Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Should Victoria's prisons be privatised?
By Wednesday, August 27, 1996, all the current inmates of Fairlea Women's Prison had been transferred to the new Metropolitan Women's Correctional Centre, Ravenhall, Victoria's private women's prison.
The closure of Fairlea and its replacement by a private prison has aroused significant controversy. Ravenhall, at Deer Park, is the first privately run prison in Victoria. The new prison, its detractors and defenders have become part of the larger debate centring around whether prisons should be run by the state or by private companies.
Background
In Victoria, Ravenhall private prison at Deer Park is to be followed by further private prisons in Sale and Laverton.
The new 600-bed medium security prison, Fulham, to be established near Sale, will replace the current Sale prison in 1997. By mid-1998 Pentridge will have closed to be replaced by the new 600-bed Metropolitan Men's Prison in North Laverton.
the prison at Laverton will be the only privately-owned maximum security prison in the world.
With the closure of Pentridge, Victoria will have the highest number of private prison beds per head of population in the world. Around half of Victoria's total prison population will be in private prisons.
In the United States, some two per cent of prisoners are in private prisons, while in England the figure is four per cent.
Private prisons are run by private companies. They are normally built by that company and funded by the state with each private operator having a twenty year prisoner accommodation contract. Thus the private contractors make their profit out of the gap between what the state pays them to maintain the prison and prisoners and what it actually costs them to do so.
The Victorian Government will pay the companies a three part fee to run the prisons. There will be an accommodation services charge for the building, a correctional services fee for running the prison and training programs, and a performance-linked fee.
Contracts are reviewed after the first five years, then again every three years until the end of the twenty year period.
The Laverton North prison will be built and run by a consortium made up of Group 4 Corrections Services, Fletcher Construction Services Australia and Dresdner Australia.
Group 4 is wholly owned by the Dutch multinational company, Group 4 Securitas, whose main business is industrial security. Group 4 runs Britain's first private prison.
The Deer Park women's prison will be built and managed by Corrections Corporation of Australia (the Australian subsidiary of America's biggest private prison operator). It is being built by John Holland Construction and financed by Westpac. CCA has invested $4 million in the building costs. Once the prison opens it will take on all the risks of owning the building.
The medium security prison at Fulham, west of Sale, will be built and managed by Australasian Correctional Management. ACM is owned by the Wackenhut Corporation, the largest suppliers of security and intelligence information to the United States Government. The prison will be built by Thiess Contractors and financed by AMP.
There are currently about 2500 prisoners in the state's jails and about 16,000 offenders on community-based orders who did 1,016,696 hours of unpaid work in the 12 months to June 30.
Sixty-four per cent re-offend within two years and return to prison. This is down from 70 per cent in 1991. Victoria's imprisonment rate is about 50 per 100,000. This is half the national average and compares well with the United States figure of 600 per 100,000.
Australia is privatising its prisons more rapidly than any other country. There are three private prisons in Queensland (the Arthur Gorrie remand prison outside Brisbane, Borallon Correctional centre at Ipswich, Australia's first private prison, and Woodford, Queensland's newest prison), one in New South Wales (Junee) and by the end of 1997 there will be three in Victoria.
Arguments supporting privately run prisons
The first major argument offered in support of private prisons is that they will be more efficiently run and will reduce the cost to the tax-payer of maintaining prisoners.
The Corrections Minister, Bill McGrath, has estimated that private prisons will be some 60 per cent more efficient.
It is anticipated that the total cost of maintaining a prisoner will fall from $50,000 or $60,000 a year to something over $40,000. (The $60,000 figure includes education, outside health costs and recurrent debt.)
The largest savings are expected to be made in the number of prison officers to be employed and the cost per officer.
The new metropolitan men's prison will employ about 200 staff, compared with 500 at Pentridge. The number of sick days taken per officer will be reduced. (The current figure is approximately 40 days per year per officer.) Officers will be employed for approximately $30,000 a year as opposed to the current $50,000 a year. The $20,000 difference is largely attributable to overtime payments.
