Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8090. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I am on the Law and Order Committee with a few other members who are in the House tonight. For the whole time the Government has pushed the idea that private prisons are safer better and cheaper. But I know like every other member on that select committee knows that the vast majority of the submissions that came through on the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill were opposed to private prisons. 
One submission that was not opposed—that was in support of private prisons—was from the GEO Group. We all know that that group has a vested interest in making sure that we privatise prisons because it wants to make profits out of our prisoners. John Key is reported as saying that private prisons produce very good results and he was talking with regard to the GEO Group and the private prisons that exist in Australia. The GEO Group is part of the Wackenhut Corporation—the owner of 13 correctional facilities 11 of which are operated by GEO Group. The group has immigration detention centres youth facilities and adult prisons. GEO Group’s value now apparently exceeds $1 billion. 
If it is really as good as that why did it recently settle a case where staff had placed a woman in a cell block with male inmates by whom she was raped and beaten and she later took her own life? If it is really as good as that why were 125 inmates removed from a prison by state authorities because of inadequate staff training and inadequate health care? GEO Group’s facilities have been reported as serving rotten food. They have knowingly made false and misleading statements to state officials they have failed to complete criminal record checks on at least 100 guards and they have violated domestic and international laws on due process and humane treatment. Mr Key says that private prisons have shown good results but I ask members whether they think those are good results. We do not think so on this side of the House. 
Prison officers who worked for the Auckland Central Remand Prison when it was under private management made a submission to our select committee. They said that serious dubious things had gone on with regard to cover-ups the way in which they were paid and working conditions. They pointed out that in order to get bonuses it was important that they made sure that they reported in a way that did not show up anything untoward; otherwise they would not collect the money. Those concerns were raised with the select committee yet the Government is still pushing for us to privatise our prisons. 
The Minister in the chair the Minister of Corrections was earlier talking about the fact that privatisation is not all about cost but unfortunately not long ago the Minister was the one saying that private prisons would be cheaper and it was all about the fact that they would be safer better and cheaper. We already know when we look at the evidence that I just discussed that private prisons are not safer. Cost has been discussed by some of the members on this side of the House and when we compare it with the cost of State prisons we see that private prisons are not cheaper. We know that they are not safer not cheaper and not better. So there is absolutely no reason for this Government to go ahead and privatise our prisons. 
Among the Supplementary Order Papers that have been discussed is Supplementary Order Paper 86 which was put forward by the Hon Rick Barker. It states that the contract for the running of a prison shall last for no more than 3 years. The problem at the moment with this bill is that the length of the contract is unlimited. The Minister will decide the length of the contract. Our concern on this side of the House is that if the management of the prison goes wrong New Zealanders will have to fork out money to pay to get out of that contract. We cannot determine for how long the Minister will decide that the contracts run. For Mr Rick Barker to put forward an amendment that would limit the contracts to 3 years is completely reasonable. At the end of the day whoever is in Government can decide whether private prisons are working and decide whether those contracts are to be extended. There is absolutely no reason why the term of the contract should be at the discretion of the Minister and there is no reason why we cannot legislate for a certain term so that on behalf of New Zealanders we can check on how privatisation is going and can make sure that they do not have to pay out when things go wrong and we desperately need to get out of a contract. 
With regard to the evidence that I discussed earlier it is obvious that things go wrong with private prisons. They have done in other countries; they have done in New Zealand in the past. It is a real issue.