Goudie Sandra: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2028] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I thank Opposition members for their applause knowing that the Hon Phil Goff has just finished his speech in the House and that I am about to begin mine. So I say thank you for that wonderful applause. 
The Opposition member who has just resumed his seat was the Minister of Corrections—”was” being in the past tense—with responsibility for parole and what a mess he made of that. Yet he was here in the House sounding like the be-all and end-all—the ultimate authority. Well I believe that he is in absolute fantasyland. If he actually looked at the objectives of the bill he might develop a little bit of understanding. Perhaps Opposition members might like to refer to the explanatory note where they will find the objectives of the bill which allow the Department of Corrections to tender and contract prison management on a case by case basis. That will in turn allow contracted prison managers to introduce innovation improve service performance and be more cost-effective. And what did that Opposition member say? He said it is wrong that the running of prisons should offer the potential for profit. Members opposite find that so scary. The Opposition cannot stand the idea that anybody might make even a dollar from offering good services to the public of New Zealand. 
I am delighted to follow my most excellent colleague the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins who is making some outstanding changes in regard to the Government and providing services for the continued safety of the New Zealand public. Without a doubt that is being achieved here. The Opposition’s argument that the running of prisons should not offer the potential for growth is an argument without substance. It is simply a catchy cliché that does not stand up when analysed. This bill is about providing for the private management of prisons; the ownership and the overseeing of prisons will remain in the hands of the Crown. It is about management. 
One has to wonder how much Opposition members really understand this legislation. I wonder whether they have even read it. I ask whether any members of the Opposition would like to put their hand up to say that they have read the bill. Well look at that: no hands went up. Not a single hand went up. They have not read the bill. That is quite clear. Look at that! And there are only 8 clauses! What does that tell us? They have a complete lack of understanding. They do not even have an adequate overview of the legislation in the House. They have not read the bill. They do not know what it is about yet they think that they can stand up in the House and criticise a really worthwhile initiative that will serve the public of New Zealand well and that will provide them with the security and safety that they rightly deserve. This Opposition—weak as it is—cannot even appreciate that fact. None of those members seems to have even read the bill. 
One of the other arguments that has been put forward relates to the idea that corrections is a core State function. This is the Opposition’s absolute nanny State control ideology. Labour lost the Government benches because the New Zealand public were sick of that absolute nanny State control where Labour could not see any other option or choice other than it being the absolute controller ruler and arbiter of all. That is why those members are now in Opposition. 
Let us face it most people would agree that just as the private provision of some health and education services is effective efficient and provides choice for the New Zealand public so too can the private management of prisons and that is what this bill is all about. The core standard of care and conditions is set by the State. Even the buildings will be owned by the State. All that is actually happening—and maybe Opposition members might like to listen up or read the bill—is that we are allowing the management of prisons by the private sector. One could not argue about the ability to have some choice in that regard. I would love to hear any further arguments that Opposition members might be able to dredge up. 
Another argument is that there will not be incentives to reform prisoners and reduce the prison population. That argument is wrong as well because this is all based on a contractual arrangement. Opposition members should understand although I doubt that they do that this can be quite clearly determined by the robustness of the contractual arrangement in place in the private provision of prison management. The management problems that have occurred with privatised prisons can usually be linked to poorly drafted contracts which is quite true. These matters can be addressed if good robust contracts are established and put into place. Let us face it: the previous Minister made a mess of corrections and parole. If we look at the report by the Auditor-General we can see that the previous Government has a lot to answer for in terms of the robustness of the services being provided. 
The previous speaker Phil Goff talked about the disadvantages for workers because private sector prisons provide lower pay and fewer incentives in order to increase profits. As I have already outlined the privatisation of health and education services can benefit workers and provide benefits that the public sector may not be able to provide. Employees have the opportunity to negotiate with their employer. Past experience has proven that private prison service providers are more open to direct Maori and iwi involvement which is fantastic. 
The Iwi Whanui o Tamaki-makau-rau—a committee of six Auckland iwi—was heavily involved in the Auckland Central Remand Prison while it was privately managed. The managers and the iwi whanui had a very strong partnership that allowed for extensive involvement by iwi in the prison. The iwi whanui publicly criticised the Labour Government’s decision to return the prison to public management. Maybe the Opposition would like to reflect on that. The iwi whanui chair Te Warena Taua said in 2003 that the Auckland Central Remand Prison was quite rightly regarded as the most innovative effective and culturally safe prison in New Zealand’s history. 
Mr Taua also said that the iwi whanui strongly believed that removing the Auckland Central Remand Prison management contract and preventing further like it represents the biggest step backwards in terms of prison management particularly in the areas of inmate management and rehabilitation and that is exactly what the Labour Government did. It took a huge retrograde step when it closed down the opportunity for private prison management and removed the legislative ability for that to happen. It removed that choice from the statute book. We are now rectifying that gross omission by the previous Government and we will satisfy some of the concerns expressed by Mr Taua the iwi whanui chair at that time in 2003. 
Discussions around the private management of Ngawha prison before the Labour Government removed the provision for private management resulted in agreements with northern iwi Ngati Hine for Corrections Corporation of Australia to run the prison for 5 years with Ngati Hine’s involvement. The two were going to work together. I see that as providing much more successful outcomes for the rehabilitation of prisoners—for their going back into the community and not reoffending. I would like to see Opposition members try to argue their way out of that one because I do not think they have a leg to stand on. Their nanny State ideology is not wanted by the New Zealand public and the sooner they wake up to that the better.