Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this

I seek leave for Part 2 and clauses 1, 2, and 3 to be taken as one debate, with all the arrangements that previously existed for speaking times; for the debate from this point to be a wide-ranging debate across the full scope of the bill; and for two questions to be posed upon closure of the debate so that we vote on the provisions consecutively. In the meantime, let us debate freely the matters covered in this bill.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

I thank the Chair and the Leader of the House for allowing us to continue this very important debate. I am very pleased to take a call. I was not able to take a call in the debate on Part 1, but I am very happy to be able to do so now because I have a number of concerns and questions for the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, that I hope she will take the time to address.

I endorse the comments made by my colleagues thus far—

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

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 Māori 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 Wārena 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.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

I am very grateful to the Leader of the House and our chief whip for negotiating the opportunity to have a debate such as this. Everyone has said it, and it is true: there is a huge philosophical divide between the two sides of the House on this matter. The National Government seems to have it fixed in its mind that if it is public, it is bad; if it is private, it is good. The Labour Party, on the other hand, takes a different view. We say that if it is public, it is good; and if it is private, it is good in its place.

MELISSA LEE (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise in this debate to take a short call to talk about some of these things. It is interesting that we actually agree on both sides of the Chamber that there is a huge divide in our ideological differences—the things we believe in. That is a given, and we agree, and that is fantastic. But I would like to talk about perspective. The members opposite lack perspective. It was very, very interesting to listen to some of the members opposite talk about numbers. Do they not even understand the numbers when they quote numbers from the history of the Auckland Central Remand Prison? It was in fact the former Labour Government that came into power and decided to get rid of it because it did not agree with it. There was an ideological difference. But the prison worked better. It had better outcomes. The prisoners had better outcomes. They were getting a better rehabilitation process, yet the previous Labour Government got rid of it because it simply did not agree with the idea.

Let me just answer the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who has just resumed her seat. What she said about privatising different things—the police, the military—was very interesting. I think the only person in this House who has ever agreed or talked about privatising the military sits on the other side of the Chamber and belongs to the Labour Party. His name is David Shearer. Goodness me!

I will bring up some of the things that some members have talked about. Talk about propaganda! Apples versus apples, apples versus oranges! There have been no other remand centres that they could compare the Auckland Central Remand Prison with, but they keep continuing to bring up the costs. They keep continuing to compare the numbers. Do they not understand even basic numbers—maths? I am so glad the Hon Anne Tolley is introducing maths and numeracy properly in our schools. Perhaps Labour members should all go back to school.

I will talk about what Mr Barker said earlier during the debate. Mr Barker said that the Minister of Corrections and the Department of Corrections have vested interests and, hence, could massage the figures. But I say that perhaps that is what happened when Labour was in Government. Perhaps that is the reason he is suggesting it. Massaging the numbers—my goodness! There are no numbers with which to compare Auckland Remand—I cannot even speak now; I am so excited—Auckland Central Remand Prison.

Carmel Sepuloni came up with all those numbers of people who are escaping from prison—so many of them—yet she opposes this bill. That is unbelievable. She cannot come to grips with the fact that perhaps we have a really, really—as Mr Barker would say—woeful performance by the Department of Corrections under the previous Labour Government. Let me say that escape numbers have halved since this Government, the National Government, has taken over. Yet Labour members are opposed to the idea that perhaps there would be a better choice and a better option for the public and for safety, and better outcomes for prisoners’ rehabilitation. I cannot understand why Labour members would oppose that.

Somebody else over on the other side talked about transparency. When they try to say that the Auditor-General and the chief executive cannot control a privately managed prison, do they actually know what they are saying? That is just utterly ridiculous. The chief executive of the Department of Corrections this morning in the Law and Order Committee said that he is the boss of the Department of Corrections, and that, yes, he will be able to monitor the private management of a prison—as I said, private management. We are not lumping up all the prisons and selling them. It is not the privatisation of all prisons. We are actually saying that best international practice could be adopted to improve the situation in this country where the Department of Corrections has failed in its duties—which is woeful, as Mr Barker has said. You know, perhaps we might have a better benchmark against what has happened in the last 9 years of the previous Labour Government. It is improving since the current Minister of Corrections took over.

