Ardern Jacinda: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8116. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call. I have to say though that I am somewhat disappointed to follow what can only be described as an absolute trivialisation of some really significant points that had been made not only by the Labour Opposition but also by my colleague Metiria Turei. I will touch on a couple of points that the Minister in the chair raised. In particular she tried to defend private prisons by stating that rehabilitation programmes had taken place under private contractors in remand prison. Remand prisons are for prisoners on remand! Fifty percent of those on remand are subsequently found not guilty; they are under the presumption of innocence. And we are operating rehabilitation programmes on some of these prisoners? No wonder we have inefficiency problems with the private sector! 
I would also like some clarification perhaps if Jonathan Young would like to take another call on what exactly is meant by the decency agenda that private prisons are operating. I was confused by this term and perhaps he could shed some light on the decency agenda. 
The UK is an interesting example to bring up—the UK and its large number of private prisons. I am not sure whether Mr Young heard the Labour Opposition point out that 10 of the 11 worst-performing prisons in the UK are private prisons. In fact that might be the very reason why in the UK they established something called independent prison monitoring boards. 
I would like to spend a little bit of time talking about the independent prison monitoring boards because it is a point raised by my colleague Moana Mackey. I guess parallels could be drawn between what was established in the UK and the monitors that the Minister has raised in Part 1. But I will go through some of the technical differences because I think the monitors that are set out in this bill are actually inadequate in comparison with what the UK has set up; I want us to keep in mind that the UK set them up because of the dire circumstances under which some of these private prisons were operating. 
I want to go back to new section 199E and the monitors. New subsection (1) of that section sets out the number of monitors that could be appointed at any one time and I ask the Minister whether she has any expectations over what is an adequate number of monitors for any given prison. The responsibilities for these monitors as set out in this bill are significant. In fact in the UK the independent prison monitoring boards have multiple members on them in light of the fact that they deal with such weighty issues and they are frequently called to report to the Home Office on the operations of the prisons so I would like to hear whether the Minister has any expectations in that regard. 
I would also like to refer to section 199E(1A) in clause 5 which sets out that the chief executive may appoint one or more monitors under the State Sector Act. New section 199D(2) in clause 5 then states that the monitor is responsible to the chief executive for the assessment and review of the management of that prison and must report to the chief executive “at any intervals”. I want to draw out the question of independence at this point and it is something that has been raised by my colleagues. Again there is a significant difference between the independent boards that we see operating in the UK and those we see here. The chief executive appoints the board and it reports to the chief executive. New section 199E(4) states that “The office of the monitor may be combined with any other office appointment or position if the chief executive is satisfied that the duties of that other office appointment or position are not incompatible with the duties of a monitor.” 
That is a huge amount of discretion placed upon the shoulders of one individual person. The fact that the chief executive can appoint however many monitors he or she chooses and makes a decision over whether there is any conflict of interest with that individual and can call the monitor to make reports at any time is a high concentration of power in one individual and potentially for the one or two individuals whom he or she may appoint. 
One of the reasons I have such an interest in independent prison monitoring boards is that when I was resident in the UK I made an application to become a member of one. I had an interest in the way those boards operated and the fact that they drew on lay people—members of the community—who had no conflict of interest in the way for instance Brixton prison was managed. I was one of those individuals. I had no vested interest in any regard. The chief executive would not have been the one making my appointment to that board. I would have been entirely separate to the process. My only interest therefore would have been the transparent and correct operation of that prison as set out in legislation. I think that is in stark contrast to the way these monitors are set out in this legislation. I would be interested to know whether the Minister took into account any comparisons such as the way the UK for instance operated which is an area I have some interest in. 
I would like to go on to a couple more provisions as they relate specifically to the monitors. New section 199F(2) states “Every contractor must ensure that any monitor has free and unfettered access at all times”. That actually confers on the monitors greater powers than the Auditor-General has. The Auditor-General has an independent responsibility—a responsibility not invested in the Auditor-General by the chief executive—yet the monitors have greater powers than the Auditor-General. I think that is an oversight and therefore I am disappointed that we have not adopted today what I think are very reasonable Supplementary Order Papers put forward by my colleague Rick Barker. Those Supplementary Order Papers would have rectified and clarified that situation. 
I come to new section 199G(2A) which within that context states that a monitor is also able to “investigate any matter relating to that prison or any prisoner in that prison”. I think that raises an interesting point over the subject matter of the reports that will come from the monitor. For instance the independent prison monitoring board actually spends a lot of time taking complaints from prisoners about the abuse of very very basic rights. I do not want to get into a debate over whether we are granting too many rights to prisoners but the independent prison monitoring board did have a role in ensuring that there were basic standards in those prisons. Often those were kept in check only by complaints made by prisoners themselves. Will a monitor be able to accept complaints and investigate matters raised by prisoners directly? I accept that I may have missed that detail in the bill but I would be happy for the Minister of Corrections to clarify that for me. I do note that the Minister is quite busy but I suspect that the Hon Nathan Guy is not raising with her matters related to the bill; perhaps he is discussing designs for the next passport because that is obviously a weighty issue that the House has spent significant time on today. 
I would like to get to another important issue and that is what happens to the reports—the very important reports—being produced by the only one with access and apparent transparent access to the private prisons. What happens to the reports generated by the monitors? There are lots of provisions relating to what they can do how they can get the information and how they can be tasked by the chief executive but I did not feel that there was enough consideration of what then happens to those reports. The Opposition has already requested that access is granted under the Official Information Act. I do not feel there is quite enough clarity at this point that they will be covered by the Official Information Act and that we will be able to gain access to the reports produced by monitors. Again that is perhaps something the Minister could clarify for us. I think that would be a great service to us. 
There is a provision under section 199I that says that prison management contracts are to be presented to the House of Representatives. We will then in comparison have greater transparency around the content of contracts than we will around whether the contracts have been abided by and fulfilled and I think that is an inconsistency. It is one thing to know what is included in a contract but it is another thing to know whether we have the powers and tools to ensure that those contracts are being abided by. It would be only right to have consistency between those two provisions. I request that the Minister draw out her reasons why she believes that the reports produced by monitors should not be subject to section 199.