Alexander Marc: General Debates 
Alexander Marc: General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5481] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to contribute to the debate on the Corrections Bill which is due for deliberation further down the track and in particular one aspect of it which is the private prison versus public prison debate. I would like to help this Government out by clearing up a few things. The Government has made a statement alluding to the fact that corrections is a core State activity. The meting out of justice is a core State activity. The handing out of punishment in a sentence on behalf of the people of New Zealand and on behalf of the victims is a core State function. But the geographic location where and by whom the punishment is carried out are not I suggest core State functions. 
The taxpayers of this country will be picking up the bill either way. If the prisons are run by the State the taxpayers will fund them. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure if you heard the introduction to the member’s speech. I do apologise for interrupting; I hope it will not come off his time. Is it appropriate to be discussing a bill that is currently before a select committee? Whilst the direction and thrust of the member’s speech may be understood I ask whether you could possibly give him guidance as to what the Standing Orders are in that respect. Maybe if he wishes to talk about the general principle there might be some parameters that you could assist him with so that he does not transgress the Standing Orders by entering into debate on aspects of a bill that is currently before the Law and Order Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: He can as long as he does not discuss anything that is private to the select committee. As to the fact of the bill being there he is entitled to discuss anything that is open to the public at the select committee. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I thank the member for suggesting that I confine myself to the larger picture. The point I was trying to make was not so much the content of the bill but the general thrust of the ideological principle behind a certain aspect of it. This issue has been in the public domain for quite some time; it has been in the news. There is no reason that it cannot be debated. 
My point is that the taxpayers of this country are going to pay for the corrections system either way. They will pay either through taxation that is administered by the Government or through taxation that is allotted by the Government to a private firm that is running a prison. Either way the taxpayers will be left with the bill. 
The real question though is that one of the core State functions must be to look after the interests of the public and the taxpaying public. If we can save $27000 per prisoner per year with no diminishing of standards that must surely be a core function of the State. I have just done a few little calculations and I have figured out that with the number of prisoners we have if this efficiency was adopted across the board we would save in the region of $260 million. That is $260 million that could be used by the police to upgrade their equipment to get encrypted radio systems and to put more front-line police out there to combat crime and help protect New Zealanders whose taxes are funding this. In other words if we adopted the private approach across the board—and I am not advocating that we do that—then $260 million could be better spent on protecting the New Zealand public without one extra cent being spent on present day expenditures. That has to be a plus. 
Ideology is always a maiden of doubtful virtue and a refuge for those who choose not to think. Quite frankly if one hides behind ideology there is not much intelligence in that—if it were vegetables there would not be enough to fill a stockpot. 
Let us have a look at what private prisons can actually deliver here. Australasian Correctional Management has a system in place that allows for savings to the taxpayer and for better provision of rehabilitative programmes. It conducts programmes that no other remand prison in this country has ever given its inmates. It is the only prison in this country that has been accredited with a quality management system that is of a nationally and internationally recognised standard. Why is that? Why is a private prison in this country in terms of standards getting international acknowledgement over and above that of the State-run prisons? Members should consider that the State-run prisons have had plenty of time to reach that standard whereas the Australasian Correctional Management team has been here for only 3 years and has already attained it. What is it about private enterprise that allows it to conduct and execute the wishes of the State in terms of the correctional system—to make it more efficient saving the taxpayers money and benefiting the inmates at the same time?