There is also something else that somebody on the other side of the Chamber said. Lianne Dalziel also said that business in the private sector could be bad, but in the public sector it is good. We all work in the public sector. We are all members of Parliament. We are here to do good for the public. We have never actually said that public is bad.

Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) Link to this

I come back to the contribution made by Melissa Lee, and I will talk about numbers. Let us come back to the numbers that the Hon Lianne Dalziel put forward. I just repeat them for Ms Lee, because she heard them when they were given to the Law and Order Committee by the Department of Corrections, which is responsible to the Minister of Corrections. These are the numbers that are given by the department. The department says that the Auckland Central Remand Prison, under private management, had operating costs of $35,700, which inclusive of other costs were $57,280, which was higher than for remand prisoners held in public prisons. The cost was $35,700, compared with $32,000 in public prisons, and $57,000 was the cost, inclusive of related property costs, in the private sector, whereas it was $50,000 for the public sector. So the public sector was cheaper. These are figures from advisers to the Government; those people can count. These are audited figures. This is solid evidence. This is not rhetoric. The member says she can count and she supports numbers, but they are the same sort.

This is the same attitude from National that it had when Treasury said that the emissions trading scheme was going to cost New Zealand $110 billion. Nick Smith said, no, it will not. Well, who are we to believe: Nick Smith, who counts on his fingers and his toes, or Treasury, filled with highly skilled, highly trained people who can count and can do numbers. The Department of Corrections’ own numbers show that the Auckland Central Remand Prison run under the private sector was dearer than it was under the public sector. Every piece of evidence, whether we look at it from Australia, from Canada, or from Britain, shows that privately run prisons are poorer.

There is another part—members should trust me, and I will come to Part 2 here, which will surprise the Minister—that shows some concerns. If members have a look at clause 7(2), they will read: “the contractor and the chief executive, in the name and on behalf of the Crown, may make any arrangements that they consider necessary or desirable to determine the respective liabilities of the Crown and the contractor in relation to any matter …”. A private cosy deal will be done between the chief executive and the contractor.

Then we can go to section 199B of the Corrections Act, substituted by clause 5 of the bill: “(1) The Crown is entitled to be indemnified by a contractor—”. It does not say “shall”, or “must be”; it says “entitled to be”. That is permissive. So we can have a cosy deal by the chief executive and the contractor. Who will carry the cost of that? It will be the taxpayer. The point about that is that we have to rely—according to the Minister and the Government’s legislation—on the chief executive’s responsibility and integrity about that. I have no doubt about the responsibility and integrity of the chief executive. But I want to have oversight by an external audit carried out by an external agency, and that is why I want the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General to be in the legislation. I want it to be compulsory that those things are done. This is by trust.

When the member Melissa Lee says that Labour members are talking about ideology, I say to her that we are not talking about ideology from our perspective; we are talking about ideology from the National Party’s perspective. This provision is simply an article of faith: National members believe that private contractors will do better when all of the evidence points in the opposite direction. Even when the Minister’s own department says that it is more expensive for a prison to be run by private enterprise than it is to be run by the department, she is still going to go ahead and proceed with this legislation. When Treasury says it is going to cost $110 billion for the emissions trading scheme, and Nick Smith says “That is not correct. We have got other figures.”, whom do we believe, Treasury or Nick Smith? In this particular case, whom do we believe, the Department of Corrections or the Minister of Corrections? I say that the department is correct. A private contract was more expensive before, so there is no justification for it.

The next point I come back to in this debate is that the Minister got up earlier and said how wonderful the Auckland Central Remand Prison was before, because it introduced programmes for Māori. It was innovative—the first prison in the country to do that. Well, I tell the Minister that that is not correct. That is simply not correct. The programme was started in Hawke’s Bay, in Mangaroa Prison, and all of the other prisons followed that. So we have now a fallacious argument being put forward to justify an innovation of a private sector prison. It was not a private sector prison that introduced that innovation; the facts show that to be the case.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) Link to this

I need to answer a few of the questions that have been raised. The member the Hon Rick Barker has just resumed his seat. He said I had said the programmes for Māori were first introduced in the Auckland Central Remand Prison. But I said that was the first programme for remand prisoners. He should listen.

