Part 11: Department of Corrections' consultation processes for new regional prisons

Central government: Results of the 2006/07 audits.

In this Part, we describe how the Department of Corrections (the Department) set up and managed consultation processes during a project to build four new regional prisons. We discuss the systems, policies, and processes used to support consultation about the Spring Hill prison site in North Waikato and some of the Department’s earlier experiences with consultation about the Ngawha prison site in Northland.

In 1997, the Department started a project to build several new regional prisons to meet an expected growth in prisoner numbers.

One of the aims of the project to build new prisons was to implement the Department’s Regional Prisons Policy. This policy was developed in 1997 and was based on research which suggests that locating prisoners as near to their home area as possible improves the chances of successful reintegration into society and reduces re-offending rates.

The new prison construction project was large by New Zealand standards, requiring extensive consultation and project management, and specialist expertise. It represented a challenge for the Department, which entered into the project in a position of relative inexperience in delivering large public works under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

The final four sites for the prisons, chosen after consideration of various alternatives, were in Northland (Ngawha, near Kaikohe), North Waikato (Spring Hill, near Meremere), Auckland (in Mangere), and Otago (Milburn).1 Figure 7 lists the four new prisons in order of completion date. Although the work on each new prison has, to a certain extent, been sequential, there has also been significant overlap.

Figure 7
New prisons completed 2005-2007

Location Full name Capacity Construction completed
Northland Northland Region Corrections Facility 350 beds February 2005
Auckland Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility 286 beds May 2006
Otago Otago Corrections Facility 335 beds March 2007
North Waikato Spring Hill Corrections Facility 650 beds July 2007

In April 2004, two members of Parliament approached the Auditor-General with concerns about the Department’s spending on consultation with Māori about the Spring Hill site. We did not inquire into this matter because the Department had already made changes to improve the way it managed contracts for consultation. However, to provide information for other public entities entering into large development projects, we decided to review the Department’s systems, policies, and processes that supported consultation about the Spring Hill prison. We looked at:

  • the establishment of the project structure and governance mechanisms to deliver the new prisons;
  • the development of consultation strategies and plans;
  • resourcing for the project and the use of advisers;
  • systems for carrying out and recording consultation;
  • systems to support consultation with Māori; and
  • arrangements for contract management.

Our assessment took account of the requirements of the RMA and associated consultation, including consultation with Māori.


Resource Management Act processes for Crown developments

Large building projects must comply with the requirements of the RMA. This includes when the developer is the Crown or another public body.

Territorial authorities (that is, city and district councils) control the granting of consents for land use and subdivision. Regional councils control the granting of consents for most activities involving water, and the discharge of contaminants. Where an activity is not permitted as of right under the rules in a district or regional plan, or does not comply with those rules, the person wanting to carry out the activity will usually need to seek resource consent.

The developer of a large building project will often need to seek one or more consents. Applications for consent will usually be publicly notified, unless the effects of the project are minor and the written approval of directly affected parties has been obtained. The notification process allows members of the public to make submissions on the project. Decisions on resource consents can be appealed to the Environment Court.

However, Ministers of the Crown (among others) are “requiring authorities” under the RMA. A requiring authority can issue a “notice of requirement” for a designation for a public work or other project or work in respect of any land. A designation, once confirmed, is included in the relevant district plan. Having a designation over a piece of land means that a land use resource consent is not needed to carry out the designated project or work, and no other person may (without the requiring authority’s approval) do anything to the land that would prevent or hinder the project or work.

The process for confirming a designation is similar to obtaining a resource consent, but the requiring authority, rather than a territorial authority, is the decision-maker (although the territorial authority can make recommendations and can appeal the decision of the requiring authority).

The then Minister of Corrections (the Minister) used designations for each of the four new prison sites, issuing a notice of requirement (for land use) to the relevant territorial authorities and seeking resource consents for a wide range of activities (for example, air and water discharges) from the relevant regional councils.

Consultation requirements

The RMA does not expressly require anyone to consult about projects they propose. However, there is a requirement to assess the environmental effect of project proposals. The Environment Court has recognised that consultation provides an effective mechanism to identify, clarify, and potentially resolve issues about the proposal. Also, an application for consent or notice of requirement must include a statement about the consultation, if any, that has been carried out with people interested in, or affected by, the proposal.

Where a project is being carried out by the Crown and raises issues affecting Māori, the Crown may have a duty to consult with Māori to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The RMA requires decision-makers to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. One way of doing this is to consult with those Māori who hold kaitiakitanga (guardianship) for the area affected by a proposal.

Early consultation on prison site selection

In August 1997, Cabinet agreed to the investigation of potential prison sites in five regions.2 The Department established new systems and structures to do this work. It established the National Services and Facilities Committee to oversee the management of current prisons, and the acquisition of sites and development of new prisons. The Department’s Assets and Property Group was given the task of acquiring sites for the new prisons and obtain the necessary planning approvals.3

The Assets and Property Group wrote a project plan for site acquisition, and communications strategies (including a strategy for consulting with Māori) for identifying new prison sites. It also obtained legal advice on resource management considerations. It reported back to the National Services and Facilities Committee on progress and to get budgets and sub-projects approved.

