RIS: Improving safety in prisons and supporting operational practice

Read the updated RIS: Improving safety in prisons and supporting operational practice PDF, 2.1 MB

Original RIS: Improving safety in prisons and supporting operational practice PDF, 1.9 MB

Problem definition

This regulatory impact statement (RIS) considers a package of options that would amend the Corrections Regulations 2005 (the Regulations). The options relate to five discrete areas where regulatory change is necessary to improve safety for staff and prisoners and
enable best practice operations, by:

• introducing prisoner restraints called drop-pins into prison doors
• supporting privacy for prisoners and ensuring that the framework for decision-making is transparent
• better ensuring that prisoner trust accounts support prison and public safety
• using risk assessment tools for remand prisoners to support appropriate management, and
• updating haircut and facial hair requirements for prisoners.

Executive Summary

This RIS analyses five areas for change for the operation of the 18 prisons governed by the Regulations that support the Corrections Act 2004 (the Act).

While in most cases operational solutions were considered, the prescriptive nature of the Regulations means that regulatory solutions are recommended as operational solutions alone will not achieve our objectives.

Impacts on different population groups

Māori are overrepresented in prison, making up 19.6% of the New Zealand population,² but 53% of the prison population as of December 2024. Additionally, 60% of the total number of people leaving prison each year identify as Māori.³ This means that Māori will be impacted more than other groups by the proposals, including benefits from improved wellbeing and prison safety, and improved operational practice. Our options analysis also identified impacts on groups such as women, youth, and ethnic communities.

Ultimately, improved safety within prisons will contribute to improved rehabilitation outcomes and reduced reoffending rates, supporting public safety and leading to fewer victims of crime. As such, the proposed changes support the purpose of the corrections system by ensuring sentences are administered in a safe, secure, humane, and effective manner.

Public consultation in August to October 2024 resulted in 33 submissions.

Of the 33 submissions, 13 were from organisations, 5 from individuals and 14 from prisoners.

To further understand the perspective of people with lived experience, we held four hui with prisoners at Auckland South Corrections Facility and Christchurch Women’s Prison in October 2024. We also held hui with the Human Rights Commission, as well as other groups or individuals including unions representing Corrections’ staff.

Proposals relating to cameras, remand security classifications, and haircuts were generally well supported in submissions. The submissions for cell door features and prisoner trust accounts received more mixed feedback.

There was no formal public consultation on the proposal to enable privacy screens and internal light switches in cells for prisoners at risk of self-harm, as these were later additions to the package of proposed amendments. However, our analysis draws on relevant themes from consultation in 2022 in relation to privacy features for prisoners on segregation and cell confinement. Targeted consultation on this proposal also occurred with prisoners during the hui at Auckland South Corrections Facility and Christchurch Women’s Prison, as well as with mental health and custodial staff within Corrections.

In response to public consultation, and further engagement with subject matter experts, we have refined the regulatory proposals.

We used feedback from public consultation to refine our proposals, including discounting some options. For example, feedback we received from both prisoners and external respondents was largely focused on adequacy and access to haircuts and haircutting tools and we added an additional option to reflect this.

Summary of proposals in Sections A to E

Sections A to F include subject-specific context, describe the problem definitions, analyse options including their costs and benefits, and discuss how recommended options will be implemented and reviewed.

Section A: Introducing prisoner restraints called drop-pins into prison doors

To better support staff safety, and reduce incidents of use of force, we propose amending the Regulations to enable the use of drop pins in doors in prison. Drop pins work by securing handcuffed prisoners to the door while the door is opened, the major advantage of which is that the pin restricts any unexpected prisoner movements to assault staff or use of the handcuffs as an aid to assault staff.

In response to concerns during consultation, we propose regulatory limitations to the use of drop pins so that they are only used in high security, and above and using long-chain handcuff. Additionally, use will need to be justified where prisoners are displaying behaviour that indicates the potential for harm, such as threats of violence, and for spontaneous use to require incident reporting procedures following use.

