People Against Prisons Aotearoa

Abolitionist Demand 44: Increase financial compensation for people who work during their incarceration, providing at least an industry average wage-rate.

This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

In the lead up to the 2014 general election, the National Government announced that it would expand its “Working Prisons” programme to all prisons across New Zealand.[1] This came after a series of previous expansions of prison work programmes throughout the National Government’s first six years in office.[2] Like previous expansions, the nation-wide expansion would require all incarcerated people, other than those who have serious addiction issues, to work 40 hours per week.[3] The rate of pay for incarcerated workers is “approved by the Minister,” according to the Corrections Act 2004.[4]

Details about the “Working Prisons” programme are currently not publicly available, although some details have leaked. According to the 2001 policy,[5] incarcerated workers have to “volunteer” to work, so as to comply with the International Labor Organization’s Forced Labour Convention. As a reward for their ‘volunteer’ work, incarcerated people receive between $0 and $1 per hour as an “incentive payment.”[6] Media have reported that in some instances incarcerated people are receiving no pay whatsoever,[7] and in others that they are receiving 20,[8] 40[9] or 60c per hour.[10]

For people involved in the “Release to Work” programme, where incarcerated workers are employed by an external organisation in the hope that they will be employed by that organisation on release, those workers receive “market wages”[11] but are required to pay for the costs of transport, tools, clothing[12] and to “pay 30 per cent of their after-tax income, up to a maximum of $250 per week, to the Department.”[13] In practice, this can leave incarcerated workers with a weekly pay of almost nothing for 40 hours of work. Nonetheless, only between 6-10% of incarcerated people take part in this higher-paying program.[14]

According to a spokesperson for Corrections, with the updated “Working Prisons” policy, “inmates cannot be compelled to work or study, but they would face penalties if they do not take part.”[15] In other words, the vast majority of ‘eligible’ incarcerated people would be coerced, under threat of punishment, to work unpaid or severely underpaid for 40 hours per week. This is nothing less than a form of contemporary penal slavery.

When people are sent away to prison, their social connections and responsibilities do not suddenly disappear. Many of those currently in prison have families, whānau, partners and children who are dependent on them for income and survival. Providing a full and fair wage to incarcerated workers means that the people who depend on those workers would not be completely abandoned. Although some incarcerated workers receive a very small amount of compensation for their labour, this does not make up for the all hours of stolen labour. All workers, whether they are incarcerated or not, deserve full and fair compensation for their work.

[1] Chris Bramwell, “Working Prisons Pledge from National,” Radio New Zealand, 10 September 2014. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/254242/working-prisons-pledge-from-national.

[2] Isaac Davison, “All Work, No Pay in Prison Reforms,” NZ Herald, 30 January 2013. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10862240.

[3] Ibid.

[4]Corrections Act 2004 s 66(3).

[5] Department of Corrections, Inmate Employment Policy, (Wellington: Department of Corrections, 2001).

[6] Department of Corrections, Inmate Employment Policy, (Wellington: Department of Corrections, 2001), 14.

[7] Isaac Davison, “All Work, No Pay in Prison Reforms,” NZ Herald, 30 January 2013. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10862240.

[8] Simon Collins, “Prisoners Paid 20c an Hour to Pick Fruit,” NZ Herald, 28 February 2006. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10370353.

[9] Timothy Brown, “Prison Farm Work Fodder for Future,” Otago Daily Times, 29 September 2013. https://www.odt.co.nz/business/farming/prison-farm-work-fodder-future.

[10] Isaac Davison, “Left Backs National’s Plans for ‘Working Prisons’,” NZ Herald, 11 September 2014. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11322363.

[11] Department of Corrections, “Release to Work,” Department of Corrections, 6 March 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/working_with_offenders/prison_sentences/employment_and_support_programmes/employment_activities/release_to_work.html.

[12] Ibid.

[13]Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012, (Wellington: Department of Corrections, 2012), 18. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/676063/Prisoner-employment-strategy-09.pdf.

Abolitionist Demand 43: End the practice of prisoner disenfranchisement and reinstate voting rights to all prisoners during their incarceration.

