is obviously going to be positive as far as corrections officers are concerned is the increased powers to search prisoners and also changing the threshold upon which drug testing can occur. There are obvious positives for that in terms of prison staff security being able to locate contraband and being able to test prisoners whom they suspect of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. One of the interesting things—and Mr McKelvie might want to look into this because there are some stories that I am hearing coming out of Linton prison and I need to ascertain whether these are facts—is that there are some issues coming out from the smoking ban in prisons. Obviously from the point of view of someone who wants to see the harm caused by tobacco reduced I am interested to see how that is working out. With tobacco now becoming contraband there is a considerable black market in tobacco in many prisons and I am hearing a lot of stories coming out of Linton prison about not only the black market that exists but the standover tactics that are being used by some prisoners over others to get not only tobacco products but—here is the interesting thing—nicotine replacement therapy products as well which are becoming part of this black market. I am told that a nicotine patch can be worth up to $50 in fact in the prisons. So maybe that is something that these extra search powers will discover: nicotine replacement patches being sneaked in and out and around the prison and certainly tobacco. There is no doubt that tobacco is being smuggled into the prisons and is providing a lucrative black market within the prisons. So that might be something else that the provisions in this bill allow for: easier identification of some of that contraband material that is moving around the prisons.  
I want finally to come back to this issue of the privatisation of prisons and the provisions that this bill has to I suppose devolve what are really State functions to the private sector. As I said Labour does not believe that State responsibilities—and incarceration is absolutely a State responsibility—should be discharged by anybody other than the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and his staff. It should not be delegated out to private contractors and their staff operating private prisons. This is especially the case when it comes to functions such as deciding the security classifications of inmates the temporary removal or release of prisoners and the release of inmates from prisons.  
Provisions that expressly allow generally for the delegation of powers and functions of the chief executive to contractors and employees of contractors are the things that are of particular concern to us. There is very little evidence that private prisons are the most cost-effective means for taxpayers to get the most out of their prison services and this reflects I suppose what is really an ideological decision from the National Government more than a really practical pragmatic decision about how it is best to deliver prison services in New Zealand.  
So with those concerns noted and the interest in some of the other provisions that we will be looking at at the select committee I reiterate Labour’s opposition to this bill on the grounds that we have outlined but we do look forward to seeing the results of the select committee process.