Costs and benefits

There are no compulsory costs for Corrections as prison managers will not be required to use the drop pins, but can install them as funding and need allows. Where they are installed, to add a drop pin to an existing hatch will cost approximately [redacted] where a hatch needs replacing.

Providing greater support to staff when opening doors in prison is expected to reduce staff assaults and related costs, as well as reduce use of force incidents for prisoners.

Section B: Better supporting privacy in prisons and ensuring that the framework for decision-making is transparent

The Corrections Act and Regulations contain provisions that affect the privacy of prisoners. Regulations on use of cameras in prisons are limited. The Regulations do not provide clear authority for most current CCTV and body-worn camera use, or guidance on how to use cameras in line with Corrections’ human rights obligations. This has likely contributed to inconsistent camera use which has in some cases has been considered non-compliant with NZBORA obligations by oversight bodies and the courts.

In other parts of the Regulations, there is an opportunity to enhance the privacy and dignity of prisoners, while balancing this with safety and security.

We propose removing regulatory prohibitions on privacy features in cells for prisoners at risk of self-harm. Internal light switches will be allowed in these ‘at-risk cells’, and privacy screening or barriers will be enabled where it aligns with safe custodial practice.

Additionally, regulations will be put in place that dictate where cameras can be used within the prison and considerations for why placement is required. We also propose an amendment to minimise the collection of intimate visual recordings by requiring privacy/modesty features where hygiene areas are monitored or recorded by CCTV.

Costs and benefits

New regulatory provisions will increase transparency and accountability and better support consistent practice in line with human rights standards. The new regulations will also support frontline environments by providing clear guidelines for camera use, and by reducing anger, trauma, and other negative impacts that can increase where there is more limited privacy that can put staff and others at more risk of assault from stressed prisoners.

While there is a risk of self-harm behind privacy screens, staff can be supported to mitigate this through regular observations and other measures that will be outlined in operational procedures. The risk is also countered by studies that show that having privacy improves wellbeing, which prisoners we consulted supported.

The regulatory changes would only require the removal of some cameras and not also installation, though some prisons may choose to install additional cameras. Where it is needed, we estimate a cost of about [redacted] to remove and repaint per camera.

The proposed regulations enable Corrections to use CCTV but do not compel it to. Depending on how Corrections decides to implement the new regulations, three prisons may need to install cameras in cells used to accommodate prisoners segregated under section 58(1)(a) or (b) of the Corrections Act 2004 (‘section 58 prisoners’). We estimate there are up to about 49 cells that would need CCTV installed, at an indicative cost of [redacted] per camera. This gives a total cost of  [redacted]. This would be done at the time of other works to control the cost, and it is only necessary if the prisons install the CCTV.

At all prisons that choose to retain or install CCTV in cells used for section 58 prisoners, the operating CCTV software will also need updating. This will add the ability for staff to enable and disable the required cameras. Technical advisers estimate this will cost about [redacted] a cost of between [redacted] if all sites retain or install CCTV in the affected cells.

Removing CCTV from some cells may require changes in staffing numbers and practices to ensure staff do in person checks for safety reasons rather than relying on the CCTV. Depending on how individual prisons respond to the need to adjust how they manage the impacted cells and prisoners (e.g. the need to do in-person checks rather than monitor through CCTV) the proposals may result in less-than-optimal prison environments due to staff being spread across more tasks. Resourcing for infrastructure, cameras and staffing will be required to come from baseline funding, some prisons may choose to allocate funding towards projects like staff bases or extra staff if it is within their ability to do so. We are proposing a five-year lead-in time to help accommodate changes within baseline budgets.

We do not anticipate that there will be any additional financial cost to Corrections to install internal light switches or privacy barriers in at-risk cells as this has been funded as a response to similar changes in the Corrections Amendment Regulations 2023.