This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

The Electoral Act 1993 provides that any citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand who is incarcerated after the commencement of the Electoral Amendment Act 2010, and who has been sentenced by the courts to imprisonment for their crime(s),[1] is disqualified for registration as an elector, meaning that they are unable to vote in local or general elections.[2]

As found by the High Court in Taylor v Attorney General, this voting ban is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in which every New Zealand citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote.[3] As stated by Justice Brown, prisoner disenfranchisement is in breach of the right of all citizens to elect a governing body on their behalf, the most fundamental aspect of liberal democracy. This denial of the right to vote is particularly egregious when considered alongside the disproportionate rates of imprisonment experienced by those most marginalised by the current economic and social order. No Pride in Prisons calls for the end of prisoner disenfranchisement and the reinstatement of voting rights to all incarcerated people.

[1] Incarcerated people on remand still have the right to vote in New Zealand.

[2]Electoral Act 1993 s 80(1)(d).

[3] Taylor v Attorney-General [2014]NZHC 1630, at [11].

    • Abolitionist Demand 42: Progressively defund the Department of Corrections.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    The Department of Corrections and the prison system fail to keep communities safe and to do justice. As 52% of formerly incarcerated people are re-imprisoned within 5 years of release,[1] prisons clearly do not stop ‘crime’ or any social harm associated with it. No Pride in Prisons recognises the need for a radical shift in how society defines and deals with social harm, as demonstrated in demands 10, 26, and 47. Ultimately, this means the end of the Department of Corrections, but No Pride in Prisons calls for its progressive defunding in the intermediate-term. Defunding the Department of Corrections would require a simultaneous decarceration or reduction in the total number of imprisoned people. Much the same as defunding the NZ Police (see demand 7), by defunding the Department of Corrections, funds may be reallocated towards practices and institutions that address the underlying structural causes of social inequality.

    [1] Arul Nadesu, Reconviction Patterns of Released Prisoners: A 60-months Follow-up Analysis, (Wellington: Department of Corrections, 2009), 6.

    Abolitionist Demand 41: Abolish all privately-owned and operated prisons.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    Fundamentally, the very idea of private prison ownership and operation is corrupt. Private prisons operate to profit from an incarceration process that locks people away for long periods of time but fails to make communities safer.[1] Contracting out prison operations also serves to limit the state’s responsibility to incarcerated people, and thus its accountability for their treatment. Through privatisation, the state’s responsibility to incarcerated people is replaced by responsibility for the management of contractual terms.

    By centring the contractual obligations, as well as the profit motive, privately-run prisons often place less emphasis on incarcerated people’s well-being in the operation of the prison. The failures of private prison operator Serco at Auckland’s Mount Eden Corrections Facility have highlighted the dangers of this process. Following an investigation into organised fights and an incarcerated person’s death, the Department of Corrections confirmed in December 2015 that Serco’s contract to run Mount Eden Corrections Facility would not be renewed in March 2017.[2] Auckland South Corrections Facility, also operated by Serco New Zealand, was the site of the recent high-profile rape of an incarcerated trans women as revealed by No Pride in Prisons in October 2015.[3] However, when these kinds of incidents occur, the state can shrug its shoulders and blame the private operator. It is able to privatise the responsibility.

    It is important to note that had the two prisons above been publicly operated, the events mentioned may still have occurred.[4] Nonetheless, No Pride in Prisons calls for the abolition of all privately-owned and operated prisons. This way, accountability to the welfare of prisoners cannot be fundamentally compromised by profit motives.

    [1] JustSpeak, Unlocking Prisons: How We Can Improve New Zealand’s Prison System, (Wellington: JustSpeak, 2014).

    [2] Isaac Davison, “Serco’s Contract to Run Mt Eden Prison Not Renewed,” NZ Herald, 9 December 2015. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11558364.

    [3] No Pride in Prisons, “Trans Woman Raped in Auckland South Corrections Facility,” Scoop, 5 October 2015. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1510/S00067/trans-woman-raped-in-auckland-south-corrections-facility.htm.

    [4] Sam Sachdeva, “Fight Club Culture at Mt Eden Prisons Existed Before Serco – Arthur Taylor,” Stuff, 26 February 2016. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77275157/Fight-club-culture-at-Mt-Eden-prisons-existed-before-Serco-Arthur-Taylor.

    • Abolitionist Demand 40: Hold all prison staff accountable for harassing and assaulting prisoners, including clear paths to termination.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    As a necessary part of imprisonment, incarcerated people are deprived of their bodily autonomy, unable to move between spaces at will or to deny invasive strip searches. For incarcerated people who have been harassed or assaulted by prison staff, this inability to move freely means that they are locked up in spaces where the people victimising them have more control over their bodies than they do. This is unacceptable, and in the short term it is of the utmost importance that prison staff who have assaulted prisoners are removed from prison facilities.