The member also made some points there about costs. All through the debate tonight we have heard from Labour members, but not one of them has talked about the need for rehabilitation or the fact that rehabilitation costs money. Unfortunately, they continue to ignore the fact that the Auckland Central Remand Prison, as a remand centre—the only one that was fully a remand centre at that stage—actually provided rehabilitation. It was contracted for 70,000 hours. That was not something that was prevalent in the remand wings of our public prisons at that stage; that prison was, in fact, a leader on that. Those members ignore the fact that that contract cost money. Well, this party is not going to ignore rehabilitation, which is why we have doubled the number of rehabilitation places for our prisoners in our first term.

Some questions have been asked about ideology. What is our ideology? It is pretty simple, really; it is whatever works. Whatever works in corrections is what we are going to do. We will not do what the Labour Party does, which is to say it has an ideology of being against the private sector. But here is a little question for the Labour members to answer; Mr Barker may like to answer it. If Labour members are so against the private management of prisons, why was Chubb, which Mr Barker called a glorified taxi service, the company that under Labour responded to all the home detention call-outs? I ask Mr Barker why that was the case. It was because, of course, it is OK for Labour to call on the private sector when it feels like it, but Labour will not have the private sector anywhere where Labour can make a point out of it. It was quite safe to do that when National was Opposition, because the Labour members knew that National actually—

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to take a call. I have to say, though, that I am somewhat disappointed to follow what can only be described as an absolute trivialisation of some really significant points that had been made not only by the Labour Opposition but also by my colleague Metiria Turei. I will touch on a couple of points that the Minister in the chair raised. In particular, she tried to defend private prisons by stating that rehabilitation programmes had taken place under private contractors in remand prison. Remand prisons are for prisoners on remand! Fifty percent of those on remand are subsequently found not guilty; they are under the presumption of innocence. And we are operating rehabilitation programmes on some of these prisoners? No wonder we have inefficiency problems with the private sector!

I would also like some clarification, perhaps if Jonathan Young would like to take another call, on what exactly is meant by the decency agenda that private prisons are operating. I was confused by this term, and perhaps he could shed some light on the decency agenda.

The UK is an interesting example to bring up—the UK and its large number of private prisons. I am not sure whether Mr Young heard the Labour Opposition point out that 10 of the 11 worst-performing prisons in the UK are private prisons. In fact, that might be the very reason why in the UK they established something called independent prison monitoring boards.

I would like to spend a little bit of time talking about the independent prison monitoring boards, because it is a point raised by my colleague Moana Mackey. I guess parallels could be drawn between what was established in the UK, and the monitors that the Minister has raised in Part 1. But I will go through some of the technical differences because I think the monitors that are set out in this bill are actually inadequate in comparison with what the UK has set up; I want us to keep in mind that the UK set them up because of the dire circumstances under which some of these private prisons were operating.

I want to go back to new section 199E and the monitors. New subsection (1) of that section sets out the number of monitors that could be appointed at any one time, and I ask the Minister whether she has any expectations over what is an adequate number of monitors for any given prison. The responsibilities for these monitors, as set out in this bill, are significant. In fact, in the UK the independent prison monitoring boards have multiple members on them, in light of the fact that they deal with such weighty issues, and they are frequently called to report to the Home Office on the operations of the prisons, so I would like to hear whether the Minister has any expectations in that regard.

I would also like to refer to section 199E(1A) in clause 5, which sets out that the chief executive may appoint one or more monitors under the State Sector Act. New section 199D(2) in clause 5 then states that the monitor is responsible to the chief executive for the assessment and review of the management of that prison, and must report to the chief executive “at any intervals”. I want to draw out the question of independence at this point, and it is something that has been raised by my colleagues. Again, there is a significant difference between the independent boards that we see operating in the UK and those we see here. The chief executive appoints the board, and it reports to the chief executive. New section 199E(4) states that “The office of the monitor may be combined with any other office, appointment, or position if the chief executive is satisfied that the duties of that other office, appointment, or position are not incompatible with the duties of a monitor.”

