Dalziel Lianne: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8083. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person.” and that is what this debate is about. The reason we are debating this matter from a human rights perspective is that the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is something we have responsibility for. That responsibility for the deprivation of liberty lies with the Crown and it simply cannot be contracted out to just anyone the Government of the day considers might be appropriate. 
I think that the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins needs to think seriously about the consequences of a Supreme Court of Israel decision that came out late last week on Thursday 19 November. It is a very interesting case and I believe that it has relevance to this particular debate because essentially the Supreme Court of Israel has overturned the privatisation of prisons in Israel. It has done so on constitutional grounds because of the fundamental breach of human rights that the process recommends. I do not have the actual decision in front of me but I do have a report of the decision. It reports the President of the Supreme Court of Israel as saying: “Israel’s basic legal principles hold that the right to use force in general and the right to enforce criminal law by putting people behind bars in particular is one of the most fundamental and one of the most invasive powers in the state’s jurisdiction. Thus when the power to incarcerate is transferred to a private corporation whose purpose is making money the act of depriving a person of his liberty loses much of its legitimacy. Because of this loss of legitimacy the violation of the prisoner’s right to liberty goes beyond the violation entailed in the incarceration itself.” The president also argued that “in a prison run by a private company prisoners’ rights are undermined by the fact that the inmates are transformed into a means of extracting profit.” 
Sandra Goudie 
: Rubbish! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: “Efficiency” the president wrote “is not a supreme value when the most basic and important human rights for which the state is responsible are at stake.” 
Sandra Goudie 
: What a load of rubbish! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I know that members opposite do not care about human rights. I understand that and the interjections coming from the chair of the Law and Order Committee I expect from her because she does not have the same background as her colleague next door to her who at least has picked up a law book and read it which could be surprising. But maybe the Minister of Education could read a book to her—maybe that would be a good idea; if it had enough pictures we would probably be away laughing. 
But the point that I want to make is serious and the serious point I want to make is that this decision is the beginning of the end of the international privatisation of prisons. It is the beginning of the end because I believe that this case will become the foundation stone for cases that will be taken to the International Court of Justice which will overturn what has been a fundamental breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the privatisation—for profit—of the deprivation of liberty. I am not arguing that any of the individuals concerned are not entitled to have their liberty deprived; they have committed crimes for which they will be held accountable. But this case says and puts it very well that the loss of legitimacy when profit is being made out of their incarceration is beyond that for what would otherwise be a violation of a basic human right. So I believe that the Minister does need to respond to this very recent decision. It is the beginning I believe of a series of cases around the world where the fundamental tenets that support our justice system in this country will be challenged in international jurisdictions and where those of us who have gone down this track will be held to account. 
The second thing that I will say is not so much in relation to that decision but to what happens when there is a change of Government because we have made it absolutely clear that this will end in the same way that it ended after Labour became the Government in 1999 and inherited the Auckland Central Remand Prison under private management. I would like the Minister to respond to the content of the report. I know that she has probably not read this part of the report back from the Law and Order Committee because it comes under the heading “New Zealand Labour Party minority view”. But I am assured and the footnote states that the source of the information—and it is reprinted exactly—is from the “Department of Corrections … request for further information from the Law and Order Committee”. So this information comes from the Minister’s department and I just want her to respond to these per prisoner costs as tabled in the report. 
When the Auckland Central Remand Prison was under private management from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 the cost per prisoner was $35700 for operating costs only and $57280 inclusive of property-related overheads to look after a single prisoner. Remand prisoners held in other public prisons in that same period were only $32000 and $50208 by way of comparison. There are those who would say that the Auckland Central Remand Prison had particular additional costs so that in the year after it went back into public management it would of course have cost more because costs would have risen. But in fact no the costs went down. The comparable figures per prisoner were $33900 and $55853. 
I am really confused about the Minister’s comments that the private system is more cost-effective. Why then did it cost more when the Auckland Central Remand Prison was under private management from 2004 to 2005 than it cost from 2005 to 2006 under public management? Obviously at that time when other costs had gone up the system under public management still cost less than it had cost the year before under private management. That to me is the second element of the argument against the privatisation of the prison function. Although there are statements as to privatisation being more cost-effective in fact I cannot find examples anywhere of where it is. And the figures that the Minister has used to compare public with private of course do not mention that prison officers get paid less in a private prison and that the ratio of officers to prisoners is substantially lower as well. I do not think that it is reasonable to say that we are comparing apples with apples. I think we heard the comparisons from someone today about “apples and apples” “oranges and oranges” and “apples and oranges”. But the point is that no comparison can be made unless we actually have a clear statement as to the nature of the terms of engagement for officers. 
Officers do this important work on our behalf. This is not work that anyone would choose particularly to do and the fact that we have loyal prison officers within our corrections system willing to undertake that role on our behalf and on behalf of the State is something that we should value and not contract out to the lowest bidder. 
That brings me to my third point which is the ability to have genuine supervision over what occurs in our prisons. I totally support the Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled by my colleague the Hon Rick Barker. The first is in relation to the Ombudsman; the second is in relation to the Auditor-General. I do not think it is good enough to have a prison reporting through a department. There is nothing better than to have the direct oversight of those who have the standing and the independence of both our Ombudsman and our Auditor-General in respect of ensuring both that the processes being conducted within the corrections system are being conducted in a proper manner and that there is accountability and transparency back to this House. That is where the accountability and transparency must lie. If it does not lie here then I really do think that the Government has lost the plot as far as our obligations go. 
The third Supplementary Order Paper that my colleague has tabled is to ensure that no contract is let for more than 3 years. That is a very good Supplementary Order Paper because it makes it very clear to anyone who is possibly even thinking about taking advantage of contracting for one of our prison managements that they will have that contract overturned after a change of Government.