    According to the Prison Operations Manual, the initial response of a staff member to an incarcerated person’s complaint is to “immediately attempt to resolve the issue informally before the prisoner lodges a formal complaint.”[1] In other words, it is the staff member’s responsibility to make the complaint go away so that no formal complaint is laid. If the incarcerated person’s complaint is not “resolved” by the original officer, that person then has to fill out a form detailing their complaint.[2] If the person is one of the 71% of incarcerated people who cannot read and write to a level required to survive in “modern” society,[3] the original officer is then required to assist them with a written complaint.[4] That means that the officer would continue to maintain a degree of power over the incarcerated person and potentially influence the written form of the complaint.

    From there, the incarcerated person must go through a lengthy process of interviews and attempted resolutions before they can be advised of their right to lay a complaint with an external, independent agency.[5] According to the Inspector of Corrections’ website, “inspectors will generally not investigate any complaint which has not been through the complaint process where the complaint originated.”[6] This means that before an external agency will even look at a complaint, an incarcerated person has to go through all the barriers Corrections puts in place to an independent investigation.

    In practice, this makes it very difficult for incarcerated people to have their complaints dealt with impartially by an independent authority. Although a better complaint process will by no means undo all of the heinous everyday practices that incarcerated people experience, it may hold to account those individual staff members who engage in particularly harmful acts. This would require changes to current complaints process. These changes must include easier and safer mechanisms for prisoners to report assault to an independent authority. As it currently stands, the Department of Corrections’ policy around prisoner complaints erects as many barriers as possible to holding staff accountable for their actions. It is in the interests of ongoing prisoner safety that No Pride in Prisons demands better and more transparent processes for complaints against staff, which are actioned by an independent authority.

    [1] Department of Corrections, “PC.01.01 Initial Notification of Prisoner Complaint,” Department of Corrections, 20 June 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/policy_and_legislation/Prison-Operations-Manual/Prisoner-complaints.html.

    [2] Department of Corrections, “PC.01.02 Internal Complaint,” Department of Corrections, 20 June 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/policy_and_legislation/Prison-Operations-Manual/Prisoner-complaints.html.

    [3] Jill Bowman, “Assessing the Literacy and Numeracy of Prisoners,” Practice: The Corrections Journal 2, no. 1 (2014): 39.

    [4] Department of Corrections, “PC.01.02 Internal Complaint,” Department of Corrections, 20 June 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/policy_and_legislation/Prison-Operations-Manual/Prisoner-complaints.html.

    • Abolitionist Demand 39: Publicly fund transport to prisons.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    Most New Zealand prisons are only accessible to the public by private vehicle.[1] New Zealand prisons are located throughout the country, sometimes in extremely remote places, such as Rangipō, where people can be incarcerated hundreds of kilometres from whānau and loved ones. It can be extremely expensive for whānau to visit from far away, in terms of both time and money. Even relatively short distances that are not accessible by bus or foot require a car and the ability to drive. For those who cannot afford a car, or to run one, visitation to some prisons is extremely difficult.

    The provision of publicly funded transport to prisons is fundamental to the long term well-being of incarcerated people, their loved ones, and communities as a whole. Contact between incarcerated people and the outside world through prison visitation maintains the ties of emotional support that can be eroded so easily by the isolation of incarceration. A 2011 study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found that any prison visitation greatly reduces a person’s likelihood of reoffending.[2] In particular, it “showed that more frequent and recent visits were associated with a decreased risk of recidivism.”[3] Further, a 2012 UK study reiterated previous research, which found that visits significantly improve the well-being of incarcerated people.[4]

    Existing volunteer transportation enables limited prison visitation but publicly funded transportation is necessary to provide regular and reliable access.[5] Where cost is a barrier to visitation, regular and publicly-funded transportation services to and from prisons will help to extend the benefits of visitation to incarcerated people, their families, and their communities.


    [1] Department of Corrections, “Our Locations,” Department of Corrections, 4 June 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/about_us/getting_in_touch/our_locations.html.

    [2] Minnesota Department of Corrections, Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism, (St Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2011).

    [3] Ibid., 27.

    [4] Rachael Dixey and James Woodall, “The Significance of ‘the Visit’ in an English Category-B Prison: Views from Prisoners, Prisoners’ Families and Prison Staff,” Community, Work & Family, 15: 37.

    [5] PARS, “Our Services,” PARS, 20 March 2016. http://www.pars.co.nz/sub-menu/our-services/.

