Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2179] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to recap what I said previously about this bill when I had 1 minute to speak on it the other night. Labour opposes the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill aka “The Privatisation of Our Prisons Bill”. We oppose this bill because we fundamentally oppose the idea of the private sector making a profit out of our core Public Service. I remind the House of the wise explanation that our Labour leader the Hon Phil Goff provided the House with for the National Government’s move to privatise our prisons. The Hon Phil Goff explained the National Government’s move as “blind ideology”. The National Government has the misguided belief that private prisons will be cheaper to run and that privately run prisons will be better-performing prisons. In the minds of New Zealanders those measures would mean a number of things with the top priority surely being the public safety of New Zealanders. 
I wonder whether the average New Zealander would buy into the idea that firstly cheaper prisons will result in a higher level of public safety; and secondly making our prisons the responsibility of private managers and subsequently decreasing the Government’s accountability for the things that go wrong will result in more effective prisons resulting in higher levels of public safety. I very much doubt that the New Zealand public will buy into the National Government’s blind ideology. We have to ask why the National Government is so determined to shirk the very serious responsibilities associated with this core public service—the prisons. Could it have something to do with the long list of prison escapes assaults and deaths that have occurred under the watch of the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins? I think it would be fair to say that if our prisons had already been privatised then the recent spate of events that have plagued our prisons and placed lives at risk under the National Government would have conveniently distanced the responsibility from the Department of Corrections and subsequently the National Government. Perhaps that is the underlying rationale for the move to privatise prisons. 
What is of concern to Labour—and also I am sure to the New Zealand public—is the potential for detrimental consequences if our prisons are to be privatised. There are many detrimental consequences. There is a risk that the pressure to show profit for a private company may lead to compromised service quality such as a lower staff to inmate ratio fewer rehabilitative services reduced range of services cuts to staff pay and conditions cuts in staff quality or perhaps all of the above. 
 There is also no incentive for a private company to report any failings of prisons because it is then less likely to be awarded contracts. It is going to be difficult to achieve the same level of accountability from a private company as one can demand from a Government department. 
Fortunately in 2004 the previous Labour Government passed legislation—the Corrections Act—that makes the management of jails solely the job of the Crown. Why did Labour do that? It did that because of one word “evidence”—that is a foreign word to the National Government. Let us look at the evidence or lack thereof. Overseas experience in Australia the United Kingdom and the United States has shown huge flaws in private prison systems ranging from bribery corruption increased violence and increased drug abuse to avoidable suicides. That is the evidence for not privatising prisons. There is no evidence in New Zealand to suggest private prisons can be run any more cheaply. The last time there was such an experiment at the Auckland Central Remand Prison the cost per inmate was less than for the average inmate in a State-run prison. But that was simply because the average cost of a State-run prison included the large extra costs associated with maximum security. I wonder whether the National Government wishes to exclude the costs associated with maximum security—I am sure that would be an issue for the New Zealand public. 
The Auckland Central Remand Prison employed fewer officers per inmate and paid them less than staff employed by the Department of Corrections at all the other prisons across the country. The Auckland Central Remand Prison also provided a reduced service when it was run by a private company. It reportedly refused to admit prisoners after 6.30 p.m. when its day-shift staff went home. What would we do with our prisoners then—let them go home to their houses and bring them in again in the morning when the prison is open? Now that the Department of Corrections is running the prison again prisoners are admitted at night to accommodate those who arrive late from court or are being transported from another prison. 
The questions have to be asked: “Why are we debating law and order legislation again—by the way ineffective law and order legislation? Where is National’s plan for the economy?”. I tell members that law and order in this country is going to become a real issue if the National Government does not come up with an effective plan to look after New Zealand during this recession. But having said that I point out that the private managers of prisons would appreciate that given that they will be the ones making a profit if there is an increase in the number of prisoners. Labour opposes the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill aka “The Privatisation of Our Prisons Bill”. We cannot support this bill because this bill will be ineffective.