Webb Duncan; Jackson Willie; Mitchell MarkHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I have two short points. The first is around clause 8 which is on page 8 of the bill. And that is simply around a strategy focusing on improving outcomes for Māori. The Minister has on repeated occasions said that he agrees in principle with that as an objective of the corrections system. Clause 8 which is deleted in this version of the bill says that essentially—because it was a requirement under that clause or it would have been a requirement—the chief executive has a strategy. So that's a document that says Here's what we want to do here's how we're going to get there and"—providing requirements for monitoring the outcome—"here's how we're doing."The Minister's thrown that out and I guess I'm asking the Minister—because he said on a number of occasions "We can still achieve these things; we just don't need legislation to do it."—will he be requiring as Minister the chief executive to have a strategy in place of legislation which focuses on improving outcomes for Māori in the corrections systems? So that's my first and very short question.My second question is again around the high degree of discretion given to the Corrections department generally and the chief executive. I was looking on page 10 at section 61CA which is about dealing with at-risk prisoners. And we heard and we sympathise with the things the Minister has said about how difficult the corrections environment is but this is about essentially isolating at-risk prisoners and this might be a prisoner who's likely to self-harm. I understand that that's necessary but I was looking at the new insertion in subsection (8) and the general sense is this: if you're going to put a prisoner in isolation to protect them from self-harm it's got to be under constant review by a health professional because this is solitary confinement which is you know a significant infringement on liberty and it can be quite harmful.So the requirement is that a health professional check daily whether that is still required—that they're essentially isolated in solitary confinement. Except you know subsection (8) once again says that they don't have to do it if they don't think they need to. What the words are is: "While a direction under this section in in force"—that's the isolation direction—"the health centre manager must"—in a bit of awkward grammar by putting this in the middle—"unless the health centre manager is satisfied that it is not necessary in the circumstances ensure that a registered health professional visits the prisoner concerned at least once a day."Why do we need that to say "unless you don't think it's necessary"? We've got a prisoner who is at risk and in isolation in solitary confinement—for their own health and welfare I accept. Why is it so hard to say "We need a registered health professional."? I mean that might be a nurse and as I understand it there'll be medical professionals like nurses on site in a prison available for this very purpose. Why are we giving a free pass if the health centre manager is—because the danger here is that you say "I don't think it's necessary." which becomes "It's all a bit too hard." This is the real danger: it's not necessary because operational requirements—the nurse is busy across the other side of the precinct or something like that.So once again it really lacks in respect of something that touches on quite important human rights about being kept in isolation in solitary confinement and whether that still remains necessary. So two questions: one on the strategy question and one on isolation.Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Just following on from that kōrero I've still got a couple of questions that are lingering. It's very interesting that you're in the Chair Mr Chair.I just wanted to follow up on first of all the Minister of Corrections' answers in terms of racism which were put forward which I thought were interesting and the Minister denying that there's any racism in the police. I certainly accept—many of us accept—that there's been a big effort in the last few years in addressing the racism. But surely the Minister must acknowledge that—and I'm sure the Chair might support him—that in past years—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): This isn't about the Chair Mr Jackson.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah well you have a good history there Mr Chair. I'm just showing you some respect in terms of your history. I apologise if that's upsetting.There's no doubt in my mind that there's been a history in terms of racism and the police. I'd like the Minister to address that. We only have to look back to Tūhoe in 2007 2008 and it was a terrible terrible situation that happened there in terms of the raid on Tūhoe at the time as we all know. Since then of course we had major apologies from the police to the people of Tūhoe. I do have a relevant question also in terms of section 19—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Looking forward to hearing it Mr Jackson.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —which I'll come forward to. But I'm interested in the Minister's response to that because I think a lot of that past has affected what is happening today. Although I acknowledge that there's been a big effort in terms of addressing the past indiscretions and racism that was exhibited by the New Zealand Police.I want to come to the deletion of section 19(2) and this is an area that I'm not sure if the Minister has addressed properly which talks about now "Māori prisoners and other prisoners detained in a corrections prison must have access to cultural activities so far as is reasonable and practicable regardless of the corrections prison in which they are detained." I'm not sure if the Minister has answered this properly or correctly. How does he view this? I would have thought that this was something that the Minister would support. But is this another coalition demand? One would have thought that this was something based on need. The reality is with the Māori prison population being so high why wouldn't you have opportunities and give Māori prisoners the access to cultural support as well as other prisoners of course—of course everybody should have access to cultural support. But given that Māori are filling 50 percent of the prisons why would you delete that when we have overwhelming evidence that tells us that once that cultural support goes in you get a turn-around in terms of some of these prisoners' lives—you get an absolute turn-around. As I said earlier in an earlier kōrero once they get some awareness of their language once they get some awareness of whakapapa knowing who they are knowing where they're from knowing who their tūpuna are you get a hugely significant change. There is so much data to support that.I'm sure Minister Potaka over there would support me 100 percent. In fact I'm sure he's spoken on this actually and said that the way forward—in fact I'm sure I'll find something where he's spoken about how the language the reo can change people's lives. But here we have Minister Potaka sadly supporting a terrible clause like this which takes away the opportunity for some of these prisoners to get access to cultural activities.So the question is: is this a priority or not or is this yet another coalition push to delete references to tikanga Māori to te reo Māori to Te Tiriti? What is the background to this? I would have thought given the Minister's responses so far that he actually supports the principles of what Kelvin Davis has said and what Labour has done—and we thank him for that support—that he would be backing this particular clause that gives priority to Māori and others to find a cultural base.Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Yeah look sadly I wish that I could stand in the Chamber and say that we don't have pockets of racism in New Zealand but we do—and that applies to all ethnicities. It's incumbent upon all of us in this House to continue to lead to make sure that we become a country that we can purge that.In relation to Government agencies and ministries I'm sure there's rotten apples and if there's any evidence of any racism anywhere then that should be dealt with quickly regardless of what Government is in power.In relation to Hōkai Rangi I've been very clear; I've said that we're committed to that. This Government is firmly committed to increasing rehabilitation programmes and access for prisoners to have rehabilitation programmes and that is contained within the bill."