Clendon David: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8134. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 The Greens spoke very strongly in opposition to the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill when it was first introduced. Our opposition to it has become if anything more adamant as we have observed and analysed the information the debate has revealed to date. 
We have heard much about innovation; the word has popped up regularly in a number of speeches. Indeed the commentary on the bill includes the statement: “Opening up prison management to contractors provides an opportunity for innovation and change in the way in which prisons in New Zealand are operated.” The word “innovation” caught my eye. We most often associate that word with ideas that are new and generally positive. It is often associated with some idea or proposal that is forward-thinking or even visionary. Sadly this bill reflects a mind-set that is as far from being truly innovative or visionary as one could reasonably imagine. 
There is most certainly an urgent need for change in our whole approach to prisons and imprisonment. Successive Governments have tried and it must be said failed to find solutions. The failure of those efforts is indicated by the reality that as a country we continue to have one of the highest rates of imprisonment per capita in the world and that rate continues to grow. The very dated mind-set behind this bill reflects the assumption that did so much harm in the 1980s and the 1990s which is that public sector delivery of services is wasteful and ineffective and that private provision is more effective more efficient and generally cheaper. The privatisation of the Public Service during that time left a very costly legacy that has still not been repaired and hard evidence for this case is simply not there as we have heard a lot tonight. 
Comments made earlier today to the Law and Order Committee painted a very graphic picture of a Department of Corrections that is under enormous stress and indeed stretched almost to breaking point. Despite spending millions of dollars each year locking up offenders our rate of recidivism remains untenably high with a strong correlation between rates of imprisonment and reoffending. The annual report of the Department of Corrections informed us that the number of serious assaults on one prisoner by another has risen by some 45 percent in the year 2008-09 compared with the previous year and that serious assaults on staff have risen by something close to 80 percent in the same time period. The introduction of this bill adds to the enormous stress that already exists within corrections and not least to the stress felt by prison officers. 
One thing on which I think we can all agree is that our prison system is broken. But passing the responsibility for the management of prisons to private contractors is not the mechanism that can or will fix it. A number of speakers have reflected on the fact that one of the most potent powers that may be exercised by the State in a liberal democracy is the power to deprive an individual of his or her liberty and freedom of movement and association. This power should be exercised exclusively by the State with a direct line of accountability to the public. Introducing private enterprise management for profit of people incarcerated makes no more sense than would the private provision of other elements of the justice system—the courts or the police—or indeed of the defence forces. 
The idea of private prisons might be marginally more palatable if there could be some reasonable expectation of economic or social benefit arising from such a radical departure from historical and indeed contemporary norms. Again the evidence is simply not there. The Corrections Association of New Zealand which represents something like 3000 prison guards made the following comment in its submission to the bill: “Contracting prison operation will only be cheaper if the terms and conditions of employment for employees are reduced. This will lead to considerable difficulties with recruitment and retention of staff. This will expose the Corrections Officers and the prisoners to considerable risk. Potentially these risks will fall back on the Department.” The association made the point that “small rural communities will be disadvantaged by less attractive terms and conditions and the provision of profits to what are likely to be overseas based contractors.” The association went on and expressed the very well-informed view that the bill if passed would inevitably lead to more dangerous prisons for staff and inmates alike. It voiced the very real concern that it is very inappropriate for anyone but an officer of the State to exercise extensive powers over prisoners including the use of force in certain situations and the right of search and seizure. 
There is a very legitimate role for the private sector generally to open up new markets expand business and generate profit and having recently come from the business sector I am very supportive of those activities. In this instance however the success of the business model of a private prison would be assured if more people were locked up for longer. So where is the incentive for a private operator to reduce inmate numbers to reduce recidivism and to pursue rehabilitation and the much more complex goals of a functioning corrections service? 
It is all too well known that Maori are disproportionately represented in prison musters. My colleague Metiria Turei in her first reading speech on this bill pointed to the 2007 report entitled  
Over-representation of Maori in the criminal justice system 
 in which analysing the data from apprehension through to prosecution conviction and finally sentencing confirmed that Maori are much more likely to be apprehended and more severely punished than non-Maori. The Maori focus units in prisons have begun to gain some traction. There have been some positive outcomes from that initiative. This bill however offers no mechanisms to improve the sorry state of the statistics for Maori. Grossly disproportionate numbers of young Maori are in jail but the bill does nothing to address this. There is no provision for access to kaumatua and no requirement to liaise with tangata whenua nor is there any obligation for the monitor to report on such matters. 
The prisons would operate through corporate structures that limit the liability and that distance the parent company from that liability. This would leave joint venture partners such as iwi carrying liability. A very useful and important submission was made by Professor Jane Kelsey from the school of law at Auckland University. She made the point already made tonight that the Auckland Central Remand Prison experience of privatisation delivered distorted figures and outcomes to the extent that it was a loss-leader for the Corrections Corporation of Australia to gain a foothold in the New Zealand prison service. It is clear that private contracts will focus on new prisons being built. They will have no interest in taking on a Victorian pile like Mount Eden Prison. They will leave the public sector to manage the older run-down prisons which will make comparisons between the two sectors wholly invalid. There is a distinct disconnect where contractors have access to official information but reports on performance indicators and monitors’ reports do not have to be released under the Official Information Act because of commercial confidentiality. Too much of what could occur in a private prison could be concealed under that guise. 
We know that the global recession means that it is harder for private prison companies like others to get finance and there are intense pressures to maximise short-term profit. If profits fail to meet expectations then there is pressure to renegotiate with the State which may have to carry the risk of private failure. What would be the Government’s position if a privately operated prison appeared to be getting into serious financial trouble? Could the State step aside and allow it to go broke? It is much more likely—in fact inevitable—that the public purse would once again be called upon to bail out private enterprise that has failed. 
We know that private prisons cut costs by reducing labour costs—as labour costs typically represent about 80 percent of overall running costs—through lower staffing levels and more electronic surveillance. Effectively our prisons would become electronic zoos with brutalising dehumanising effects on the inmates. The likelihood of their returning to those unfortunate places would be much increased. 
I think one thing we can all share is a common aspiration to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.