    Abolitionist Demand 38: Allow independent academics and journalists to conduct research in New Zealand prisons.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    Government departments have been increasingly uncooperative in supplying data about their operations to the public on request, despite their obligations under the Official Information Act (OIA). The Ombudsman has repeatedly raised concerns about the movement away from transparency and accountability by a number of government departments.[1]

    In 2015, University of Canterbury lecturer Jarrod Gilbert revealed that academics are forced to sign a contract before being allowed access to police data.[2] This gives the New Zealand Police the power to vet that research before publication, effectively threatening individuals or entire universities with blacklisting. Further, the Minister of Corrections has recently been accused of unlawfully trying to restrict access to prisons even to Members of Parliament.[3]

    Such attacks on academic freedom and transparency are unacceptable. The OIA must be tightened to prevent such violations, and public information must be freely available to the public, including academics.

    [1] NZ Herald, “Top-level Alarm Over Secrecy Trend,” NZ Herald, 28 September 2012. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10836994.

    [2] David Fisher, “Academics Could Be Blacklisted by Police,” NZ Herald, 25 November 2015. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11550677.

    [3] Newstalk ZB, “Collins Accused of Restricting MPs’ Access to Prisons,” Newstalk ZB, 3 March 2016. http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/collins-accused-of-restricting-mps-access-to-prisons/.

    • Abolitionist Demand 37: Increase access to communication with the outside.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    People in prisons should be able to easily keep in contact with people on the outside in order to access support systems, communicate their needs, and help them reintegrate once released. The Department of Corrections’ practice of isolating people from their iwi, hapū and whānau by placing them in prisons far from home[1] makes correspondence, visitations, and calls both difficult and infrequent. Further, this is counter-productive as measured against the Department’s stated goal of reducing re-offending by 25 per cent by 2017,[2] as regular contact with the outside can help to reduce recidivism.[3]

    In particular, No Pride in Prisons demands that the Department of Corrections provides greater availability for prisoners to make phone calls. Although prisoners are guaranteed at least one phone call per week, this call is recorded, limited to a maximum of 5 minutes,[4]can only be to one of 10 pre-approved numbers, and is made at the prisoner’s expense.[5] This is absolutely insufficient. The Ombudsman has also flagged the issue of people placed in prisons far from home having to pay considerably more to make national rather than local calls to their friends and whānau.[6]

    Visitation should also be an irrevocable right and Corrections should provide some form of transportation for visitors, especially those whose whānau have been moved to distant facilities (see demand 39). Given the low literacy levels in prison, it is unacceptable that visitation, calls, and correspondence all require paperwork filled out by the prisoner.

    The draconian rules about what mail is allowed in and out of prisons must be changed. All books should be allowed as well as access to newspaper and magazine subscriptions, pen pal networks, personal mail, and correspondence courses. The mail room should apply no filtering that is not also applied to free people outside prisons.


    [1] Simon Collins and Jenny MacIntyre, “Written Off Because They Don’t Know How to Read or Write,” NZ Herald, 2 March 2006. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10370457.

    [2] Department of Corrections, “Our Vision, Goal & Priorities,” Department of Corrections, 4 June 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/about_us/Our_vision_goal_and_priorities.html.

    [3] Minnesota Department of Corrections, Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism, (St Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2011).

    [4] Department of Corrections, “C.02 Prisoner Telephone,” Department of Corrections, 4 August 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/policy_and_legislation/Prison-Operations-Manual/Communication/C.html.

    [5] Department of Corrections, “Phone Calls,” Department of Corrections, 4 August 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/working_with_offenders/prison_sentences/staying_connected_with_friends_and_family/phone_calls.html.

    [6] John Belgrave and Mel Smith, Ombudsmen’s Investigation of the Department of Corrections In Relation to the Detention and Treatment of Prisoners, (Wellington: Office of the Ombudsman, 2005), 20.

    • Abolitionist Demand 36: Ensure every prisoner has an irrevocable right of access to a high-quality library, which includes LGBTIQ-affirming literature.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    Libraries need to provide books for all incarcerated people including specifically LGBTIQ-affirming literature for respite, entertainment, and education. Prison is a place where a person’s sense of who they are and what they have been through can be invalidated.[1] This can particularly be the case for trans women who are being held in men’s prisons and who are, by definition, having their identity invalidated by the Department of Corrections. Incarcerated people should have access to narratives and histories that validate who they are and what they have been through, and that can help them find or affirm their sense of self.