The second key argument offered in support of prisons being privately run is that the state is continuing to exercise its responsibility for prisoners' wellbeing even when private companies establish and manage prisons.
According to this line of argument, though the day-to-day management of the prisons may be in the hands of private companies, the prison is run under guidelines established by the state.
The Deer Park women's prison has been cited as an example of this. The Correctional Services Commissioner, John Van Groningen, retains control of policy, prisoner management (the state determines which prisoners go to which jails and when they are transferred) and will monitor private jails and their programs.
Each of the companies running Victoria's three private prisons were only awarded their contracts after agreeing to meet 42 benchmarks or standards of performance in all areas of prison management.
There are benchmarks for areas such as the number of prisoners found to test positive during random drug tests, where the figure is 8 per cent. Other benchmarks have been established for hours spent out of cells by prisoners, escapes, suicides, deaths in custody, self-mutilations and assaults on prison officers. There are also performance standards or benchmarks for education programs and drug rehabilitation. (Recidivism, or the extent to which prisoners continue to commit crime and are re-imprisoned after their original release is not a performance criterion.)
The contractor's performance will be reviewed after the first five years and then every three years until the end of the twenty year contract.
Another argument offered in favour of private prisons is that they are able to offer inmates better physical conditions.
The Deer Park prison has again been referred to as an instance of the high standard of facilities that a private prison can offer.
Deer Park has no bars on the windows, just high-tech impenetrable glass. The kitchens in the women's security units have microwave ovens. There are phones to which prisoners can have access via individual pin numbers. There is a gymnasium with provision for a basketball court, a netball court and badminton. There is a squash court. It has an all-weather outdoor tennis court, a football oval and a swimming pool. There is an arts and crafts centre and a chapel. There is also a hairdressing salon.
Not all prisoners will have access to these facilities. The jail will run on an incentive basis, with prisoners earning the right to use such facilities.
Ravenhall covers eight times the area of Fairlea. It is laid out as a series of interrelated units, in what the designers refer to as a village style.
Except for the maximum security prisoners, the women will cook and clean for themselves and look after their own dwellings.
Dame Phyllis Frost, long-time chair of the Victorian Women's Prisons Council, has said, `It's my vision splendid ... It's not a luxury hotel or anything like what some have said. When you have deprivation of your freedom it doesn't matter how good the conditions are ... but if you do have good conditions and a woman gets an opportunity to start to respect herself and finds other people respecting her then you're almost home and hosed.'
The private companies have also defended themselves against the accusation that it is in their best interests to keep the number of prisoners in their installations high.
They maintain that their contracts contain provisions which either encourage them to reduce the number of prisoners in their charge or which at the very least offer no clear incentive per head to increase the number of inmates in their prisons.
The companies have also defended themselves against accusations that by reducing the number of prison officers they employ are placing the safety of prisoners and the community at risk. They claim that they are able to run prisons with a reduced number of officers because of the sophisticated surveillance equipment they are able to use and because the new prisons are better designed.
At Ravenhall doors are operated by a central command centre and video cameras watch the 14 hectare complex twenty-four hours a day. There are movement-sensitive alarms and breath sensitive perimeter fences.
It is argued that electronic protection of this kind largely relieves the need to have a greater number of prison officers inside the prison.
Arguments opposing privately run prisons
At least six major criticisms have been made of the Victorian government's plans to privatise three of the state's prisons.
The first major argument offered against privately run prisons is the claim that they are not likely to be more efficient or better run than public prisons.
Browyn Pike, director, justice and social responsibility, of the Uniting Church in Victoria, refers to the experiences of the United States and the United Kingdom.
Ms Pike claims, `The UK-based Prison Reform Trust claims that there is no conclusive evidence that private prisons achieve higher standards or savings than the public system.'
