KEY POINTS:
Less pretty landscaping, having prisoners share toilets and privatisation of prisons are among solutions an independent report has given to building cheaper prisons.
An independent report into how the Government could save money when building prisons says privatisation would provide a significant opportunity for cost-savings, citing Australia as an example of the benefits of it.
The report, by consultants Evans and Peck, looked at the costs of Corrections' recent construction of the Otago and Spring Hills prisons and compared them with two Australian prisons.
It was commissioned by Treasury and the Department of Corrections to advise on how to save costs in future building projects.
The report found while in many ways the Australian and New Zealand prisons were comparable, the New Zealand versions went further in cosmetic areas, such as the quality of the finish and design.
It said among other "more radical" ways to build prisons more cheaply was for New Zealand to reintroduce the private sector into the development, ownership and management of prisons.
The private sector has not been involved in prison management since the Corrections Act 2004, when Auckland Remand Prison was returned to government management from private ownership.
The report said allowing the private sector a role "has proved very cost-effective in some Australian jurisdictions, with no degradation of service levels and little community opposition after an initial period of private sector involvement".
National Corrections spokesman Simon Power said the suggestion went against claims by the Government that only the public sector could manage and build prisons.
"The question taxpayers will want answered is could the private sector do a worse job, and the answer is no."
Acting Corrections Minister Mita Ririnui said private companies were often involved in building prisons, but the Corrections Act 2004 did not allow the private management of prisons.
"Under the Labour-led Government, prisons will remain a fundamental role of the state."
The report said Corrections should stick to building the minimum design needed for each class of prisoner - citing examples such as painting each cell, and providing individual toilets in each cell at the new medium-low security prisons, rather than communal facilities.
Mr Power said the report was further proof "that Corrections has badly handled taxpayers' money" when building prisons and said $11.5 million could have been saved by having communal facilities.
However, Corrections chief executive Barrie Matthews said the individual toilets were more expensive, but allowed for the prison to be easily converted into medium-high security in the future, if needed.
He said the actual value of the potential savings could not be independently verified "but the report highlights some design alternatives and contains some useful insights which will be taken into account when building any future prisons".
The report said the Resource Management Act consents process as a "particularly onerous" burden on the department.
The speed with which Corrections wanted the two prisons built had exacerbated this, meaning Corrections often ended up agreeing to unnecessary extras.
It said "attending to the needs of Maori and Pacific peoples" was another cost, because of extra cultural facilities for those inmates, as well as religions such as Muslim.
"It is not the provisions of these cultural and religious centres that is the issue: it is the size and quality of fit-out and furnishings that are required," the report said.
Treasury deputy-secretary Peter Mersi said building the two prisons was "the equivalent of building two small towns" and it was important lessons were learned to reduce costs in the future.
