Flavell Te Ururoa: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7736. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare kua hui mai i tenei po ki te wananga i tenei pire. The Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill starts with a very basic purpose: to amend the Corrections Act to allow for the competitive tendering of prison management. 
Different parties across the House will come to this debate with a variety of priorities that they seek for the bill to address. For the Maori Party we cannot ignore the reality that at this time we have record prison inmate numbers about half of whom claim to be Maori and we have an exceptionally high recidivism rate. No New Zealander can rest easy with the fact that about 50 percent of the people in jail come from 14 percent of the population and certainly the Maori Party does not rest easy with that fact. We also know that the State system is far from properly addressing the matter of the rehabilitation of Maori. We say that consultation with the Treaty partner must be a priority in developing an effective approach towards addressing the disproportionately high imprisonment levels of the indigenous people of this country. We would expect therefore that with regard to this bill as with any legislation relating to prisons it would be a priority to consider the difference that will be made for tangata whenua as a result of this particular bill. 
Yet there appears to be a silence in the provisions of the bill for Maori. I understand that in the course of the select committee process a number of the submitters were concerned that the bill does not require the chief executive to engage specifically with Maori in tendering for the management of prisons. They were also concerned that the bill does not require the successful contractor to involve Maori in decisions about the management and treatment of Maori offenders. It is therefore surprising that the Department of Corrections did not think it necessary to consult Te Puni Kokiri in responding to the committee’s report. At the first reading of the bill Te Puni Kokiri recommended that there be explicit and measurable performance objectives and standards relating to the rehabilitation of and a reduction in recidivism by Maori inmates. It saw that as being a key element by which accountability could be achieved so much so that it should be legislated for and regularly reported on. We recommend that such consultation takes place as a priority. Secondly we noted the response from the department with regard to the consultation with Maori: that the chief executive will consult with iwi and other Maori entities—and here is the catch—as appropriate. We say that this is unacceptable. Leaving consultation up to judgment as to whether it is appropriate is too tenuous a position to address a situation of such alarming proportions. 
We note the advice from the Maori Council that Maori should be given the opportunity to manage the prisons because State control has failed. Therefore we align our views very much with those Mr Garrett just provided in his speech. I place on the record of the House that the Maori Council has stated that the Auckland Central Remand Prison experience clearly demonstrated that the Maori management style delivered in that setting was appropriate for all ethnic groups. There is the positive. It should be remembered that after 150 years of prisons in New Zealand the Auckland Central Remand Prison was the first prison to employ a Maori general manager—namely Dom Karauria. Under his leadership the six iwi—Ngati Whatua o Orakei Te Kawerau-a-Maki Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust Ngati Paoa Ngati Te Ata and Te Waiohua—were the mana whenua tribes that signed a formal memorandum of partnership with the Department of Corrections with regard to the establishment and support of the Auckland Central Remand Prison. 
Before the Auckland example in March 1999 a Northland iwi Ngati Hine talked with the Corrections Corporation of Australia regarding a proposed site at Ngawha near Kaikohe. Their proposal was a joint venture to participate in the administration of a prison. The Australian corporation would run the prison for 5 years and then Ngati Hine would take over its management. Unfortunately however Labour scuttled the proposal. 
Our conclusion is that there is certainly a willingness among the people to be engaged in the running of prisons; the Auckland Central Remand Prison experience is a model for showing that prisons can be run and managed and Maori treated and rehabilitated in a way that is at long last effective for Maori. The standard set by the Auckland Central Remand Prison was about improving performance in service provision cultural safety community consultation and attitude right across all levels of management. We believe that the experience of best practice in the Auckland Central Remand Prison model is an important investment in success and at a minimum we recommend that the successful contractor must involve Maori in decisions about the management and treatment of Maori offenders. 
The overrepresentation of Maori in the New Zealand prison system has been of such longstanding concern that we want to see specific requirements written into the legislation to ensure that there are specific legislated provisions for Maori. We have three broad questions that we do not as yet have answers for. Firstly of course we want to know whether private management of prisons will be effective in addressing and reducing Maori offending. We ask how different it will be from State management and whether it will be profit-driven. Secondly we want to be assured that Maori management of the prisons will be effective. We know from the experience at the Auckland Central Remand Prison that we can be confident in the results but we ask how different it will be able to be from State management. We ask whether iwi will require profit to be derived from the activity. These are some of the questions that we put to the House tonight. Finally something else is required: whare whakaoranga or rehabilitation centres which will be consistent with the restorative philosophy and a kaupapa Maori approach. That is the question we ask. Can those facilities be available in these sorts of models? 
My colleague Dr Sharples has often talked with great enthusiasm of a proposal he is advancing as the Associate Minister of Corrections: a Whare Oranga Ake—a house of renaissance if you like. Such a centre would offer prisoners who are determined to make changes in their lives a pathway to reform. It will expect them to confront their offending to deal with the causes and to prepare for a life outside prison with courses in literacy and numeracy and a programme in trade or vocational skills. Part of the expectation is that support groups will help those prisoners make the transition and will monitor their progress. The broader goal will be repatriating prisoners back to society and to their whanau where appropriate placing emphasis on the restoration of healing to their victims and their victims’ families. 
So often in the House we address the entrenched problems: the pathway to offending and the difficulties that families find themselves in. Dr Sharples gives us confidence that there are other options. So too does Ngati Hine and the experience that those at the Auckland Central Remand Prison left for us to consider. We are serious about the need for the recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this bill and for specific legislative requirement to provide kaupapa Maori - based programmes for Maori prisoners. We want to ensure that there are measures to provide for and measure the rehabilitation of Maori and the reduction of Maori recidivism and we want to ensure that the chief executive will engage specifically with Maori in tendering for the management of prisons and will have a commitment to involve Maori in decisions about the management and treatment of Maori offenders. In the hope that the commitment of Dr Sharples will be respected with regard to all of the matters that I place before the House we will be supporting this bill at its second reading.