That is a huge amount of discretion placed upon the shoulders of one individual person. The fact that the chief executive can appoint however many monitors he or she chooses, and makes a decision over whether there is any conflict of interest with that individual, and can call the monitor to make reports at any time, is a high concentration of power in one individual, and, potentially, for the one or two individuals whom he or she may appoint.

One of the reasons I have such an interest in independent prison monitoring boards is that when I was resident in the UK I made an application to become a member of one. I had an interest in the way those boards operated and the fact that they drew on lay people—members of the community—who had no conflict of interest in the way, for instance, Brixton prison was managed. I was one of those individuals. I had no vested interest in any regard. The chief executive would not have been the one making my appointment to that board. I would have been entirely separate to the process. My only interest, therefore, would have been the transparent and correct operation of that prison as set out in legislation. I think that is in stark contrast to the way these monitors are set out in this legislation. I would be interested to know whether the Minister took into account any comparisons, such as the way the UK, for instance, operated, which is an area I have some interest in.

I would like to go on to a couple more provisions as they relate specifically to the monitors. New section 199F(2) states “Every contractor must ensure that any monitor has free and unfettered access at all times”. That actually confers on the monitors greater powers than the Auditor-General has. The Auditor-General has an independent responsibility—a responsibility not invested in the Auditor-General by the chief executive—yet the monitors have greater powers than the Auditor-General. I think that is an oversight, and therefore I am disappointed that we have not adopted today what I think are very reasonable Supplementary Order Papers put forward by my colleague Rick Barker. Those Supplementary Order Papers would have rectified and clarified that situation.

I come to new section 199G(2A), which, within that context, states that a monitor is also able to “investigate any matter relating to that prison, or any prisoner in that prison,”. I think that raises an interesting point over the subject matter of the reports that will come from the monitor. For instance, the independent prison monitoring board actually spends a lot of time taking complaints from prisoners about the abuse of very, very basic rights. I do not want to get into a debate over whether we are granting too many rights to prisoners, but the independent prison monitoring board did have a role in ensuring that there were basic standards in those prisons. Often those were kept in check only by complaints made by prisoners themselves. Will a monitor be able to accept complaints and investigate matters raised by prisoners directly? I accept that I may have missed that detail in the bill, but I would be happy for the Minister of Corrections to clarify that for me. I do note that the Minister is quite busy, but I suspect that the Hon Nathan Guy is not raising with her matters related to the bill; perhaps he is discussing designs for the next passport, because that is obviously a weighty issue that the House has spent significant time on today.

I would like to get to another important issue and that is what happens to the reports—the very important reports—being produced by the only one with access, and apparent transparent access, to the private prisons. What happens to the reports generated by the monitors? There are lots of provisions relating to what they can do, how they can get the information, and how they can be tasked by the chief executive, but I did not feel that there was enough consideration of what then happens to those reports. The Opposition has already requested that access is granted under the Official Information Act. I do not feel there is quite enough clarity at this point that they will be covered by the Official Information Act, and that we will be able to gain access to the reports produced by monitors. Again, that is perhaps something the Minister could clarify for us. I think that would be a great service to us.

There is a provision under section 199I that says that prison management contracts are to be presented to the House of Representatives. We will then, in comparison, have greater transparency around the content of contracts than we will around whether the contracts have been abided by and fulfilled, and I think that is an inconsistency. It is one thing to know what is included in a contract, but it is another thing to know whether we have the powers and tools to ensure that those contracts are being abided by. It would be only right to have consistency between those two provisions. I request that the Minister draw out her reasons why she believes that the reports produced by monitors should not be subject to section 199.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Corrections) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I will take a call on the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. To make it very clear, I say that I am the Associate Minister of Corrections. I asked for the portfolio because I have spent a lot of my time since the 1970s working in prisons in New Zealand and Australia, and I thought that maybe I could offer something to the prison service by being involved in that capacity as a Minister. There are good prisons and bad prisons in terms of their administration and treatment, and of the duties they perform. I have found good prisons in a private capacity and also in a public capacity, and poor prisons in both, as well.

I favour the introduction of private prisons in the sense that it can give Māori an opportunity to be more involved in looking after their own and perhaps rehabilitating them. The role of a prison in the first place is really to incarcerate people and to make the public safe. I believe that the role can be extended to rehabilitation, but it needs a particular programme and culture within it in order to perform those tasks.