In late 1997, the Assets and Property Group investigated the regions approved by Cabinet to identify potential sites for the new prisons. This involved meeting with regional stakeholders such as councils, iwi and other Māori organisations, and Pacific Island communities. In May 1998, the Minister announced that Northland and South Auckland were the priority areas for new men’s prisons because many offenders from these areas were being held in institutions outside of their home regions.4

The Assets and Property Group produced criteria to assess possible prison sites, and consulted on those criteria with the general public as well as with local stakeholders. It asked for registrations of interest from individuals and groups who would consider selling land to the Department, and began assessing land put forward through this process to form a shortlist of possible sites.

The Department identified a site at Ngawha as its preferred site in Northland. It started consultation with site neighbours, tangata whenua, local communities, and other stakeholders to obtain feedback on the environmental and social effects of the Ngawha prison.

Site selection and development for Spring Hill

Before a shortlist was confirmed for a new men’s prison in South Auckland, the Minister decided in 1999 to defer the South Auckland prison project for 12 months. This deferral was to gain time to reassess the demand for new prisons and assess whether the introduction of home detention would reduce the growth of the prison population. On 16 August 2000, the Minister announced that the site search would resume.

The Assets and Property Group then consulted with communities in South Auckland and North Waikato to help find a suitable site. After registrations of interest by potential land sellers, the Assets and Property Group assessed possible sites against the criteria it had developed earlier. In December 2000, the Department announced a shortlist of two possible sites in North Waikato for more detailed technical assessment, one of which was the Spring Hill site.

The Department consulted with site neighbours, stakeholders, and local communities on the two possible sites (including specific consultation with Māori). The feedback from consultation was taken into account in making the final selection of the Spring Hill site and was considered alongside a range of technical investigations. On 7 June 2001, the Minister announced that he would seek a designation to construct and operate a prison on the Spring Hill site.

After selecting the Spring Hill site, the Department consulted further with neighbours of the site, tangata whenua, and stakeholders, focusing on the environmental effects that the new prison would have on the area. The results of the consultation were incorporated into the various reports and submissions (such as the notice of requirement) needed to progress the RMA designations and resource consent process. The Department also used its consultation processes to help establish long-term relationships with the community, and tangata whenua in particular, to support the ongoing operation of the Spring Hill prison under the Regional Prisons Policy (see paragraph 11.03).

Opposition to the Spring Hill prison focused on the location of the prison and the issue of security for local residents. The possible effect of the prison on land and property values was another concern to residents. Tangata whenua also raised concerns, including questions about the consultation process and about the effect of the prison on the natural environment and any sites of cultural significance. The Waikato District Council deliberated on the arguments for and against the prison, and, in May 2003, recommended that the designation be confirmed. The associated resource consents were granted by Environment Waikato. However, the designation and the resource consents were appealed to the Environment Court.

In June 2004, the Environment Court found for the Department on appeals against the Spring Hill site designation and resource consent. Construction of the prison began in November 2004 and was completed in July 2007. The first prisoners arrived on 1 November 2007.

Changes to the regional prisons project structure

Any large project requires governance arrangements to help ensure that the project runs smoothly and to time by overseeing the activities of management, and monitoring project risks.

In August 2000, the Department established a new project team to construct the prison at Ngawha. The project team was established because the Assets and Property Group already faced a high workload in managing growth at existing prison sites, as well as identifying and consulting on potential sites for new men’s and women’s prisons in South Auckland and Otago.

The new project team had a mix of contracted staff with construction expertise and staff seconded from elsewhere in the Department. It was later named the Regional Prisons Development Project (RPDP) and given responsibility for managing the construction and commissioning of all four new prisons. A steering group (the RPDP Steering Group) was set up as the internal decision-making group and was charged by the Department’s chief executive to monitor the progress of the RPDP.

There was a clear division of responsibility between the Assets and Property Group and the RPDP team. The Assets and Property Group was responsible for identifying suitable sites and obtaining the necessary designations and resource consents to build and operate a prison (which required consultation with the community). The RPDP team was responsible for managing the detailed design (including consultation on design-related matters), construction, and commissioning of the new prisons. Each group reported to its own governing body (the National Services and Facilities Committee and the RPDP Steering Group respectively) on project risks and progress to achieve milestones.

The National Services and Facilities Committee provided formal oversight of the early consultation, while the RPDP Steering Group oversaw the later consultation. However, delays with the Ngawha and Spring Hill projects meant that the Assets and Property Group handed responsibility for consultation at both locations to the RPDP team part-way through the RMA and associated consultation processes.5 At Ngawha, this occurred in February 2001 after the Northland Regional Council declined the required resource consent for the prison. At Spring Hill, the handover occurred in March and April 2002, when the RPDP team assumed responsibility for completing the consultation with the public and iwi, and for seeking the necessary approvals from the respective councils. The Assets and Property Group and the RPDP team worked closely together, and the two governance bodies received parallel reports on progress.

