Clendon David: Corrections Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Corrections Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:624. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. This Corrections Amendment Bill is another in a long string of corrections bills that we have seen from this Government. The last term saw a number of corrections bills move through the legislative process and pass into law that were extremely unhelpful in terms of reducing crime reducing recidivism making our communities safer and reducing the economic and social costs of crime. We saw for example the three-strikes legislation and the introduction of private prison management— 
Hon David Parker 
: From Mr Garrett. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: —from our departed friend Mr Garrett. We saw the gratuitous removal of prisoners’ right to vote. We saw the double-bunking and the conversion of shipping containers into accommodation for two prisoners at a time. All of these measures revealed a Government apparently in thrall to the very vocal but equally misguided minority in this country who believe that somehow we will achieve our objectives through longer and tougher sentences.  
All the evidence and the research tell us that most New Zealanders understand very well that that is not the route to a safer community. New Zealanders are much less interested in punishment for its own sake. New Zealanders want to see policies and practices that will reduce the social and financial costs of crime and that will make people feel safer in their communities. We know that all but a handful of the most serious offenders will ultimately be released back into society. We want to see those people fit to re-enter society with a positive contribution to make and an attitude that will enable them to break out of that cycle of offending and reoffending.  
Any hope that a new term of Parliament and indeed a new Minister of Corrections might perhaps see a somewhat more enlightened and progressive approach to corrections would seem to be dashed by this bill which again does reflect a particularly unpleasant punitive approach to the whole question of corrections. The stated aim of this bill is to remove “barriers to managing prisons in a manner that is safe secure humane effective and efficient.” I would argue that there are provisions in this bill that almost guarantee that we will fail in achieving any of those objectives. We will not achieve one single one of those given what is concealed in this bill. To the contrary this bill takes away from inmates some very basic human rights such as protection from abuse. It provides prison officers perversely with an incentive to step outside good professional conduct. It makes them more vulnerable to accusations of misconduct. It provides incentives for prison managers and in particular the private sector managers to reduce prisoners’ eligibility for and therefore access to rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. Again this is at odds with our stated objectives.  
It is difficult to see any redeeming feature in this bill. We see it as requiring a complete rewrite. We do not think a simple amendment would be sufficient and for those reasons we will not be supporting the bill’s progress to the select committee.  
The bill makes significant changes to the provision of health services in prisons in a way that seems more driven by issues of cost savings and convenience than a genuine concern for the well-being and health of prisoners. It is well known that prison inmates typically come with very high health needs. Due to lifestyle environmental factors—a host of reasons—prisoners are susceptible to illness and their health status generally is below that of the general population. This was very well encompassed in the report from the Ombudsman that we have heard referred to already which came out just a week or so ago. To be fair there is an acknowledgment in that report that prisoners currently have reasonable access to health services. It also points however to some significant shortcomings in health care and warns us that “in future the service may not be able to effectively meet the healthcare needs of the diverse prison population.” That is a red light. That is a warning bell from the Ombudsman—a disinterested objective observer—telling us we need to address health-care issues in prisons. Unfortunately this bill does that but it does it in a way that to our mind actually takes us some steps backwards rather than moving forward.  
The bill seeks to downgrade the service—the status of the service if you like—by taking overall responsibility for health services away from medical officers—in other words medical practitioners—and instead delegating it to health centre managers who may be nurses directly employed by the Department of Corrections or in some cases contractors in the case of private prisons. This runs absolutely at odds with the recommendation of the Ombudsman who says “Health Services … should be funded and delivered by an agency whose primary focus is health and therapeutic support not custodial.” That reflects and echoes the recommendation of a report from 2010 of the National Health Committee entitled  
Health in Justice 
 which again advocated very strongly for putting health services into the hands of an external agency not leaving them in the care of the Department of Corrections. We would not put the department in charge of health; nor would we put the Ministry of Health in charge of custodial practices. Why would you do that?  
The current legislation states quite clearly that there must be at least one medical officer—that is a qualified medical practitioner—in every prison. This new bill in new section 20 set out in clause 8 says that “For every prison … there must be a sufficient number of medical officers to meet prisoners’ needs for medical care and medical treatment.” The obvious inference from that is they may number less than one and that may be deemed to be sufficient. Are we suggesting a part-time medical officer; someone with responsibility for a number of prisons? Are we suggesting a person less well qualified than a medical practitioner to look after the significant health needs of often quite large numbers of inmates? That is a very subtle but a very dangerous provision we believe. A minimum of one is being reduced to this very vague ill-defined amorphous notion of sufficiency. Again this would point to a cost-cutting approach. We know and experience has told us repeatedly that short-term cost cuts in health care be it in prisons or anywhere else inevitably lead to longer-term social and indeed economic costs further down the track.  
Again in the general area of prisoner health currently prisoners have a minimum entitlement to 1 hour of exercise every day ideally taken outside if weather permits. This bill takes away that minimum provision—that minimum entitlement to 1 hour of exercise. In the event that a prisoner is outside the prison particularly through the normal working day if you like—8 to 5—the prisoner can be denied access to exercise if for example he or she is being transported that day or if he or she is in court for a hearing for whatever it might be. There seems to be no limit on the number of times the denial of this minimal entitlement can be applied. Conceivably a prisoner who is in court for a number of days could go several days without physical exercise. Those of us who in a different way are imprisoned in this House on occasion know very well the value of exercise to people. Lack of exercise for prisoners could lead not only to less than ideal health but also certainly their attitude their mental well-being can be negatively impacted by that denial of that basic minimum entitlement to 1 hour’s exercise.  
We note also with some concern that a health centre manager may now prescribe a special diet for a prisoner. Currently it is only a medical officer who may prescribe a special diet. Again these are all examples where the prisoner’s well-being is being just slightly nibbled away nibbled away and the net result the cumulative result could be quite serious in terms of prisoner health and well-being and the general safety not only of the inmates but also of the staff and people in those prisons.  
There is the issue of the right of a prisoner to appeal their security classification. Currently that will be determined by the chief executive a very high-ranking public servant directly answerable to the Minister. It will now be possible for a person employed by a contractor to be in the role of making that call as to the security classification of a prisoner. Charles Chauvel has outlined the constitutional concern around that. A much more practical concern equally would be that the private providers in particular will be motivated towards assigning a higher rather than a lower classification for reasons of cost saving. They are more secure if the prisoner has a higher classification. The likelihood of them suffering the fate of Serco recently—a $150000 fine for allowing a prisoner to escape—would be reduced. The eligibility of prisoners for programmes such as te Whare Oranga Ake would be removed if they have not got the minimum classification. This is an absolute motivation and incentive not to take a very small risk of giving those prisoners the classification that allows them access to these programmes which give them a much better likelihood of success in the community. Thank you.