Young Jonathan: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8108. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 The private management of prisons is a forward step to improve our prisons to encourage innovation in ways in which we can ensure a better result for all New Zealanders which is why we are in Government and others are not. Private prison management provides an opportunity for innovation and service delivery which will support better outcomes for Maori and Pasifika and the public. Provisions will also be included in contracts for each prison to respond to the unique needs of people. Other significant nations have taken this step some time ago and I mention a comment made by Mr Mel Smith a former Ombudsman: “I can say categorically that the ACRP was very well managed and certainly lost nothing in comparison with overseas examples in Australia the USA and Great Britain.” 
I want to speak about what has been presented to us by members of the Opposition regarding the core function of State. They have said it is their philosophy that the incarceration of prisoners is a core responsibility of the State and should not be contracted out. That view is obviously not supported in Victoria New South Wales Queensland the United Kingdom and the USA. Those states and nations are very similar to us here in New Zealand. One could equally say that health and education services should be the core function of State because these are human rights yet we see and accept private providers. What about one of the most important of all needs: feeding the population. Should that not be a core function of State? Well Labour Governments have told us what we can eat and what we cannot eat; that is about as close as we allowed them to get. What about housing New Zealanders? Should that not be a core function of State? Where does it stop? That is the question. The truth of the matter is that in the modern world all these essential provisions come as a mix of private and public provisions. What makes a prisoner any more important than a law-abiding citizen to attract such support from the Labour Party? Is it the fact that prisoners have lost their freedom? What about the loss of freedom felt by the victims of their crime? We need to understand that a private manager has only delegated authority to act on behalf of the State. To say that a private manager is incarcerating a prisoner is a mistruth. The fact is that Parliament in its laws and the courts in the enactment of those laws incarcerate a crime-breaker. What the Minister of Corrections has said in presenting this legislation is that in order to deliver the best corrections system for New Zealand this Government believes that we should not limit our choices. By changing the legislation to allow private management of prisons we are giving ourselves a choice. 
This legislation is not about the Government offering profits to private enterprise. This legislation is about seeking best outcomes for the New Zealand taxpayer which may or may not be about costs. Let us talk about quality. A reported comment from Te Warena Taua who chaired a group that represented six iwi in a formal relationship discussion with Australasian Correctional Management said that under a contract with a private provider “we have seen more progress and innovation in a prison than we have seen in decades from the public prison service. The private management of prisons does lead to innovation in management. This is a good example of that particular case. 
Let me just read out a quote from a Labour MP from Great Britain Gerry Sutcliffe. He said: “The first private prison opened in 1992 and there are now 11 such prisons operating in England and Wales holding about 10 per cent of the prison population.” Listen to what he says: “The companies that provide those services have developed a strong track record of delivery and are driving forward the decency agenda as well as introducing innovation and increasing value for money in public sector prisons.” Members opposite do not want to hear that. “Martin Narey the former director general of the Prison Service has said that if it had not been for the private sector the decency agenda would not have moved at the pace that it has.” To say that private management of prison is all about profits is obviously and totally incorrect. Labour says that profit motives will compromise service quality. The evidence is to the contrary. In fact Gerry Sutcliffe from the UK went on to say that there were “barriers to the best provider being selected.” This legislation will remove the barriers so that merit can be the determining factor instead of monopoly. Prison staff also have the comfort that this bill ensures that their superannuation entitlements will be protected if they move to work for a private manager of a prison. 
I think that Labour members have somehow become lost in the fog of their ideology. I respect that they have that view but I just disagree with it. They have lost perspective on what really counts. It is not about who provides; it is about what is provided and also for what cost. It is not about the cheapest; it is about the best outcomes for New Zealanders. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: It’s about transparency and being accountable. That should be the test. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: Let me tell members opposite what their leader Phil Goff said. He agrees with us. He said: “The point I am making is that it does not matter a damn whether one has private or public prisons in that sense. What really matters is the way in which those prisons are operated.” That sounds sensible. I do not think that members opposite have an open mind to consider the opportunities that this bill will present. The concerns that they have are answered in the proposed legislation. The requirements of prison management contracts are covered in new section 199 in clause 5. Subclause (1) states: “Every prison management contract must provide for—(a) objectives and performance standards for the contractor in relation to the management of the prison that are no lower than the standards applicable to prisons managed by the department; and (b) objectives and performance standards for the contractor in relation to the management and care of prisoners in the prison that are no lower than the standards applicable to prisoners in prisons managed by the department;”. I believe that this is solid legislation. I believe that this legislation opens up opportunities for innovation to come through. We know that improvement always comes when contestability is able to be entered into and we also understand that a monopoly closes that down. 
There is accountability in this legislation. The commentary notes the amendment to clause 5 where it replaces section 199E(1): “This amendment would require the chief executive to appoint at least one monitor to each privately-managed prison and allow the appointment of one or more additional monitors to assist that monitor.” As the Minister has said those monitors are moved around from prison to prison so they do not become captured. I remember that when I was a teacher many many years ago these monitors whom we would call “inspectors” would come to look at what we were doing and there certainly was a very strong degree of independence in their work. Labour members are concerned about what they state is a lack of accountability and transparency. They state that the Auditor-General’s office and the Office of the Ombudsmen will not be able to hold a private manager to account. Let me just explain once again that these people are “acting” as delegated authority under the chief executive that they have contracts with provisions that there are very strict criteria and that there are ample opportunities for wide scope for accountability in this bill. The Auditor-General’s office stated to the Law and Order Committee that additional power to access information was not necessary for the office to obtain information from a privately managed prison as it already had the power to do so. We do not hear that point from the Opposition—that the Auditor-General’s office is already satisfied that it has ample provision to be able to get the information that it requires to hold privately managed prisons to account. Other significant nations have taken this step some time ago. It is time for us as well. Thank you.