    As a Department of Corrections study demonstrates, as many as 71% of incarcerated people in New Zealand prisons are unable to read at “the level at which a person is able to cope with the demands of everyday life and work in a complex, advanced society.”[2] A well-resourced library can provide incarcerated people with the opportunity to learn where the New Zealand education system failed them. In this way, reading can also provide knowledge for rehabilitation and other skills needed for the outside. For these reasons, No Pride in Prisons demands that all prisoners have consistent, unimpeded access to a high-quality prison library which contains LGBTIQ-affirming literature.

    [1] Jason Lydon et al. Coming Out of Concrete Closets: A Report on Black & Pink’s National LGBTQ Prisoner Survey, (United States: Black & Pink, 2015), 56.

    [2] Jill Bowman, “Assessing the Literacy and Numeracy of Prisoners,” Practice: The Corrections Journal 2, no. 1 (2014): 39.

    Abolitionist Demand 35: Allow all prisoners access to the underwear, other clothing, and makeup of their choice.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    Incarcerated people should be able to present themselves in ways that affirm their sense of their gender. The Department of Corrections must take steps to ensure the provision of gender-affirming items, such as clothing and makeup, to all prisoners. Currently there is a disparity in the availability of these items between women’s and men’s prisons.[1] For example, people incarcerated in men’s prisons are often denied access to items such as makeup, emery boards, tweezers, and facial wash, which are otherwise available in women’s prisons.[2] There are also differences between the prison-issued clothing available in women’s and men’s prisons, specifically in terms of the undergarments provided to incarcerated people.[3] The undergarments issued in women’s prisons should also be available in men’s prisons, and vice versa, for those who want to wear them. The Department of Corrections must acknowledge the importance of gender-affirming practices and presentations, such as dress and personal grooming, and must act to ensure that all incarcerated people have access to the items necessary to perform them.

    [1] Jeremy Lightfoot, “C76665 S Vella,” FYI.org.nz, 29 April 2016. https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/3703/response/12759/attach/html/3/C76665%20S%20Vella.pdf.html.

    [2] Department of Corrections, “Women’s Canteen List,” Department of Corrections, 31 January 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/459766/F.05.Sch.04-Sample-canteen-list-womens-v.06-030214.pdf.

    [3] Anna Pearson, “Female Inmates Can Glam Up in Prison,” Stuff, 1 January 2014. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9567926/Female-inmates-can-glam-up-in-prison.

    • Abolitionist Demand 34: Enable consistent, high-quality access to gender affirmation surgery and hormone replacement therapy.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz 

    Following the 2013 change in policy regarding the housing of trans and intersex people in New Zealand prisons, rules around the provision of gender affirming medical care became less clear.[1] Prior to the changes, trans people were banned from starting hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in prison, but could continue HRT at their own cost.[2] Gender affirmation surgery was forbidden under prison regulations.[3]

    However, after the 2013 rule changes, all mention of medical care for trans prisoners was removed from the Prison Operations Manual.[4]No Pride in Prisons then sent an Official Information Act (OIA) request to the Department of Corrections to uncover exactly what the policy is. For the first time, and in response to the OIA request, Corrections said that it treats HRT as it would any other medical treatment.[5] With regards to gender affirmation surgery, it appears that Corrections would not prevent incarcerated people from getting that surgery.[6]

    The issue remains, however, that in New Zealand the waiting list for publicly funded affirmation surgery is currently 140 years long.[7] That means the prospect of getting this healthcare is effectively impossible both inside and outside prison for people who cannot afford unfunded surgery. In order for this demand to be met, changes are required to the New Zealand health system outside of prison to allow for easy and high quality access to this treatment.

    No Pride in Prisons also demands consistent, high quality access to HRT. We are making this demand because although it appears, on paper, that people can now start HRT while in prison, in practice it can be quite different. No Pride in Prisons is in contact with one trans woman who does not get the dosage of oestrogen that she needs and had received on the outside. Another woman who has contacted us is having difficulty getting doctors to start her treatment. HRT and affirmation surgery can be life-saving medical treatment and both incarcerated and non-incarcerated trans people deserve consistently high quality access to it.[8]

    [1]Corrections Amendment Regulations (No 2) 2013.

    [2] Beverley Wakem and David McGee, Investigation of the Department of Corrections in Relation to the Provision, Access and Availability of Prisoner Health Services (New Zealand: Ombudsman, 2012).

