Robertson Grant: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8120. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will talk about some aspects of the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill where I think the Minister in the chair the Minister of Corrections would agree that we are basically on the same page. What she has been trying to achieve particularly in the new section 199 which is in clause 5 is about safety and accountability. I ask the Minister whether it would be fair to say that what we are talking about within this bill is an attempt to establish some parameters for safety and accountability in this process. Yes I think we have some nodding from the Minister. 
The question I then have is to do with for instance new section 199(1)(c)(ii) which states that one of the requirements of the contract is that there be “sufficient suitable staff members to enable the contractor to carry out the contractor’s statutory and contractual obligations in relation to the prison;”. What we know from private prisons internationally is that they drive down the ratio of staff to prisoners. We know that. The statistics from America tell us that. A report from the US National Council on Crime and Delinquency said that privatisation led to a 15 percent lower ratio of staff to inmates. That is supposed to make us safer. That is supposed to make communities safer. That is supposed to make our prisons safer. That clause is in this bill. I am sure that the intent of it from the Minister of Corrections’ point of view was to support some kind notion of safety within our prisons and safety for our community but we know from overseas evidence that it goes the other way and that we will end up with fewer staff and more problems within our prisons as a result. 
The Minister stood up earlier and said that the problem with Labour was that we did not understand and we were interested only in ideology but that National was after what works. The problem is that privatisation has not worked in the United States of America. It has not worked in Australia. It has not worked in Canada. It has not worked in the United Kingdom. I have great respect for Dr Sharples and I think given his experience that he should be the Minister in the chair right now. I think we would be a lot further advanced if he was. But we know that empirically privatisation does not work. The Minister simply stands up and says that the Labour Party does not understand what works. We have not heard from the Minister what measures that have actually worked have driven her to do this. We have not heard that. The only evidence presented about the performance of private prisons has come from this side of the House. I think that these particular parts of this bill try to establish a framework that will be safe but we know that that framework has not worked internationally. 
The other aspect that I think the Minister is trying to establish is some sort of accountability of private prisons. The problem we have is that this bill decreases the transparency and accountability of the prison system. Earlier on tonight we discussed the fact that the Law and Order Committee obviously had some inclination towards the importance of accountability and transparency because it had included within the bill that the requirements of the Public Records Act be met in terms of the prisons and the prisoners. That means that the Chief Archivist can get in there and find out what is going on in the prisons. Why then would we not let private prisons be exposed to the Ombudsman or to the Auditor-General? Why would we not want those agencies which are closely related to Parliament and to ensuring transparency and accountability to be involved? 
In the end what we are reduced to here in terms of accountability is monitors appointed by the chief executive. We are in fact reducing the ability to hold private prisons to account. We know that we can question the Minister and the Department of Corrections through the select committee process through oral and written questions and through inquiries. We cannot do that with a private company. So the clauses within this bill that are trying to create some kind of regime of accountability are simply lacking. We heard earlier tonight from the Minister that the reason she was not supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that would have done that that would have brought this legislation into line was because they had not been considered by her caucus. That is simply not on. Ms Goudie will tell us that these matters were raised—and I have checked with Labour members—at the Law and Order Committee. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What matters? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Having better accountability arrangements and better transparency and involving the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. These things could have been dealt with but the Minister airily dismissed them saying that they were not discussed at her caucus so she was not prepared to consider them. That is unacceptable. What we have here are accountability and transparency arrangements that will make it less possible for New Zealanders to know what is happening in their prison system. 
The Ombudsman’s role is critical within the prison system. Anyone who has dealt with complaints at all at any time in his or her role as an MP or outside this House will know the important role that the Ombudsman can play in the prison system. To not have that fully available as we go down this unknown path of private prisons is very very dangerous. Then we come to the Auditor-General. The Law and Order Committee was told that the Office of the Auditor-General would not have the ability to scrutinise this new arrangement in the way that it normally would. The Office of the Auditor-General reported to the committee that under this bill it would not have the power to audit a private company and provide an opinion on the performance of that company. Once again we see this bill reducing accountability and reducing transparency. What I am trying to say here is that Part 1 is the accountability section. Section 199 is the new accountability section. We have the Chief Archivist involved. That is fantastic! The Chief Archivist can be there. But what we do not have is the ability for the Ombudsman the Auditor-General and ultimately Parliament to have the kind of oversight that is required. 
This bill is flawed in principle and it is flawed in practice. But from the Government members tonight we have simply not heard any justification or evidence. We have seen that there will be reductions in accountability and reductions in safety. This bill has gone through tonight without National members standing up and doing anything more than indulging in broad ideological statements. Members on this side of the Chamber have made sure that we have defended our principled position our ideological position and we have gone on to debate the practical implications of this bill. We have not heard that from the other side of the Chamber. That means we are passing a law under urgency that will decrease safety that will decrease accountability and that will decrease transparency and the National members cannot even get up to justify it.