Plans to privatise our prisons – Another agenda, same spin
Last Wednesday, in the pouring rain a rally of about 1,000 striking prison officers protested outside New South Wales Parliament against the State Government’s plans to implement wide-ranging prison system reforms. Rain did not deter the men and women from the State’s 75 correctional facilities from closing Macquarie Street and chanting abuse at the new Treasurer and the Attorney General.
It has only been less than two months when the Government’s Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 was overwhelmingly defeated in the Upper House, and now the Government has wasted little time in pushing plans to privatise New South Wales’ correctional facilities. There is no doubt that no industry is safe from privatisation as the Government continually seeks to cut costs in the public sector.
Officers walked off the job for 24 hours to protest the sell-off plans which they fear will threaten and compromise the safety of inmates, workers and the community. The jails on strike were fully locked down and around 5,000 prisoners were still provided with meals, showers, exercise and medical attention.
According to NSW Public Service Association (PSA) General Secretary John Cahill, it is anticipated that the Government would announce the plans to privatise in the November 11 mini-budget. He said, “We don’t think prisons should be privatised as a profit making institution. This also has serious health and safety concerns for the people who work in probably one of the most dangerous jobs in Australia.”
The Attorney General and Minister for Justice, John Hatzistergos, said, “Reform is needed to slash the services’ $43 billion overtime bill. The chronic position of large amounts of overtime fuelling sick leave, leading to even more claims for overtime, cannot be sustained.”
The Attorney General confirmed that Treasury was considering the benefits of privatising jails in Parklea in Sydney’s west and Cessnock in the Hunter region, as well as extending the reforms to court security and prisoner transport. In August, the NSW Government flagged wide-ranging reforms of the prison system, after overtime payments more than doubled the $20 million budgeted.
The NSW Department of Corrective Services Commissioner Ron Woodham argued that there is absolutely no risk to surrounding communities if jails were privatised. He cited Junee jail as an example which had been privately run since 1993.
Dr Moyes recalled those years prior to the letting of the contract to design, construct and run the Junee Jail. He was involved in leading a team of people that investigated private prisons in USA and Europe. Wesley Mission was at the time the favoured team to design, construct and run the Junee Facility.
“From my experience as a Parole and Probation Officer, and from going in and out of prisons, and caring for prisoners families and children, I realized that a private correctional facility was needed to help rehabilitated non-violent offenders.”
“Wesley Mission had been running programs in prisons in NSW for many years. The State had been using the same prison model since 1788, with the same high recidivism rates and the same failure to rehabilitate prisoners. We needed a new model that case managed prisoners, with prison officers trained in rehabilitation methods for non-violent offenders. The model I was proposing was to provide perimeter security with walls and entrances and exits manned by prison officers from the Correctional Services. These correctional service officers would be responsible for the secure maintenance of the prison which would be a re-assurance to the surrounding communities”, he said.
Dr Moyes continued, “But inside the prison walls, the scene would be different. Non violent offenders who are mainly drug abusers, road fine avoiders, continual alcohol abusers, fine defaulters and those on remand, would be the subject of a rehabilitation program varied according to need. Rehabilitation would be the order of the day. The officers within the prison would be trained in rehabilitation methods, educational teaching, preparation for work and return to work programs so that when sentences were complete they would be ready to re-enter the community.”
“This approach was carefully assessed by all the main players in the field and was found to be workable and most likely to increase the rehabilitation rate and reduce the recidivism rate.” Unfortunately Wesley Mission Sydney, which was already working inside NSW prisons in conducting rehabilitation, drug and alcohol programs and return to work programs was forced by a decision of the NSW Uniting Church Synod that no agency of the Church apart from the Chaplaincy Services, should be involved in any work with prisoners, and no part of the church should be allowed to take part in the running of any private prison, to abandon all of its programs in the prison system and its plans for Junee.
“This was a stupid decision, argued by people who said that officers engaged in rehabilitation and preparation for release program, could be called upon to shoot escaping prisoners”, Dr Moyes said. These people failed to distinguish between those officers engaged with rehabilitation, and those who belonged to the Corrective Services division who were charged with perimeter security.
“From my experience, we will always need Corrective Services personnel to be in charge of jail security. That task should not be out-sourced to private companies. But there is plenty of room for privatizing what happens within the prison walls, especially with those who are non-violent offenders”, Dr Moyes said.
Proponents of privatisation contend that cost-savings and efficiency of operation place private prisons at an advantage over public prisons. The main argument of the NSW Government is perceived inefficiency of labour costs in the operation of prisons. They believe that privatising will efficiently reduce the costs of labour and thereby net substantial savings for the government.
However, extensive research and study into private prisons in the United States casts doubts on the validity of these arguments. Also, there is little evidence that the privatisation of prisons result in significant public savings.
Higher profits require more inmates. In the US, because private prisons operate on a per diem rate for each bed filled, there is a financial incentive not only to detain more inmates but also to detain them for a longer period of time. It is evidently clear that the profit motive of private prison companies creates a problematic entanglement between interest in profit and public policy.
On the other hand, prison privatisation presents serious dilemmas for our State regarding public values such as safety, justice, rehabilitation and legitimacy. Here are some issues for you to consider:
SAFETY: Do private prisons pose a threat to the safety of prisoners, prison workers, and the general public?
JUSTICE: Are the mechanisms of private prisons liable to distort sentencing?
REHABILITATION: Can the profit motive be reconciled with the need to prepare inmates for productive lives after prison?
LEGITIMACY: Is incarceration an inherently governmental function? Is it right that profits be reaped from human imprisonment?
We appreciate your thoughts on this highly charged but yet ethical issue which will unfold next week with the announcement of the State’s Mini-Budget. The public, prison advocacy groups, unions, policy makers, and legislators would be well served by a broad discussion of the complex set of issues raised by prison privatisation.