DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I am very pleased to rise in support of the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. The main reason I am so pleased is that we support anything that will benefit the justice system. I have listened very carefully to the debate, both here in the House and on television, and I have to say that I have heard nothing credible from members on the other side of the House or to my immediate right that would suggest that private prisons will not be an improvement.

Data from the UK shows that privately run prisons are cheaper and, more important, that they deliver better outcomes. Closer to home there is plenty of evidence—it has almost become boring repeating it—from the time when Auckland Central Remand Prison was under private management to suggest that there are plenty of positives in such a system. Labour, in its 9 years in power, showed a great aversion to the private sector, bordering on the paranoid. Its decision to re-annex Auckland Central Remand Prison was based not on results, which were very encouraging, but rather on its own ideology. I applaud Mr Hipkins for finally admitting that his stance at least was based on ideology.

The decision to re-annex the Auckland Central Remand Prison cost $3 million in transition costs, but the social cost was even bigger. The Auckland Central Remand Prison was run in a formal partnership with Iwi Whānui o Tāmaki-makau-rau, an advisory board representing six northern iwi. For the first time, Māori were directly involved with the operation and management of the prison system, or at least a part of it. We have heard ad infinitum today and tonight that over half of New Zealand’s prisoners are Māori. That is from a population of about 16 percent of New Zealanders. Many in Māoridom wanted, and still want, to take ownership of that problem and resolve it. Old, intractable problems require new solutions.

I applaud the Māori Party for having the courage to put up with the insults from members opposite for its decision to support a new direction. As I said during the second reading debate—and it has almost become a cliché—on all measures, including suicides, assaults on guards and prisoners, and escapes, Auckland Central Remand Prison fared much better when it was privately run. Those are not my words; they are those of the former Green MP Mr Nandor Tanczos. Yet he, along with the Greens and Labour, opposed it anyway.

Let me be clear on this: Labour and the Greens opposed fewer suicides. They opposed fewer assaults, they opposed fewer prison escapes—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find the words that the member used about me just then offensive. I have never, nor has any member here, opposed fewer suicides, which is what he just said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. I accept that point of order. Making comments like that can bring the House into disorder. I ask the member to withdraw that comment and apologise.

DAVID GARRETT: I withdraw and apologise. Since the last election and since this Parliament began, the Greens have opposed every single initiative by this Government to get tough on crime and the causes of crime. Private prisons will be a reality by the end of this evening. For the record, I ask the Greens again whether, in 2 years’ time, if the results in terms of recidivism or any other measure are 25 percent better than they are today, they will still oppose private prisons.

Kevin Hague: Are you seeking leave for another call for us?

DAVID GARRETT: Oh no, no. There was no answer; just a bit of smartness. That is to be expected. If one is a member of the Labour Party or the Greens, blind ideology, and looking after one’s union backers in Labour’s case, is more important than results. It is more important even than people’s lives.

Privatisation is not a right-wing conspiracy. Around the world it has become the norm. The World Bank noted recently: “Privatization is now so widespread that it is hard to find countries not using the approach. North Korea, Cuba and, perhaps, Myanmar make up the shrunken universe of the resistant.” We can add the members opposite and the Corrections Association of New Zealand to that list. They think that the sky will fall in if the Government delegates to those who can do a better job.

It has been very interesting to hear in numerous speeches from members tonight—dozens, I think it would be fair to say—that they see it as an article of faith that the operation of prisons is and must be a function of the State. But no one has actually said where that comes from. I ask which volume of Marx that comes from. Where does it come from? No one has explained to me or to this House why that is an axiom. The simple answer is that it is not. There is no tablet in stone, and there is nothing written by, and handed down from, the gods that says that the incarceration of prisoners convicted by the courts must be a function of the State. We heard Mr Barker, I think, talk about the army as another example of something that must be administered by the State. But the new member Mr Shearer is on record as saying that mercenary armies are in fact a good idea. So I wonder just where those members get that axiom from.

I suppose that in 6 or 9 years’ time, if Labour manages to get into power, we will not have Kiwibank and KiwiRail in the election of 2021; we will have “KiwiJail” as a campaign by members opposite. They are suffering from a phobia, and they need help. I have heard no good reasons from members on the other side to change my mind.

Since being here I have visited Rimutaka Prison, and Pāremoremo prison, which is now known as Auckland Prison. The staff there, in my observation, are doing their best. They are professionals; most of them would have nothing to fear if prisons were privately run. If people like Mr Hanlon and his union mates continue spouting the kind of allegations they made in the Law and Order Committee, they would indeed have plenty to worry about. I will give members on the other side another lesson in law. Unsubstantiated allegations made with the protection of Parliament are not, in fact, evidence. I do not think that any lawyers are left over on that side of the Chamber; they have all gone home. But that is the case—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As you will be aware, the member cannot make reference to the absence of other members from the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It was a generic point, and this is just an interruption to the debate. The point the member makes is well made, but the member speaking was not referring to individual members.

DAVID GARRETT: This bill will shake things up, and that is not before time. I think that probably the one thing that everyone across the Chamber can agree on is that the present system is not working. It is not working for white people, and it certainly is not working for Māori. The Māori Party has expressed a strong interest in helping to revive the iwi – private sector partnership once again, and again I applaud its courage for doing that. I hope it works; I really do. This Government, unlike the previous one, will focus on what works.

The amusing irony for me is that our party, according to members on the other side, is supposed to be all about ideology. But in this case, we are at one with National and the Māori Party in pursuing what works. I say again, in conclusion, that no one would try to argue that what we have now—75 or 80 percent recidivism after 5 years—is working, so this measure has to be an improvement. Thank you.