There are others who have specifically disputed the projected efficiency claims made by the Victorian state government, especially its claim that the new prisons will be 60 per cent more efficient.
The State Public Service Federation has claimed that nowhere in the world is there a jail running as efficiently as the government is expecting Victoria's private prisons to run.
It has also been argued that private prisons can create inefficiencies.
According to this line of argument, the establishment of a substantial number of private prisons can help create a climate where prison populations increase irrespective of the need for them to do so.
Ms Pike has claimed that the new Victorian private prisons will be adding a further 450 beds to the system, at a time when Victoria's crime rate is decreasing.
What is being suggested here is that the private companies' desire to make profits from their installation can have them adopt practices which do not speed the release of prisoners and further that they can influence governments to alter sentencing laws so that prison terms are lengthened.
Relatedly, the second major argument offered against privately run prisons is that their aim will be to make money for their owners and investors and that in the process the wellbeing of prisoners might be neglected.
Bronwyn Pike has stated the potential problems in this manner, `Companies are accountable to their shareholders, while governments must be accountable to the people, and these loyalties are not always compatible.
The tension occurs when companies want the government of the day to maintain a criminal justice system that guarantees customers and the subsequent income stream.'
According to this line of argument, the private companies' desire for continued profit might lead them to discourage the government from looking at options other than imprisonment for offenders.
The essential argument being put here is that it is in the interests of a private prison company to maintain and perhaps increase the number of prisoners for which it is responsible.
Critics argue that any tendency to artificially increase the number of offenders retained in jail is likely to be against the interests of the prisoners and the society at large as it will ultimately inflate the cost of maintaining the total prison population.
It has also been claimed that cost-cutting measures such as building prisons in remote areas where land is cheap makes it far harder for prisoners to have family visits and so increases tension among the inmates.
It has further been claimed that attempts by the private corporations to reduce outlays by employing far fewer security staff and by offering them less training are likely to have an adverse effect on prison management.
Dr Bob Semmens, senior lecturer, department of education policy and management, University of Melbourne, has claimed prison management policies aimed at reducing costs are unlikely to achieve prisoner rehabilitation.
For example, Junee, the private prison run in New South Wales, has been criticised for its failure to give prison educators an adequate budget and for not running TAFE accredited courses.
The general argument is that education and work training courses within private prisons are run with an eye to economy, rather than with a view to giving prisoners skills that are likely to translate into employment once they leave prison.
Thirdly, it has been argued that private prisons create numerous situations where there is a conflict of interest among its staff.
Bronwyn Pike asks people to `Imagine the potential tension for a prison case manager. Do I aim to rehabilitate this prisoner when the numbers are down, the profit margin is poor and my job is on the line?'
Similarly, in the new prison at Deer Park, prison officers are expected to be personal case managers. They are to be able to act as counsellors if the prisoner wishes.
A community lawyer, Ms Amanda George, has stated, `There is a complete conflict of interest between a person who is an officer and authorised to strip search you and ... [one who] is expected to counsel you on issues of sexual abuse.'
A fourth argument offered against the establishment of private prisons is that this may reduce the involvement of community workers and other voluntary support groups in working with prisoners.
Gary Emerson, the general manager of Ravenhall, has refused to guarantee that community groups presently working inside Fairlea will have access to the new prison.
`If it's going to be of benefit to the people in here then fine but if it's for their own personal agendas then don't bother talking to me,' Mr Emerson has stated.
Another of the apparent negative consequences of some prisons being privately run is that many of the community organisations which have previously worked with prisoners, are now said to be refusing to donate their services to privately run prisons.
Ms George has claimed in relation to Deer Park prison, `These groups are now refusing to go in unless they get paid for their services. They don't want to punish women, but they don't want to contribute to the profits of the largest prison operator in the world by volunteering their services.'
Fifthly, it has been argued that it may be difficult to make the new private prisons properly accountable.
