Garrett David: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2034] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the first reading of the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. I am very pleased as an ACT member to speak on this bill. As members in the House know ACT and other parties have advocated for the private management of prisons for some time. Indeed I am told that in the last term of Parliament MPs from two different parties put up bills covering the private management of prisons. 
It is not as members opposite and members to my right might have us believe a hard-right initiative. In fact it is not ideological at all. I was reading  
Hansard 
 a couple of weeks ago. I do not have the quote in front of me but the former Green member Mr Tanczos said he agreed that on all measures such as suicides assaults on guards assaults on prisoners and escapes the Auckland Central Remand Prison was better when run by a private company. But because it was ideologically offensive to him he was opposing it anyway. This is what ideology is all about: “We do not care how well it is run how successful it is how many fewer suicides or attacks there are. If it does not fit Karl Marx we are against it.” That is what we are hearing from that side of the House. 
There is widespread support for the private management of prisons. It is the Greens and Labour that are out of step with public opinion. Mr John Key said “We support what works. We’re not interested in ideology. We’re interested in what works.” and I applaud him for it. Mr Simon Power whom I met with earlier this evening said the very same thing on a related topic. He said: “If you can convince me this works then I’ll be for it.” That is not ideology; that is called pragmatism. Ideology is found on that side of the House. We heard this ridiculous quote from the Labour Party: “In the US judges were convicted of sending people to jail for a bribe.” How many? Where? How many judges are there in the US—1000 50000 or 100000? Labour said: “If we find one judge in the United States who has taken a bribe then that disproves the entire system.” I think that is called a non sequitur. It is a bit like saying that my Uncle Harry smoked 80 cigarettes a day and he lived to be 95 so that proves that smoking is safe. That is what that kind of argument is. Labour said “We found two judges in Pennsylvania who did this and therefore the whole idea is useless; the whole idea is bad.” That is totally faulty logic. 
The Auckland Central Remand Prison was successfully run by a private firm for 5 years. It was not just run successfully but it was run better than public prisons. This was measured by fewer assaults fewer suicides fewer escapes—I will come to them in a minute—and fewer attacks on guards. On those measures that prison was better run. There were fewer escapes. But when there was an escape the prison had to pay. [ 
Interruption 
] A member over there said that there is no incentive. Well it is called a contractual disincentive. There are no lawyers on that side of the House at the moment but if those members asked then a lawyer would explain contractual disincentives to them. If the contract says that if someone escapes then the prison will have to pay it is called a penalty or a disincentive. That is why there were fewer escapes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: A disincentive to report. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: There was a disincentive to report escapes so they covered them up did they? I ask Mr Hipkins which escapes were covered up. 
Chris Hipkins 
: A disincentive to report anything. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I am listening but there is nothing. A $50000 fine was paid by Auckland Central Remand Prison because of an escape. However State-run prisons could let however many they wanted to escape with no disincentive. We have seen the results of that in the Auditor-General’s report. Fines are a major disincentive to private prisons. Unlike the Labour Party I have not seen the contract that the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins has in mind. Those members have seen it and they know the contents of it. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: They must do. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: They must know that there are no disincentives and no penalties for escapes. I look forward to Ms Collins sending it to me so I can see it. 
The fact is that the private prison was better run. Despite that Labour says: “No we can’t have it. It’s against our ideology.” and Ms Turei said exactly the same only in stronger terms; she brought racism into it as well. 
At age 17 when I knew so much more than I know now I was convinced that the State could provide everything and do it well. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: As I grew up as I am sure Mr Hughes will do one day I realised that the private sector was a more efficient provider of better-quality products whether they be roast chips cars or prison accommodation. It is interesting that members on the other side like to cite American studies. One thing I will do tomorrow is check Mr Parker’s reference to the two studies he mentioned. He has told the House that there are only two peer-reviewed studies. I will get the reference from  
Hansard 
. I say to Ms Mackey that I do not need to write it down. I will check those two studies but I will also look at the footnotes and at the other papers that are mentioned in those two studies. The member had better hope there are only two reports that confirm that private prisons in the United States have worse results. We will see. 
Competition will signal to our corrections system that efficiencies can be made. In that regard the hugely business-experienced Labour Party members have said that the only way we can get more efficient is to reduce costs by reducing services. Well hello? No there are many ways to become efficient. I will give just one example. Instead of prisons buying food from Foodstuffs or Progressive Enterprises at wholesale rates like my local Woolworths they could buy food with expiry dates of next week. That is why the Chinese general store near where I live out in the country is able to compete with the supermarket both in food and alcohol. If we looked closely we would see that the stuff expires in 2 weeks’ time so it is cheaper than the supermarket. That is good business and that is why we shop there. There are lots of ways of increasing efficiency. It is not just a question of reducing services. 
I was very pleased to hear Judith Collins confirm in this House that the days of flat-screen TVs and underfloor heating in prisons are over. What prisoners are entitled to and what they should have is a secure place to sleep do work or train and an adequate diet. It makes my blood boil to know that while pensioners and hundreds of thousands of other New Zealanders shiver in their homes this winter the criminals in our prisons will enjoy the luxury of underfloor heating. I get very angry when I read in the paper about old people having to eat a crumpet for tea and go to bed at 7.30 p.m. because they cannot afford to heat their homes. Criminals who are in prison have committed crimes against our society. They have said: “Your rules don’t apply to us. We’ll do what we like.” The previous Government treated criminals better than law-abiding citizens. This National-led Government has said and Judith Collins has confirmed it in this House that those days are over. 
This bill will not fix our Department of Corrections. As we have seen all too often lately and most notably in the Auditor-General’s report there are deep-seated problems in this department that only a new chief executive can fix. Under the employment law put in place by the previous Government no one can be held responsible. If we read the Auditor-General’s report and the State Services Commissioner’s report we could paraphrase them in one sentence: “There are a heap of egregious failings here. It’s absolutely shocking but no one is responsible”. We are happy to support this bill.