A variety of Māori programmes have been introduced in prisons for ages. Mention has been made of the Māori focus units. The first one was in Hastings; I was one of the three people who designed that prison. It did not perform how we wanted it to, and that is what I want to talk about. In New Zealand we have more prisons and more people in prison than we should have for our population. As a result, the prisons are finding it difficult to cope, so they are putting conditions on each other. There is a lot of interaction between prisons, which stops the units from running in their own rights as single prisons. In the Māori focus units, for example, suddenly there may be no more beds left in the matua prison—the senior prison—so they put people into the Māori focus unit who do not want to be there, sometimes who are not Māori, and who do not fit into that programme. It erodes the value of the programme that is operating. There are other factors, too, but unless a programme is set up and is protected so that it can run in accord with why it has been set up, then it is very difficult to carry on.

My own preference is that we build more rehabilitation centres. We have designed some that we are hoping to launch next year. The value of the rehabilitation centres is that they will bring the recidivism rate down, which doubles the amount of beds available. If there is a rehabilitation centre with 60 beds and we manage to keep most of those people out of prison, that means that 60 beds are available in the main prison as well as in the rehabilitation centre because those people are not coming back. It is good to try. We have tried quite a few things in prison, but it has been very difficult to maintain them.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) Link to this

I came down to the Chamber and I was not inclined to say anything on this Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill, but in a way I could not help myself when I listened to the Labour members. When we listen to Labour members these days, whether the issue is prisons, education, health, or accident compensation, it does not really matter, because what they are about is means. They are about public delivery, irrespective of whether the outcome is any good. Those members do not start with objectives and goals, and then ask what the best way to deliver them is. Where they start is with the means, and it has to be the public delivery. It would not matter whether private prisons rehabilitated 50 percent of prisoners and public prisons rehabilitated only 10 percent, because the members opposite would still favour public prisons. That is a tragedy; that is a real tragedy.

I suggest to Labour members that they are going nowhere until they focus on objectives and goals, and not on means. They are in favour of a public system in accident compensation that will lose $4 billion this year. They are not actually interested in delivery. They are interested in a public education system where 30 percent of our young kids come out unable to read or write properly. They are not interested in the kids, but they are interested in public delivery. At the end of the day, that is what this is all about. It is a question of whether we can introduce a measure of competition. Without doubt, competition is vital. It is just as vital within the public sector as it is within the private sector.

It would be fair to say that competition amongst Government enterprises and between Government enterprises and private organisations helps to ensure that the Government is the servant of the people and not the other way round. Whether or not the Labour Opposition likes it, the fact is that competition is a disciplinary force. It provides consumers with a protection against poor quality services. I suggest that some private sector competition in the field that we are talking about—prisons—would do exactly that. The difficulty for the Labour Party, I think, is that those members have locked themselves so much into the means that they have lost sight of the people whom they are trying to help. Until they get back to focusing on people rather than on means, they are going nowhere.

A recent publication on education by their former Prime Minister, which she sent to a lot of parents, mentioned public education in that letter 12 times and never mentioned a child once. That is where Labour has got to, which is a great tragedy.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

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.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

I have to say that I have been frustrated while I have been sitting here throughout this debate by the misinformation that I have heard from the Labour members. I do not think it is wilful misinformation. Members opposite are not setting out to be duplicitous and to say things that are dishonest; I do not think that at all. A fog or a mist has come over those members’ eyes, though, through their ideology and dogma. When I think of their ideology, I think of old men who died probably about 150 years ago, and who were caught up in arguments about profit, the proletariat, and so on. When all that debate is boiled down, that is what it comes to from those members’ perspective. It comes down to ideology.

We have heard from Grant Robertson. I am simplifying it, but I think he said that profit equals bad. Profit equals bad. That is what I heard. I admit that he fancied it up and he titified it, but he made the argument that profit is bad—

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

The first thing I say, given the contribution we have just heard, is that I make no apology for believing that profiteering from systemic racism is a bad thing. Making a profit is not necessarily a bad thing, but making a profit from systemic racism is bad, and this Committee should not be supporting any kind of legislation that does that.

