Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sepuloni Carmel: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8140. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I need to point out a few ironies before I get started on the main part of my speech. The first irony that I really have to point out goes back to what the Associate Minister of Corrections Dr Pita Sharples was saying earlier with regard to some of his aspirations for Maori. I have to ask Dr Pita Sharples how those aspirations can possibly occur under the watch of the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins who in the past could not respect even the simple protocols that went with a simple powhiri. How therefore can she share in the aspirations that he has for Maori with regard to rehabilitation? She could not sit in a powhiri because she was told she needed to sit in the second row yet she has now had some sort of renaissance in her thinking and she can now share the aspirations that Dr Pita Sharples has for Maoridom? I find that very very difficult to believe. At some stage the fact that she truly does not share those aspirations will become uncovered and at that point in time it will be an ugly ugly sight. 
The second irony I have to mention is in regard to something that was raised in the debate on this bill. The irony is that at an earlier time Mr Young a member opposite discussed the fact that when Labour was in Government it had incarcerated such a high number of people. The argument prior to that was that Labour was not tough enough and it had not incarcerated enough people yet that member said in this Chamber that we incarcerated too many. We have heard on numerous occasions across this debate that the levels of incarceration have increased. 
Jonathan Young 
: I never said that. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I ask that Mr Young checks the  
Hansard 
 for this debate; he will find that he did say that. 
The third irony—for there are so many—is in relation to the next bill we will be discussing which is the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill. The Government is saying that private prisons will solve all problems have better rehabilitation make safer prisons and be less costly for New Zealand taxpayers yet the next bill we will be dealing with the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill is basically legislating in anticipation of overcrowding in prisons. The Government is anticipating that prisons will not be able to cope with the sheer numbers who will be incarcerated therefore it needs to legislate with regard to the use of court cells for the overflow in numbers. I have to point out that there is an irony in that and it is something we cannot help but look at and think “Well what are they going on about?”. 
The fourth irony I wish to discuss before I get on to my main points is the irony that comes with some of the things the chief executive has said. How can we think that this legislation is a good idea when the chief executive of the Department of Corrections wrote to his workers in an email dated 8 June 2009 and said that at a time when the Government was struggling to cope with a global economic crisis and finances were tight his budget therefore did not allow extra money for wage increases. He then stressed the importance of an agreement on reasonable terms: “Failing this I will have no alternative but to recommend to the Government other approaches which will include the option of private management of some established prisons.” That sounds like a man who fundamentally does not support private prisons because they are better or safer; in fact by his making a threat like that in relation to private prisons he is reinforcing the fact that it is widely felt amongst corrections staff including himself that they are an undesirable option. Those are the things I wanted to point out before I got on to the main part of my speech. 
Labour members do not support the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. Labour members are of the view that the incarceration of citizens is a core Crown responsibility and as such should be under the direct control of the Crown through the Department of Corrections. 
David Garrett 
: Where does that come from? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: If Mr Garrett would listen I will tell him. Public prisons are morally and fiscally accountable to taxpayers whereas private prisons are accountable to their shareholders with a binding obligation to maximise profit. There is a risk that the pressure for a private company to show profit may lead to compromised service quality such as lower staff to inmate ratios fewer rehabilitative services a reduced range of services cuts in staff pay and conditions cuts in staff quality or all of the above. Those were things that were discussed by the corrections union and also by the prison officers who had worked in both the State-run prison and the privately run prison when Auckland Central Remand Prison was under private management. 
There is also the potential for abuse. When a profit-making company has the authority to restrict basic civil liberties profit motives may supersede the safety of the public staff and inmates. We have heard of a number of examples of that happening in private prisons in Australia America and the UK and we have also heard about some of the things that went on when the Auckland Central Remand Prison was under private management with regard to reporting and the fact that things were hidden to ensure that the management could still make the profit it was trying to get out of our Government at the time. 
We are also concerned that the passage of this bill will weaken the ability of members of Parliament the media and the general public to hold the private contractor to account in respect of corrections outcomes. At the present time members of Parliament can directly question the department and hold it accountable through the use of select committee inquiries the Official Information Act and the use of parliamentary written and oral questions. These avenues are not available in respect of a private company. The Auditor-General at present has unfettered access to Government departments and agencies and can inquire into any matter he or she feels is appropriate. It is our belief that under this legislation the Auditor-General’s power and ability to inquire directly into matters pertaining to the private sector contractor will be limited. The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General reported to the Law and Order 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. 
The lack of independence of the people employed to monitor privately managed prisons is also a concern. Those prison monitors will be employees of the Department of Corrections rather than have an independent status. We also note with concern that there is no compulsory provision to require 24 hour 7-day-a-week monitoring and the Labour members on the select committee expressed the concern that while there would be someone there from 9 to 5 who would be there to monitor what went on for the remainder of the day? 
We do not believe that a good explanation has been given for why there is a need for private management of prisons. In relation to costs and efficiency there is no evidence to suggest that the privatisation of prisons would be more cost-effective and efficient than the current Department of Corrections model. 
Finally we Labour members had serious concerns about the Government members using their majority on the select committee during the select committee process to block our access to Ministry of Justice officials. The ministry had input into the departmental report and we believed that the committee would have benefited from hearing the views and the insights of the ministry. We questioned the motive for not allowing the committee access to those officials and we were disappointed that this opportunity was denied when we were considering such a significant shift in our justice system. And more important constitutional issues are involved. The Government members used their majority vote to block Opposition members from making legitimate inquiries of a Government ministry that had specialist knowledge of the matters being considered. Just as members have a right to free speech we believe that members as select committee members must have the right of access to officials and information. We oppose this bill.