Wilkinson Kate: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14509] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to join my National colleagues in supporting the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) at its first reading and after that its being given due select committee scrutiny. 
The explanatory note of the bill states the bill makes a number of amendments “that are intended to improve the operations of the corrections system.” National says it is about time. Over 2 years ago our spokesman on corrections Mr Power wrote to the Law and Order Committee asking for an inquiry into the Department of Corrections. It was in a shambles and it still is. There was a raft of issues that needed—and still need—addressing including the huge construction budget blowout overcrowding a rash of escapes assaults on guards a big increase in the smuggling of contraband into prisons etc. That inquiry has still not been commenced. At least this bill is a start. 
I would like first to deal with the issue of contraband. I know that it has been mentioned in the House before. National has consistently highlighted the unacceptable levels of contraband within our prisons. It is a major concern in the prison system and as the explanatory note states items such as drugs alcohol money offensive weapons and mobile telephones can all pose serious problems for our prison management. The entry of contraband into and its use in prisons must be controlled; certainly it poses a threat to prisoners staff and even visitors. This bill creates new search detection drug testing and offence provisions to help to control such contraband. 
It enhances existing search powers in relation to the strip-searching of prisoners and the searching of staff lockers. I was interested to note the comments of the Green member Nandor Tanczos who spoke just before me. Over a year ago it was highlighted that the incidence of attempts to smuggle drugs and weapons into prisons was on the increase. In answers to written questions we were advised that in the first 6 months of 2005 there were 280 confiscations of drugs compared with 284 in the whole of 2004 and 224 in the whole of 2003. The number of weapons confiscated in the first 6 months of 2005 was 91 compared with 196 in the whole of 2004 and 132 in the whole of 2003. Knives swords clubs bayonets knuckledusters air rifles firearms batons axes metal bars and baseball bats were all among the armoury of the prison population. 
Although that is worrying in itself what is more worrying is the reluctance of the Minister of Corrections to update the details. In December last year this written question was asked of the Minister: “How many contraband items have been confiscated in the past year and how does this compare to previous years?”. This was of concern not only to National members; this was of national concern. The Minister replied: “The information required to answer this question would have to be manually collated. I do not consider this a good use of my department’s resources.” He may not consider it a good use of resources but I would have thought that with the alarming increase in contraband and violence it would be prudent to know the exact extent of the problem rather than to turn a blind eye and basically say that the department is too busy to worry about it. 
The explanatory note of the bill admits that “The extent of the amount of contraband being detected in prison indicates that on their own operational measures go only so far towards managing the problem …”. Yet the Minister and his department are too busy to even tell us the extent of the problem. We know that some items from visitors are being intercepted but we do not know how many are getting into the prisons. How many items are actually getting through? 
National and others have consistently highlighted the unacceptable levels of contraband within prisons. It has already been mentioned that on release Rachealle Namana the killer of 23-month-old “Lillybing” claimed that while she was in prison she had access to a range of drugs including P and had a cellphone on which she downloaded pornography. We have been told that in 2006 a prostitute was found in the grounds of Rimutaka Prison after being procured by an inmate using a cellphone. Again in 2006 at least two inmates at Christchurch Prison were caught sending obscene text messages to women on cellphones. 
There have also been instances of staff being implicated with claims in the  
Weekend Herald  
just over a year ago that prison officers in Rimutaka Prison were in the pockets of gangs and that prisoners had unlimited access to drugs. Apparently officers were given wish-lists of contraband to fill including cellphones money and any kind of drug that inmates wanted. Certainly the Patten inquiry into allegations of corruption at Rimutaka Prison did not exonerate the staff but instead found that “because of the culture that has existed at Rimutaka Prison some corrupt activity involving staff has allegedly occurred”. Until that report was made available the department continued to be confused saying in February 2006 that the figures represented “a few bad apples” as my colleague Mr Borrows has already mentioned. Then in March a month later the authorities said “We’ve got a big problem with rust at Rimutaka.” and later that same month said “It would be foolish to think it’s just a few bad apples because there’s clearly been more than one or two people involved and therefore one has to also say it has to be the culture.” 
This bill is long overdue; the inquiry into the Department of Corrections itself is long overdue. But we ask the select committee in considering this bill to take a really good look at whether it does in fact address properly the issue of contraband and staff. It is all very well to be able to search the locker of a staff member but staff members are hardly likely to keep contraband in their own lockers. 
Secondly this bill attempts to address the use of cellphones. We have heard that in August last year $1 million of methamphetamine was imported from Thailand by a prisoner using an unauthorised cellphone from inside Rimutaka Prison. This deal was conducted inside one of our seemingly toughest prisons and right under the nose of the special corruption inquiry being conducted at the time. Cellphones are being used by prisoners to organise further criminal offending to threaten witnesses and others and to arrange escapes—and also no doubt to notify the whereabouts of stolen medals. Disabling and jamming solutions appear to be the most effective method for dealing with this problem because they can eliminate cellphone coverage within the prison and monitor and prevent cellphone use. The department should be able to intercept monitor detect disable disrupt and interfere with cellphone communications within prisons—without of course affecting the use of cellphones outside the prison boundaries. I would not like the people of Rolleston who are surrounded by prisons of various sorts to have their cellphone coverage affected by this bill. 
The issue of drugs in prisons is a serious one. We know that the number of prisoners testing positive for P use has steadily increased escalating from 35 in 2001 to 139 in the 2006-07 year. A Department of Corrections report in 2006 said that its identified drug-user programme provides little scope for prisoners identified as drug users to mitigate their actual demand for drugs and that a significant amount of drug use in prisons goes undetected. There are increased powers under this bill in relation to both the search powers and the provision enabling retesting if a sample provided by a prisoner during drug and alcohol testing is diluted tainted or otherwise contaminated. We hope that these powers will make some inroads into the worrying trend of an increase of drugs in our prisons. 
This bill is a small step but it is a step in the right direction. It enhances the search provisions. It improves the monitoring of communications mail and phone calls. It allows the jamming of cellphones within the prison. It improves information sharing with other agencies and interestingly enough it now allows prisoners to consume Communion wine. National members look forward to the proper scrutiny of this bill—there are issues—in the select committee through the submission process. We support the first reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2).