    [3] Department of Corrections, M.03.05 of the former Prison Services Operations Manual (no longer available). Quoted in, Beverley Wakem and David McGee, Investigation of the Department of Corrections in Relation to the Provision, Access and Availability of Prisoner Health Services (New Zealand: Ombudsman, 2012).

    [4] Department of Corrections, “M.03.05 Transgender and Intersex Prisoner,” Department of Corrections, 4 August 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/policy_and_legislation/Prison-Operations-Manual/Movement/M.03-Specified-gender-and-age-movements/M.03-4.html.

    [5] Jeremy Lightfoot, “Response C76663,” FYI.org.nz, 29 April 2016. https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/3701/response/12756/attach/html/3/Response%20C76663.pdf.html.

    • Abolitionist Demand 33: Allow for the immediate placement of all trans prisoners in a prison of their choosing.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    As the policy for the housing of trans people in New Zealand prisons currently stands, trans people are housed in prisons according to the sex recorded on their birth certificate.[1] However, many trans people never get the sex on their birth certificate changed because of the cost and time required to do so.[2] That means that most trans people in New Zealand’s prisons get placed automatically in a prison that corresponds with the sex they were assigned at birth.

    With the 2013 changes to the policy surrounding the housing of trans prisoners,[3] people can now apply to be moved to a prison that matches their gender, if such a prison exists.[4] However, this process is long, complicated, and can take months to be processed.[5] According to the Department of Corrections, all trans prisoners in New Zealand prisons that the Department is aware of are trans women and more than half of them remain in men’s prisons.[6] In part, this is because of the difficulty and length of time it takes to go through the application. Other trans women are not eligible to be moved because they have been convicted of a sexual offence against a person of their gender, a disqualifying factor under the regulations.[7] Finally, some trans women, for whatever reasons, would simply prefer to stay in the prison they are in.

    No Pride in Prisons’ demand is therefore in response to each of these reasons for the majority of incarcerated trans women being held in men’s prisons. We demand that trans prisoners are immediately, on induction, placed in a prison of their choosing. Incarcerated trans people must be given the freedom to decide where they are placed and be given the opportunity to change that decision if necessary. This flexibility is necessary in order to recognise that not all trans women want to be in women’s prisons or trans men in men’s prisons.

    [1] Department of Corrections, “M.03.05 Transgender and Intersex Prisoner,” Department of Corrections, 4 August 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/policy_and_legislation/Prison-Operations-Manual/Movement/M.03-Specified-gender-and-age-movements/M.03-4.html.

    [2]Human Rights Commission, To Be Who I Am: Report of the Inquiry into Discrimination Experienced by Transgender People, (Wellington: Human Rights Commission, 2007), 66.

    [3]Corrections Amendment Regulations (No 2) 2013 reg 65B.

    [4] There are no prisons in New Zealand that house people who are non-binary, and it would therefore be impossible to place a non-binary person within a prison that matches their gender identity. However, No Pride in Prisons would absolutely oppose the construction of any prison solely for non-binary or trans people.

    [5] Joel Maxwell, “Corrections Fast-tracks Approval to Shift Trans Woman Prisoner from Rimutaka,” Stuff, 27 August 2015. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/71510201/corrections-fasttracks-approval-to-shift-trans-woman-prisoner-from-rimutaka.

    [6] Jeremy Lightfoot, “C73361 S Buchanan,” FYI.org.nz, 23 October 2015. https://fyi.org.nz/request/2867/response/10098/attach/html/3/C73361%20S%20Buchanan.pdf.html.

    [7] Department of Corrections, “M.03.05 Transgender and Intersex Prisoner,” Department of Corrections, 4 August 2016. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/policy_and_legislation/Prison-Operations-Manual/Movement/M.03-Specified-gender-and-age-movements/M.03-4.html.

    Abolitionist Demand 32: Provide access to a variety of safer sex options, including condoms and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in all New Zealand prisons.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    Sexual activity between incarcerated people is an inevitability of incarceration, and the Department of Corrections must take appropriate steps towards preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Though Corrections makes condoms available to all prisoners at no cost, they are available only following an appointment at the Health Centre.[1] Many incarcerated people do not wish to disclose their sexual activity as it is “not encouraged” by Corrections.[2] It is therefore not good enough to make condoms available only through this avenue. In order to prevent the spread of STIs between incarcerated people, condoms should be readily available at no cost in every bathroom of a facility, along with free access to dental dams and regular sexual health testing.

