Sharples Pita: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14503] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Friday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 contained an interesting response from the chief executive of the Department of Corrections in response to the Patten report which inquired into systemic corruption at Rimutaka Prison. According to that newspaper the corrections boss had “conceded there had been a malign culture at the prison for some time”. “Malign” was an interesting word to use meaning harmful or evil in nature or effect. Therefore it is timely that the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) is on the Order Paper to improve the operations of the corrections system and to tweak the Corrections Act 2004 in order to address the issues that have arisen since its implementation. 
As this House knows improving the operation of the corrections system is and must be an absolute priority in order to increase public perception of and confidence in the way in which sentences and orders imposed by courts and the Parole Board are managed. If a negative institutional culture exists in any agency of the State we must do everything we can to address it. Question time has been rife with claims of bullying harassment and assaults on staff members. We have heard of reports investigating the endemic smuggling of contraband. Although the David Patten inquiry concluded there was no systemic corruption at Rimutaka there were a number of worrying outstanding factors. One was that there were allegations of corrupt activity by some staff which have been referred to the police. The other factor was that some of the most disturbing allegations could not be substantiated as the former officers who came forward with those claims refused to cooperate with the inquiry. The claims that the prison was being controlled by gangs and that inmates compiled shopping lists of contraband for guards to smuggle in although not able to be proven are indications of an environment that warrants rigorous scrutiny. 
We have before us today a range of provisions to improve the control of contraband in prison: provisions to allow a consistent approach to the monitoring of prisoners’ telephone calls and mail and provisions to allow the jamming of cellphone transmissions. Of particular concern to the Maori Party is that any search detection and offence provisions be applied fairly to all whether inmates or staff whether gang affiliates or whether Maori—whatever they may be. We cannot emphasise that too greatly. 
In the case of Rimutaka Prison the Maori Party has been aware of the allegations of corruption and serious misconduct that have been described by the Public Service Association as a cloud of suspicion hanging over the staff. We know too that a number of prison staff have been suspended. The Patten report refers to staff employment processes that needed to be improved. So what is to be done to make the changes necessary to immediately address the so-called malignant culture at that prison and others? In the case of Rimutaka Prison we have been informed by the department’s chief executive officer—the Maori Party has met with him and the Minister—of a number of steps that have been taken to address the issues. 
This bill though requires additional search detection and offence provisions to come into play to improve the control of contraband in prisons. It includes within its scope provisions that search powers will be extended to parts of the prison inhabited by people other than the prisoners—that is staff. Section 100(1) of the principal Act is to be repealed and replaced by a new section that will authorise an officer to search any place in the prison such as a staff member’s locker. Presumably these new actions have been introduced as a result of what the bill describes as an “increase in inexperienced staff members”. That is an interesting observation. I recall the thoughts of Professor John Pratt in  
Punishment in a Perfect Society: The New Zealand Penal System.  
Professor Pratt put forward three reasons as to why successive attempts at penal reform fail: there are constraints arising from a lack of funding skilled staff may be lacking and there is opposition from a public opinion that demands punishment rather than treatment. 
So the question must be asked as to why there are not measures in this bill to increase the professional development opportunities in order to upskill staff. The emphasis is clearly on new legislative measures to punish and to prosecute rather than to educate and train. We know that Governments respond rather vigorously in election year to those who demand a get-tough attitude towards crime whether real or imagined. It is always a vote winner. This bill although it supposedly has an honourable intent is along with other bills that have come before this House such as the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill part of that vote-catching election year legislative parade. 
The other key pressure that has created the need for this bill is around the concept of electronic communication. The bill responds to the technological advances that have occurred with particular relevance to cellphones. The bill will now give the department the authority to intercept monitor disable disrupt and interfere with wireless transmissions in order to prevent cellphone use. The bill states in black and white that within prison walls cellphones have been used by prisoners to organise further criminal offending to threaten and harass witnesses and to organise escapes. The bewildering thing beyond all of that of course is how on earth prisoners are able to get away with their continued success in a criminal career while inside prison walls. 
A couple of months ago in Christchurch Judge Michael Crosbie gave out a sentence to an offender who “fixed” evidence with text messages from jail. He noted at the sentencing that the courts are seeing more and more of that type of offending organised by texting in a prison environment. We therefore welcome the arrangements that have gone on between the Department of Corrections Vodafone and Telecom to put in place a blocking technology to put unauthorised cellphones out of action. I am particularly pleased with the point about harassment because a lot of prisoners have used cellphones to harass their partners or other whanau out there to do stuff for them. 
We are pleased that stiffer penalties are not the only option to address the threat of communications devices but that a more comprehensive block-out of coverage is being considered through more technical arrangements as well. As I understand it the blocking technology has been rolled out in Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison so we will be interested to hear any reports from the Minister as to how well that trial has gone. 
Finally I want to refer to the new provisions around information sharing. This bill continues the path of surveillance that we have seen in many other bills before this House. It extends the current provisions around the release of information on high-risk offenders to the police to also include other relevant social agencies. We will be keen to see whether the measures in this bill can actually assist in facilitating the rehabilitation of offenders or whether the emphasis is all on managing risk and monitoring the offender in his or her return to the community. What we know is that some 41.1 percent of all prisoners are reconvicted within 12 months of their release from prison and that that figure rises to 56.4 percent after 2 years. Given those statistics we are absolutely passionate about the need to introduce meaningful and effective reintegration and rehabilitation programmes which are not there at the moment. 
We are happy to support this bill to go through to the select committee in order to ensure that the voices of experience can be heard on that and other issues of contention in this bill.