Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2179] 
Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 24 March. 
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. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 For the last 10 years there has been a clamour for Maori to intervene and lead the crusade against the ever-increasing number of Maori incarcerated in Her Majesty’s prisons. The clamour and loud noises of those in our society who are of the centre-left or of the left persuasion are deafening. Also the likes of Michael Laws and all the other bigots—I suppose one could call them—continue to tell Maori to get off their backsides. 
Grant Robertson 
: You were voting for his bill last night. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely because the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill is a good one and I am not a bigot. 
They continue to tell Maori to get off their backsides and say that they must show some leadership and do something about the ever-increasing crime and prison statistics. The likes of Tapu Misa and her ilk tell us that we cannot run prisons—or anything else for that matter. The inherent hypocrisy in all of these arguments is that if we want Maori in a community to show some leadership to show some way out of the mêlée that we are faced with then we should let those organisations that are equipped to do the job at least try to do it. In my mind it is undoubtedly clear that Labour continues to want to stymie Maori leadership. In doing so the onus of all these bad statistics is kept on Maori and not on the managers of those statistics. 
I hear about corruption and greed in the private system. Corruption and greed are not the sole domain of private prisons as we have seen in our own prisons over the last 24 months. Labour came up with the lame idea that inmates who have a whakapapa or a genealogical tie to a certain area should be moved up to that area. But Labour forgot about all of those who were born and bred in places like Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin. The whole argument about private prisons smacks of a double standard. In a time of recession—and if I might be so bold a time of depression—surely it is time for us to look at innovation rather than ideology. Surely it is time for us to be courageous instead of fearful with a will to try new ways of solving old problems. 
If the public Government-run prisons are so good then why are there so many problems in those prisons? People like Ngati Hine and Ngati Whatua o Orakei are not asking to run the world; they are asking to be part of a regime that may in fact help bring down the statistics that so many of us get up and talk about. 
 I will buy into the argument that the State should be the one and only agency to run the prisons on this proviso: that the State does a good job. But I ask whether it really matters who runs prisons as long as they are run properly as long as there is rehabilitation and on the other side of the coin as long as those inmates come out with a sense of remorse and of knowing that they have done something wrong and will not reoffend. I say to Labour that that must be a good thing for the inmates and also for the community. 
If everything has been tried in terms of those statistics then we should try something new. We are talking about statistics that go back quite some time. We are not talking about the numbers of Maori prisoners in just the last 12 months; we are talking about a very very long time. Increasingly the number has been on the upward rather than on the downward scale. I ask the opponents of this bill please to at least give it a chance and give it a try. From 2000 to 2005 we had private management of a prison—a remand centre in Auckland—and it showed that some arrangements could be made with local iwi authorities just as they can under our present system. This bill is not about the holus-bolus privatisation of the whole prison service. This is about letting it out for tender in a case by case scenario to those who think they can do the job. 
This bill is all about allowing people with ideas and innovation to try something new and different. We should not be slaves to old tired worn-out ideology. Those battles between Marx Engels and whomever else were fought and won a long time ago. The time now is for action innovation and new ideas. If we become slaves to ideology then the poor old people in our community who are scared about reoffending and the poor old inmates who never get a chance at rehabilitation will remain in those same little scared corridors. We will have failed them because we were too scared to cotton on to some new ideas. 
That is all this bill does: it allows people to have a shot at prison management. It does not say that it is the be-all and end-all; it says that it allows people to tender if they believe that they can do the job. I am sure that my own iwi affiliations in the north and in Auckland would jump at the chance to have a shot at bringing down the appalling prison statistics for our people. 
All I can say in conclusion is that this bill is about giving an opportunity. We should give those people a chance. That is all this bill does. It does not privatise every prison in New Zealand; it says to people out there that if they think they can do the job and make an impact then we will allow them to be part of that process. I say “Well done.” to the Minister of Corrections for bringing this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I need the Minister to direct that the bill goes to a select committee. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is of deep concern to the House that we are here moving along and we are ready to debate the next bill but the Government is obviously in disarray and not prepared for what has been on the Order Paper for the whole week. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that there has been a little slip-up here. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the time of day I wonder whether it is best for us to just call the business to a close and give the Government an opportunity— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. If the member wishes to seek leave then that is a point of order. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee