Private Prisons

Why not privatise the army? The Americans have gone some way along that road in Iraq. It’s a lucrative business. In New Zealand schools airlines, banks and railways continue to be tempting for investors with short memories. Way back, private Catholic schools had to be rescued by taxpayers. Had they not been bailed out they would have closed. And it is much too recent (and painful) to discuss the sad tale of our bank, railway and airline. 

One can see the temptation. The argument goes that bureaucratic institutions are expensive, inefficient and archaic. Private enterprises are cost-conscious, efficient and innovative. To believe this one would have to ignore the hundreds of shops, cafes etc. that provide awful service. Accepted, the argument goes, but we are talking of large institutions run by qualified and experienced people. Like banks and finance companies for instance? 

But let us concede that government institutions run by bureaucrats are stodgy and are not famous for startlingly innovative service delivery. These institutions often operate excessively rigid and complicated procedures which are tiresome. They would argue that where important public institutions are concerned caution is a necessary watchword. Currently millions of investors throughout the world argue that caution was exactly what was forgotten by the innovative stewards of their investments.

Now, to cut to the chase: Privatising prisons has nothing to do with penology, the study of punishment and the ethical considerations of locking people up. It doesn’t even have anything to do with prisons. It is about unchanging political attitudes, selfish voters and political parties whose central policy is expedience. 

Listen to ordinary people before an election: What’s in it for me? They don’t vote for a healthier environment or social cohesion or a legacy for their children’s grandchildren. They have money on their minds. Money now. Hence the focus of policy makers seeking to attract the only two streams of voters that matter to mainstream parties; those who imagine they can make money running prisons and those - the majority - who hope that leaner prisoners equates with reduced taxes. 

I think the saddest part of this legislation is that it highlights the dearth of vision in New Zealand politics. Norman Kirk was able to inspire with his vision but died before he was tested. David Langi, although he did not follow through, had the potential to be an inspirational leader. Helen Clarke was able and competent but lacked the ability to inspire. John Key seems affable and reasonably competent but if the tired old ploy of privatising prisons is an example of his vision I think we’d better prepare for many more years of mediocrity.