Section C: Better ensuring that prisoner trust accounts support prison and public safety

Corrections is aware that while most prisoner trust account transactions are legitimate, trust accounts are also used for illicit activity that does not support the good order and safety of prisons or public safety. However, in order to restrict such activity, Corrections needs more, and explicit, powers.

We propose that the regulations require the chief executive to set consistent standards across the network that restrict transactions occurring, ensure Corrections can reduce safety risks by regulating access to release to work funds or approved over balance funds, and ensure Corrections is transparently empowered to manage deposits and withdrawals.

Costs and benefits

There is the possibility of increased prison tensions in the short term as prisoners adjust to stricter processes and operational staff are planning a phased rollout with lots of communication to mitigate this. Benefits from this proposal include a streamlined and clearer process for trust accounts, as well as a reduced risk of intimidation and illicit activities happening in relation to these accounts. This should result in a safer prison environment in the long term.

Section D: Using risk assessment tools for remand prisoners

There is currently no regulatory requirement for Corrections to conduct risk assessments for prisoners being held on remand. Instead, the risk a remand prisoner presents to the safety of the prison, staff and others, is determined operationally at the discretion of each prison.

We propose a regulatory requirement for Corrections to conduct risk assessments for a remand prisoner within 14 consecutive days of their arrival, with requirements for reviews of these assessments being triggered either by events, periods of time, or by the prisoner.

Costs and benefits

Improving the management of remand prisoners by conducting risk assessments may take up more resourcing due to the high level of remand prisoners in custody, however, this is expected to be manageable as in most cases assessments are undertaken for remand prisoners. Undertaking reviews of an initial assessment is likely to have the largest cost to Corrections. As that will be a significant practice change, we propose that it is phased in over three years to enable Corrections to ensure staffing is available to complete this task.

Benefits from this proposal include an improvement in overall prisoner wellbeing and greater insight for staff to manage a remand prisoner in accordance with their assessed risk. It also enables better use of Corrections resources in the long-term and in managing lower risk remand prisoners.

Section E: Updating haircut and facial hair requirements for prisoners

We propose to remove redundant regulatory requirements relating to prisoners changing their haircuts and facial hair, and instead provide for any requirements within operational policy. Following public consultation, we introduced an additional regulatory option that would require Corrections to better support prisoner access to reasonable haircutting facilities.

Costs and benefits

Provisions relating to haircuts will be easier to understand, as there will no longer be redundant requirements, and prisoners may benefit from requirements relating to reasonable access to haircutting facilities.

There are no compulsory costs for purchasing additional hair clippers if the prison/unit does not have enough to ensure prisoners are getting reasonable access to haircuts. Prisons can do so in accordance with their resources.

Limitations and Constraints on Analysis

There are some limitations to consultation on the proposal to enable internal light switches and privacy features in at-risk cells, as well as our consultation with prisoners .

As noted above, the proposal relating to internal light switches and privacy features for at-risk cells was not part of the wider formal public consultation. However, we have engaged on a related regulatory change that was enacted last year through the Corrections Regulations 2023, and we conducted targeted consultation with prisoners at two sites on this proposal as well as staff.

The engagement undertaken with prisoners by way of in person hui was limited to four hui across two sites. As the consultation was public, prisoners had an opportunity to provide written submissions on the proposals, and Corrections received 11 written submissions from prisoners during consultation (the most we have ever had). All prisoners had access to the proposals on the prison kiosks and through their libraries.

Our analysis on the likely impact of these proposals has been constrained by the absence of, or limited amount of, data and evidence as to the scope of some of the problems.

Some proposals rely predominant on anecdotal evidence rather than verified data, for example the proposal relating to drop pins improving staff safety. This can make it difficult to assess the size of the issue, and therefore a proportionate response.

Responsible Manager

Dr Marian Horan
Manager, Legislative Policy
Department of Corrections, Ara Poutama Aotearoa

Quality Assurance

Footnotes

¹ This version was updated on 19 June 2026.

² 2023 Census

³ The reason for the difference between 53% and 60% is because of particularly high representation on short sentences and remand.