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:8087. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill is fundamentally wrong in principle and fundamentally wrong in practice. Mr Garrett wants evidence and I will come back to that shortly. 
We need to be absolutely clear that what takes place in our correctional system and the taking away of liberties are fundamental responsibilities of Government. If we want to go down the path of privatising the taking away of individuals’ liberty we are on a very slippery slope in terms of the kind of society we will live in. It is a core function of Government to take that liberty away—a core function. 
Jonathan Young 
: The courts do that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No I say to Mr Young that it is a core function of this Parliament to make laws. When we make a law like this we go down a very dangerous path. We have to accept that when we pass laws in this Parliament there is accountability and responsibility. I want to return in this call or perhaps in another one to the Supplementary Order Papers that Mr Barker has put forward on the matter of accountability. If the driver of our prison system is profit the safety of our communities and the safety of the people who work in our correctional system will be compromised. If the driver is profit the driver is not the safety of our communities. That is the evidence from around the world. It is fundamentally wrong in principle to go down this path. 
I do not think members opposite should dismiss the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court quite so quickly because it is quite clear that those people who have driven the opposition to private prisons in Israel know that this is an issue that will be taken up globally. This is a major legal challenge to the rights of private prisons to actually exist and it will be picked up. Whether or not members opposite agree with that legal challenge or think that Israel should not be considered in this debate the challenge will be picked up by the opponents of private prisons. The opponents of private prisons in New Zealand do not come just from the Labour Party and they do not come just from the Green Party; they come from right across the sectors of society. The Catholic Church in New Zealand opposed it. The Howard League for Penal Reform— 
David Garrett 
: There must be another lawyer over there somewhere who knows something about the law surely. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Mr Garrett that this bill is actually about a fundamental responsibility of this Parliament. Lawyers are not the only people who have an opinion about this. It is a vitally important law and it will be taken seriously on this side of the House. 
The Israeli Supreme Court said quite clearly that the right to enforce— 
David Garrett 
: Who cares? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Mr Garrett that people will take this case up and the Government needs to have a response. I want to know whether the Minister of Corrections knows about this decision. Has she been briefed about it? Can she take a call and let us know whether this Government is ready for the legal challenge that will come in relation to the right to have private prisons? That legal challenge will be coming in New Zealand and around the rest of the world and the Government needs to know how it will respond to it. 
This bill is also fundamentally wrong in practice. Sweeping statements have been made throughout this debate about how private prisons will be more efficient and more effective yet the evidence right around the world is that that is not true. In the United States we know that from a report in 2001 describing what happened when prisons were privatised. It makes absolutely clear that the quality of services and safety was compromised. Abuses found in privately run prisons included low wages for staff poorly trained staff bad food and overcrowding. That is from Project Censored of the Sonoma State University in California. It describes a destructive pattern of extensive inmate idleness a lack of correctional experience on the behalf of almost all staff and a search procedure that could fairly be described as a reign of humiliation directed indiscriminately at the entire prison population. That is the evidence from the United States of America. 
We could go to the United Kingdom where in 2008 10 of the 11 private prisons in the United Kingdom were in the bottom quarter of prisons. The United States National Council on Crime and Delinquency said—and here is the evidence; this is its quote—there was “no data to support the contention that privately operated facilities offer cost savings over publicly managed facilities.” The privatisation of prisons is wrong in principle it is wrong in practice and it does not save any money. 
We can go to Australia. In fact the Minister has told us already that she went to Australia to look into this. Firstly the briefing the Minister herself got for her trip to Australia from the Department of Corrections advised that there was no compelling evidence to demonstrate privately managed prisons provide higher-quality services better outcomes or significant cost savings in the correctional system. That is what the Minister was told by her own department. But when she went to Australia she could have perhaps looked into the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre in Victoria. It was privatised. After an inquiry in 2000 found widespread drug use deaths in custody poor training and cover-ups the Victorian Government was forced to take that facility back into public control. In Canada in 2006 the Government returned the country’s one private prison to the public sector because there had been no appreciable benefit to the country and to the correctional system. That is the problem with this bill: it is wrong in principle but it is also wrong in practice. 
When we come back to the situation in New Zealand we know what we have experienced. We had that time with the Auckland Central Remand Prison. My colleagues have already spoken about the fact that from a financial point of view it provided no benefit whatsoever. It also did nothing in terms of the wages or safety of staff. None of that was improved by going down this path. In fact as Mr Barker has said already the bar is set so low in Part 1 of this bill that the prison does not even have to be better or provide a better service in terms of New Zealanders’ safety. This is a mistaken piece of legislation. It is driven by ideology; it is certainly not driven by evidence. It is certainly not driven by evidence globally or evidence within New Zealand. 
I will refer to the Supplementary Order Papers because I think one of the critical elements about why incarceration is a State responsibility comes down to transparency and accountability. In the bill we can see that the Law and Order Committee realised this because it did include a provision for the Public Records Act to apply to the contracts that are entered into under the bill. That material about prisoners will now be treated as if it were produced by the Department of Corrections. The natural corollary to that is to allow Parliament to have some scrutiny via the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General so that we can see what is going on and look at how resources are being used. I simply cannot see why if the Government is prepared to accept that the Public Records Act should apply the Ombudsman and Auditor-General should not be given the same ability to come forward and look into and analyse those things. 
The Supplementary Order Papers from the Hon Rick Barker will do just that. They will allow the Office of the Auditor-General to have complete and unrestricted access to all aspects of any contractor prison as if it were a prison run by the Department of Corrections. The Minister needs to tell us what is wrong with that. What is wrong with Parliament having the ability to have some scrutiny over these things? The same applies with the Ombudsman. Although the Ombudsman may have some indirect ability Parliament needs some reassurance if we are going to go down this mad path of privatisation in prisons that we can look into what is happening in those prisons. Supplementary Order Paper 87 “authorises the Ombudsman to have complete and unrestricted access to any contracted prison prisoner prison records and prison staff to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Ombudsman’s Office …”. They are two very sensible Supplementary Order Papers that attempt to make some kind of transparency and accountability available to the people of New Zealand. The Minister must tell us why she is not—I presume she is not—supporting those Supplementary Order Papers. Could we get some indication from the Minister? 
Chris Hipkins 
: She obviously thinks they are quite funny. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: She does seem to find it quite funny. In fact National members seem to find the whole debate quite funny. I would like to hear her take a call on those Supplementary Order Papers and let us know what she wants to do with them. The third Supplementary Order Paper that Mr Barker has put forward amends section 198 to make sure that no contract for running a prison under this Act will be more than 3 years. This is a very sensible amendment because it will not bind a future Government; this bill will be repealed under a future Labour Government. 
This bill and this Part 1 are fundamentally flawed in principle and in practice and they simply do not stand up to the scrutiny of international evidence. If we really want to enter into this brave new world as Sandra Goudie said to give it a go and give it a whirl I say that it is too important for that. The safety and security of New Zealanders will be compromised. The safety and security of staff will be compromised. It simply is not good enough to say that we are just going to give it a go. It has not worked elsewhere; it will not work here.