Officials are pushing for greater powers to monitor and share prisoner communications as they say the risk of violence and extremism from behind the wire grows
Corrections acknowledges prisoners’ privacy will be impacted in changes in what it can monitor in inmates' communications, but says better tools are needed to know what’s going on.
Consultation on changes to the Corrections Act happened last year, with the department's preferred options now being made public.
READ MORE:
* Terror accused writes to far-right supporter from prison
* Māori are a growing majority of those sent to prison
It said alongside more sophisticated communications used by gangs, the rise and prominence of violent extremism had resulted in more violent extremist individuals in Corrections’ management.
It said current powers to monitor mail and telephone calls were too limited to effectively support safety and security of prisons and it was unclear whether prisoner communications could be shared for intelligence-gathering purposes.
“For example, information within mail cannot be used to build up broader intelligence of extremist networks or trends in radicalisation. Confusion exists amongst custodial staff regarding what they can do with prisoner mail for intelligence purposes because the Act is silent on this and staff have no explicit power to gather information that they see in copies of mail that are reviewed for withholding purposes,” a regulatory impact statement said.
It has proposed amending the Act to allow intelligence from different sources to be cross-referenced as well as clarifying that Corrections’ own staff can share information gathered with other parts of the department.
“For example, say the prison manager is alerted to something via a prisoner phone call which may have implications for other sites. The prison manager may want to share this information with the National or Regional Commissioners, and while they are able to under the current settings, the Act is unclear on how disclosure can occur from that point.
“The Regional Commissioners may want to alert their staff, however they technically do not have the ability to disclose the information any further as they are not authorised persons... This creates a gap in our ability to safely communicate issues across sites and staff, which hinders the safety and good order of prisons.”
"In particular, people said that if in-person visits were monitored, this would frustrate them and cause more people to “lash out”. They highlighted the importance of maintaining whānau connections and noted that this should not be further impacted on.” – feedback from prisoners
Corrections has also proposed changing the law to keep up with changes in technology. It wants different rules for different types of communications – be it visual, verbal, written or in-person.
“Visual sources would include things like images and video footage. These are already retained by Corrections but this change would allow this information to be used for intelligence purposes,” the proposal wrote.
It would also include the ability to monitor video calling.
A change for in-person visits was also pitched, with Corrections saying visits would not be monitored for all people, only on a case-by-case basis that would likely affect about 20 prisoners.
Another issue was the lack of manual capability to monitor communications under current rules.
This included not having enough staff to read all mail or listen to all conversations, as well as trained staff who could pick up on coded language or other encrypted information that was passing through.
“The Act does not anticipate how technology could be used to improve monitoring abilities. For example, artificial intelligence has been developed that is capable of monitoring phone calls without human intervention. The ability to use such technology could enable us to more widely monitor communications for targeted situations, by picking up on things such as key words or three-way calling (where an unauthorised person joins a call between a prisoner and a family member or friend).
"The Act could be clearer on if and how Corrections should have access to this technology.”
About 70 percent of those who responded during the public consultation period said an inability to effectively monitor prisoners was a problem.
A handful of prisoners were included in the response, all of whom felt strongly against increased monitoring.
“They felt that monitoring would inhibit their abilities to rehabilitate, cause tensions with staff, and put further strain on whānau relationships. In particular, people said that if in-person visits were monitored, this would frustrate them and cause more people to “lash out”. They highlighted the importance of maintaining whānau connections and noted that this should not be further impacted on," the feedback noted.
"The majority of people they just want to speak to their family and have a conversation with their partners and their children without someone listening in.” – Tommy Doran, JustSpeak.
Other submitters urged caution over expanding such powers.
“The Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman said instead of greater monitoring, greater use of dynamic security should be used to create a safe environment.
"This style of training requires alert staff interacting with prisoners in a positive manner, which in turn allows staff to anticipate and prevent problems before they arise.”
The Ombudsman felt that monitoring should only occur on a case-by-case basis while some iwi partners considered only higher risk individuals should be subject to such monitoring.
JustSpeak advocacy campaigner Tommy Doran said any extra infringement on privacy was unnecessary.
“It does infringe on people's human rights, their basic rights to privacy. Because, the majority of people they just want to speak to their family and have a conversation with their partners and their children without someone listening in.”
He said any new powers should be only be extended on a case-by-case basis.
“If there's serious suspicions about somebody's behaviour, who potentially is going to put other prisoners or other people on the outside at risk... then by all means, but I don't think this should be used to justify infringing on other people's privacy whatsoever.”
The Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis said any work on reforming the Act remained some way off.
“This legislation is still being drafted and is still some time away from being introduced to the House.
“Regarding the monitoring of prisoner communications, it is crucial that Corrections are able to adapt to changing technology and detect prisoner activity that could cause unrest in prisons.
“The practice of monitoring communications such as this is only done when warranted and with oversight. I would expect this to continue under the new legislation.”
Any changes would likely be reviewed after 18 months.
