Editorial: 'Benefits' of new prison an absurdity

Photo / Bay of Plenty Times

Something is clearly awry when a Government proclaims the economic benefits of a new prison. Yet just that is happening with a 960-bed jail at Wiri, which is scheduled to be designed, built and operated under a public-private partnership.

In the search for a silver lining for what is the symbol of a failed policy, and to curry favour for a contentious innovation, the Corrections Department has commissioned an economic impact report.

This reckons the prison will deliver $1.2 billion in benefits over its 30-year lifespan, as well as 1900 jobs to South Auckland in the next five years. Judith Collins, the Corrections Minister, has been only too willing to trumpet the findings.

The report seems all the more odd in that it has been produced at a time when government departments are being told to make savings. It hardly qualifies as judicious spending.

What it suggests is nervousness over the public-private approach. Most countries have been loath to entrust prisoner welfare to private contractors.

On the rare occasions where this has happened, the results have been decidedly mixed. Inmates high on drugs and prison officers low on confidence were among the findings, released last week, of independent inspectors who assessed Britain's first private prison, HMP Wolds.

And in April, the Florida Centre for Fiscal and Economic Policy questioned whether taxpayers were getting their money's worth with that state's privatised prisons.

Yet, to a large degree, the public-private model is incidental to the question of economic spin-off. As the Howard League for Penal Reform has pointed out, any benefits would accrue to South Auckland regardless of whether the prison was Government or privately built.

Similarly, those who oppose a prison in their neighbourhood are not concerned about its mode of operation.

Indeed, what is important about this prison are not the benefits but the economic losses implicit in the number of inmates lost to the workforce, the staff required to oversee the institution, the cost of the high number of recidivist prisoners, and suchlike.

The multibillion-dollar direct and indirect expense of the penal system, in fact.

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English has noted that the Corrections vote, which encompasses policing, prisons and justice, will soon be the single biggest budget expenditure. In large part, this is the inevitable upshot of an imprisonment rate that is the second highest in the developed world.

Thus, rather than applauding benefits to be had from higher crime and more prisoners, Ms Collins should be concentrating on the economic pluses of reducing the jail population. She needs to comprehensively reset her compass.

Other politicians are providing a lead. In Britain, the new Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, intends to cut the number of people being sent to jail. He says prison does not always work and is often a waste of money, and that many inmates guilty of petty crimes should not be there.

Mr Clarke is, of course, flying bravely in the face of populist opinion. Its sway over the past 20 years has prompted an increasingly punitive approach to sentencing. The need for new prisons, such as that at Wiri, signals the abject failure of that policy.

To date, Ms Collins has been keen to show herself part of the tough-on-crime brigade. Its adherents believe that if crime persists in the face of tough sentences, the perpetrators must, simply, be incarcerated even longer.

Proclaiming a prison's economic benefits reflects the same mindset. At some stage, the absurdity of this must be recognised.

The focus must be on fewer, not more, prisons. Separating hard-core recidivists, who must be jailed, from those who pose little threat and would benefit more from community-based alternatives would be a good first step.