    Access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which helps HIV negative people who are at risk of HIV exposure to prevent infection, is extremely limited and costs $1,200 a month as it is not funded by Pharmac.[3] This is a potentially life-saving medication that could help “end the AIDS epidemic.”[4] PrEP should be funded and readily available to all people in New Zealand. For incarcerated people, access to PrEP is a particularly pressing issue. International studies have shown that prisoners are substantially more likely to be HIV-positive than the general population, so particular attention must be placed on the prevention of HIV transmission in prisons. PrEP should therefore be available and accessible to all incarcerated people through healthcare services.

    [1] Jeremy Lightfoot, “Response C76661,” FYI.org.nz, 20 April 2016. https://fyi.org.nz/request/3700/response/12643/attach/html/3/Response%20C76661.pdf.html.

    [2] Ibid.

    [3] GayNZ, “New Zealand PrEP Trial Gets Green Light,” GayNZ, 11 June 2015. http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_16946.php.

    [4] Ben Tinker, “Can This Pill End the AIDS Epidemic?,” CNN, 1 December 2015. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/01/health/truvada-prep-hiv-prevention-debate/.

    • Abolitionist Demands 31: Establish presumptive parole guidelines that will facilitate the release of prisoners at their first parole eligibility date, unless they are charged with a new criminal offence while serving their sentence.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    Since the 1990’s, the efforts of penal populist lobbying groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust have made it far more difficult for prisoners to get parole.[1] This has, in part, enabled the current overcrowding crisis in New Zealand’s prisons. This overcrowding has led to prisonersfacing increasing physical violence,[2] and has led to policies such as double-bunking, which has in turn led to trans prisoners being raped.[3]

    This is a serious issue which demands immediate remedy. No Pride in Prisons calls for the implementation of presumptive parole guidelines, which have incarcerated people released after their minimum sentence has been served, unless they are charged with a new offence while serving their sentence. The implementation of these guidelines would reduce time served by prisoners, allowing them to engage in non-carceral rehabilitation much sooner. Further, it would reduce overcrowding, which would improve existing prisoners’ welfare through reducing the social harms that overcrowding inflicts on them.

    Strict parole and probation policies are at the root of the overcrowding crisis in New Zealand prisons. Recognising the incredible harm that overcrowding brings with it, No Pride in Prisons demands the implementation of presumptive parole guidelines in order to reduce New Zealand’s ballooning prison population.

    [1] Sensible Sentencing Trust, “SST Achievements,” Sensible Sentencing Trust, 22 March 2016. http://sst.org.nz/about-us/our-acheivements/.

    [2] Talia Shadwell, “‘Anarchic’ Mt Eden is New Zealand’s Roughest Prison, Figures Show,” Stuff, 24 July 2015. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/70498362/Anarchic-Mt-Eden-%20%09is-New-Zealands-roughest-prison-figures-show.

    [3] Russell Blackstock, “Jail Attack Inmate Transgender,” NZ Herald, 3 October 2015. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11523403.

    • Abolitionist Demand 30: Stop strip searching incarcerated people.

    This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz

    Every single person incarcerated in the New Zealand prison system has been, by law, required to be sexually assaulted by officers on multiple occasions during their incarceration. This assault is in the form of a strip search. As stated in the Corrections Act 2004, a strip search in NZ can include opening the mouth of the prisoner, lifting and “rubbing” their hair, forcing the person to spread their legs and squat naked.[1] The officer also has full authority to “lift or raise,” or more accurately fondle, “fat, genitalia, and breasts.”[2]

    Under the Act, every incarcerated person undergoes a strip search when they enter and leave the prison.[3] There are a wide set of other instances in which they can be searched too.[4] Assuming that very few of these people would have given consent to have their body invaded by someone in a position of authority were they not incarcerated, this is a clear instance of sexual assault.

    Given the invasiveness of the searches, it is remarkable just how ineffective they are at fulfilling their stated purpose of finding and retrieving contraband. In the fiscal year 2014/15, prison officers conducted 115,166 strip searches and only found contraband in 472 instances.[5] That means that absolutely nothing was found in 99.59% of strip searches.