The contract review process, as has been observed, occurs after the first five years and then only once every three years.
It has also been claimed that much important information about the operation of the new private prisons may be kept from the public and others.
Robert Richter, QC, and president of the Council for Civil Liberties, has claimed that `Like the Grand Prix arrangements, the government could use commercial confidentiality as a reason for not making available information about these prisons.'
Age journalist, Rachel Buchanan, has stated that Victorian government policy now forbids journalists to visit any of the state's prisons.
Age journalist, Nicole Brady, has noted, `The best judges of the new system will be the prisoners themselves. But they are voiceless. Prisoners are denied the right to speak publicly.'
Finally, the record of the companies which will run Victoria's private prisons has been criticised. Opposition police spokesperson, Andre Haermeyer, has criticised Group 4's high record of escapes and the poor security record in its United Kingdom prisons.
Wackenhut Corporation (which owns Australian Correctional Management, the company which will build and manage the new Fulham prison at Sale) has been criticised in its American operations for employing disgraced police officers as security guards and spending $137,000 from a Government contract on unnecessary purchases, including wining and dining department officials and its own staff.
Further implications
It is difficult to predict what the effect of private prisons in Victoria will be as they are so recent.
This is also a problem internationally, as the oldest private prisons were built in the United States as recently as the mid-1980s.
It is, however, concerning that no open, public forum exists within which the performance of private prisons could be scrutinised.
Contract reviews will be conducted privately. The distance that most of these new centres are placed from built-up areas is feared to be likely to reduce the number of visitors prisoners receive. This is significant because visitors are one immediate avenue via which inmates can make complaints.
It has also been noted that journalists appear unable to go within Victorian prisons. In such an extremely restricted environment there is unfortunately greater scope for prison mismanagement.
The size and wealth of the managing companies has also been seen as grounds for some concern. It is feared by some that the private prison companies could use their connections both here and overseas to ensure that no investigations were made of their operations and no accusations were made against them.
Sources
The Age
18/12/95 page 6 news item by David Elias and Thom Cookes, `Prison operator paid for overcrowding'
27/12/95 page 3 news item by Caroline Overington, `ALP accuses jail firm of failure to reform'
8/1/96 page 2 news item by Thom Cookes and David Elias, `Jail operators win three-tier pay plan'
17/1/96 page 13 comment by Bill Hughes, `Profit and the hard cell'
18/1/96 page 10 letter to the editor from Dr Bob Semmens, `"Keep them out" jails are best'
22/6/96 Extra section, page 6 analysis by Rachel Buchanan, `There's profit to be made from prisoners'
11/7/96 page 7 news item by Jason Koutsoukis, `New prison at Laverton in private hands'
15/8/96 page 15 comment by Bronwyn Pike, `Opening the gates to private prisons'
23/8/96 page B4 analysis by Nicole Brady, `Comfortable rooms, child care and computers still a prison make'
The Australian
13/6/96 page 9 analysis by Elizabeth Wynhausen, `Prison sell'
The Herald Sun
11/7/96 page 26 news item by Lainie Barnes, `Groups slam prison'
26/7/96 page 2 news item by Jim Tennison, `Secure in luxury'
26/7/96 page 12 news item by Jim Tennison, `No bars on efficiency at private jails'
26/7/96 page 12 news item by Jim Tennison, `Clamp cracks drug use'
26/7/96 pages 12 and 13 analysis by Jim Tennison, `Opening door on revolution'
15/8/96 page 15 news item by John Hamilton, `Great Dame achieves her vision splendid'
What they said ...
Here are people who are making profits; they are more interested in doing well than in doing good
Father Peter Norden, a spokesperson for the Criminal Justice Coalition and the Brosnan Centre
It's an opportunity to throw away the bad, well, a lot of the bad, and engender a major shift in the way in which prison services are being delivered
Mr Tony Wilson, co-head of the New Prisons Project, commenting on the move toward the privatisation of prisons