I will address some of the issues raised by the Associate Minister of Corrections because I thought he made a really important contribution, given the argument that this legislation is supposed to be good for Māori, and given the fact that the Māori Party is supporting it. The process of colonisation that has impacted on the Māori communities in this country is felt nowhere more obviously than in the oldest construction of the colonial Government, which is the criminal legal system and penal policy. They are the oldest constructions of the colonial State. The results of the colonisation process and the systemic racism that has arisen out of that process are clear. More than 50 percent of the prison population is Māori, and more than 50 percent of the female prison population is Māori. Wāhine Māori are in jail in appalling numbers. The systemic bias in the system leads to Māori being more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, and jailed than their Pākehā counterparts. Even those involved with the Youth Court have said that rangatahi Māori—young Māori—are more likely to face the Youth Court.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

Firstly, I agree with many of the comments that Metiria Turei has just raised. I totally agree with her that it is really important that Māori are involved in the management of prisons, and have a meaningful say in that. I totally disagree with the position put forward by the Associate Minister of Corrections, Dr Pita Sharples, that the best way to do that is to privatise prisons and put them over to the private sector. I think the public sector is perfectly capable of managing prisons. If we extended the Minister’s argument to its logical conclusion, we would then start to ask why the public sector would, for example, have any role in schools, in hospitals, or in the provision of any other services. If we take that to its logical conclusion, it simply does not make sense.

I will respond to some of the comments that Simon Bridges made. He said that the notion that the incarceration of prisoners—the deprivation of people’s liberty—is a core role for Government, was ridiculous. If it is not a core role for Government, for whom is it a core role? It certainly should not be a core role of the private sector to deprive somebody of his or her liberty. Where do we stop if we start handing over the power to do that to the private sector? Do we stop at the police? Do we stop at the army? Where do we stop, when we are dealing with issues around fundamental human rights? There are very few human rights that are more fundamental than the right to freedom and the right to liberty. So I think that Simon Bridges has completely missed the point.

The member talked about the fact that he did not want to make this a sterile debate by quoting figures; that is because there are no figures to support the position that he put forward. The figures show that it is not cheaper for the private sector to run prisons. In fact, in the case of the Auckland Central Remand Prison it was more expensive for the private sector to operate it, which shows that private prisons are not more effective in reducing recidivism. From the few studies that are available from overseas—and we do not have any from New Zealand because of the very short period of time that we had a privately run prison—it becomes very apparent that the privatisation of prisons, and the handing of their management over to private prison managers, does not reduce recidivism, at all. This is absolutely a very clear example of the stark differences between the Labour Opposition and the new National Government. As my colleagues have pointed out, the National Government is fundamentally committed to a model that privatises profits and socialises losses.

Finally, I will talk about one technical point; I wanted to raise it earlier but this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. It is covered in Part 1 and concerns the liability of the contractor, but it extends to the wider issues that we have been debating. Under the contract provisions in the bill, the contract must ensure that “Every prison management contract must impose on the contractor, in relation to the management of the prison, a duty to comply with—”, among other things, “the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”. Members will find that provision in new section 199(2)(b), in clause 5. Hopefully the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, will talk about this matter in her final reading speech. But I ask, in respect of new section 199B, which is about the liability of the contractor, what would happen if a private prison operator were to breach the human rights of a prisoner, for example, or were to cease to exist, for whatever reason. Where would the liability fall for that?

We have seen some examples in recent years of significant sums of money going from the Crown to prisoners, when it has been determined that their human rights have been breached. So I am keen to know from the Minister where the liability for any breaches of that would fall, particularly in light of section 199B in the bill—and I did not get a chance to raise that earlier in the debate. I will keep my comments very short because I am aware that the time for this debate has nearly expired.

This is clearly a decision by the National Government that is driven solely by ideology. It cannot be driven by evidence, because there is no evidence. I have sat through the entire debate this evening waiting for any member from National, the ACT Party, or the Māori Party to actually produce a single shred of evidence that a private prison will be more effective than a public prison in any way, but all members opposite have been able to do is talk in very general terms. There is no proof.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this

I move, That the report be adopted.