    Following requests from No Pride in Prisons, the Department of Corrections was forced to clarify its policies around the strip searching of trans people. In one Official Information Act (OIA) request, the Department dodged the question as to who strip searches trans prisoners.[6]In a follow up, it appears that the Department scrambled to determine a policy.[7] It noted that according to section 94(1) of the Corrections Act, a “rub-down search or strip search may be carried out only by a person of the same sex as the person to be searched.”[8]

    That means that trans women, who are women and consequently are ‘sexed’ as women regardless of genitalia,[9] are required to be searched by women officers. However, in the second OIA response, Corrections said that a “transgender prisoner placed in a men’s prison will be searched by male officers and a transgender prisoner placed in a women’s prison will be searched by female officers.”[10]

    As the majority of trans women in New Zealand’s prisons are currently locked away in men’s prisons, most incarcerated trans women are required to be searched by male guards.[11] In practice, strip searches are even worse than they appear in policy. Incarcerated trans women whom No Pride in Prisons has talked to have told us what a strip search is like for them. They have told us about the humiliating experience of being held down as a male guard searches their bottom half, and a female guard their top half.

    The stated purpose of sexually assaulting prisoners with strip searches is “preventing contraband from entering the prison,”[12] and ensuring the safety of incarcerated people and prison staff, with the implicit assumption that this justifies the use of strip searches. Given that only a small minority of contraband discovered in any kind of search are actually weapons, the majority of items smuggled into prison pose no threat to the safety of people in prisons.[13] Indeed, the Department of Corrections classifies “alcohol, communication devices, drugs, drug paraphernalia, tattoo equipment… tobacco and smoking equipment (e.g. lighters)”[14] as contraband – none of these are means for harming anybody. They are means for coping with the life-crushing boredom of imprisonment.

    In a harrowing blog post, Valerie Morse details how she was strip searched up to seven times per day while in a New Zealand prison.[15] She notes how strip searches, along with other everyday practices in prisons, led her to feel an “utter sense of powerlessness.” In other words, strip searches are routinely used by officers to humiliate and demonstrate power over incarcerated people. That is their actual purpose: humiliation and dehumanisation.

    Routine sexual assault to prevent prisoners from smoking or receiving tattoos does nothing to ensure the wellbeing or safety of incarcerated people. Indeed, it profoundly harms them. If conditions in prisons are so hostile that incarcerated people resort to violence, the environment must be changed on a structural level. If, as detractors have argued, it would be impossible to run a prison without resorting to institutionalised sexual assaults in the form of strip searches, No Pride in Prisons asserts that this is not an argument in favour of strip searching but in favour of the abolition of prisons.

    [1]Corrections Act 2004 s 90(2).

    [2]Corrections Act 2004 s 90(2).

    [3]Corrections Act 2004 s 98(7).

    [4]Corrections Act 2004 s 98.

    [5] Jeremy Lightfoot, “Response C76659,” FYI.org.nz, 22 April 2016. https://fyi.org.nz/request/3698/response/12675/attach/html/3/Response%20C76659.pdf.html.

    [6] Ibid.

    [7] Jeremy Lightfoot, “Response C77626,” FYI.org.nz, 1 June 2016. https://fyi.org.nz/request/3698/response/13227/attach/html/3/Response%20C77626.pdf.html.

    [8]Corrections Act 2004 s 94(1).

    [9] To be ‘sexed’ means to be socially assigned a sex, usually at birth. The claim that a trans woman’s body is always a woman’s body recognises that regardless of the makeup of her genitalia, they are the genitals of a woman, and therefore women’s genitals. As sex is often, unscientifically, used as a placeholder for ‘genitals,’ it follows that a trans woman, having women’s genitals is also a woman or ‘female’ for the purposes of her sex. The reason this distinction is important is that often trans women are denied to be members of the female sex due to their genitalia.

    [10] Jeremy Lightfoot, “Response C77626,” FYI.org.nz, 1 June 2016. https://fyi.org.nz/request/3698/response/13227/attach/html/3/Response%20C77626.pdf.html.

    [11] Jeremy Lightfoot, “C73361 S Buchanan,” FYI.org.nz, 23 October 2015. https://fyi.org.nz/request/2867/response/10098/attach/html/3/C73361%20S%20Buchanan.pdf.html.

    [12] Jeremy Lightfoot, “Response C76659,” FYI.org.nz, 22 April 2016. https://fyi.org.nz/request/3698/response/12675/attach/html/3/Response%20C76659.pdf.html.

    [13] Terrence Buffery, “Response C77960,” FYI.org.nz, 15 June 2016. https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/3996/response/13427/attach/html/3/Response%20C77960.pdf.html.

    [14] Ibid.

    [15] Valerie Morse, “Daily Torment,” No Pride in Prisons, 19 March 2016. http://noprideinprisons.org.nz/post/141287387190/daily-torment.