In late 2004, the Department’s internal auditor commissioned Audit New Zealand to review project risks specific to the Northland prison. Audit New Zealand’s report identified a number of issues relating to the governance and monitoring arrangements for the RPDP Steering Group (for example, that there had not been enough reporting from the RPDP team to the Steering Group). The Department consequently decided to restructure the RPDP team.

In this restructuring, the Department split the RPDP team into three distinct groups. One group was responsible for all construction matters, while another was given responsibility for commissioning the new prisons. The third group, the Programme Management Office, was set up as a dedicated resource for reporting on project and risk management. Before the restructuring, reporting tasks had been carried out by staff who also had busy day-to-day project delivery roles. The 2006 Report of the State Services Commissioner into the Cost Escalation in the Regional Prisons Development Project6 noted that the changes to the governance structure had “greatly increased the quality of review, reporting and decision making on the projects”.7

Consultation strategies

Consultation strategies provide overall direction and purpose to a consultation process. Careful planning is necessary to ensure that public entities can demonstrate to decision-makers that they followed an effective consultation process.

In 1997 and 1998, the Department developed project plans and communications strategies for the consultation needed to identify and assess suitable sites for new prisons. After the delay in the site selection process for the men’s prison at South Auckland (see paragraph 11.21), the Department drew up more detailed consultation strategies. There was an overarching strategy for all four prisons, a strategy for the Department’s communications with Māori, and a consultation plan specific to Spring Hill prison.

After the delays at Ngawha (see paragraph 11.31), the Department commissioned an expert review of the Ngawha consultation process to identify lessons learned and to improve consultation at the other new prisons (including Spring Hill prison). The reviewer reported back in October 2001, and commented that the original consultation strategy for Ngawha prison had been incomplete.

The Department incorporated the lessons from the October 2001 review into a new consultation strategy for all prisons, with specific plans for Auckland Women’s prison and Spring Hill prison (even though consultation on the Spring Hill site had already started), and the Otago prison.

The consultation plan for the Spring Hill site set out who the Department expected it would need to engage with and provided a timetable for consultation. The plan acknowledged that the purpose of the consultation was not only to meet RMA requirements but also to build relationships (with Māori especially) for the long term.

The October 2001 review noted that the Department had experienced difficulties at Ngawha because the designation and resource consent applications were dealt with at separate hearings (one for the notice of requirement at the district council, and one for resource consents at the regional council). This gave opponents of the prison two opportunities to formally object to the project. The Spring Hill consultation reflected this lesson, by noting that there would be a joint council hearing of the notice of requirement and the application for resource consents.

Contracting specialist support

At the time of setting out to build new prisons, the Department recognised that it had limited technical experience and expertise in running such large-scale consultation and RMA processes. Most of the staff responsible for consultation were based in Wellington, and the Department therefore employed community liaison advisers to support site managers and help the Department to engage with local communities.

The core team of Department staff was supported by a team of external consultants and advisers, including community liaison advisers, resource management consultants, social impact assessment specialists, and technical specialists. The Department’s legal advisers provided strategic advice for the project and reviewed processes from a legal perspective.

At Ngawha, the Department initially contracted planning experts to support the consultation process. This included assistance and technical expertise for preparing the notice of requirement and applications for resource consents. However, difficulties arose during the council hearing that were primarily legal in nature. As a result, the Department’s legal advisers assumed a greater role in preparing and co-ordinating notice-of-requirement documentation for each of the other three new prisons.

Once the Spring Hill site had been identified, the Department contracted local assistance for site-specific consultation. This included contracts with kaitiaki representatives to assist the Department in its consultation with Māori. It also contracted a planning expert to co-ordinate advice on prison design and social effects, and reports on other technical matters needed for the notice of requirement and Environment Court processes.

The Department considered that the strategic advice of its legal advisers had been very useful to the Spring Hill project, and to the overall prison building programme. Similarly, the Department considered the use of community liaison advisers to be a strength of the Ngawha, Auckland Women’s, and Spring Hill consultation processes.

The close operating relationship between the Department and its legal advisers continued beyond the Spring Hill consultation and designation process. The legal advisers also provided strategic input into the consultation process at Otago, and helped to co-ordinate the compilation of technical documentation for the Otago notice of requirement and associated council hearing processes.

One result of the Department’s contracting approach was that there was only a small core of Department staff assigned to the overall project. This meant that the project relied heavily on the expertise of a few individuals, and on the relationships those individuals had formed over time with the local communities. The Department told us that it had initially underestimated what the overall process required and could have allocated more resources at an earlier stage (especially in the area of administrative support). It also acknowledged that it had faced risks of crucial personnel leaving the project.

The Department continued to refine its consultation processes during the remainder of the overall project. Additional staff joined the project, and additional resources were applied to reporting and risk management. staff consulting on the Otago prison site considered that they had been well resourced, and were able to engage specific expertise as it was needed.

Systems for communicating with the public

The implementation of consultation plans needs to be supported by effective systems and processes, especially for supporting direct interaction between a public entity and the public.

The Department’s approach to consulting on its prison building programme emphasised the need to develop and maintain effective relationships and communications with the public.

The Department considered that a range of systems and approaches had worked well at Ngawha, and used them again at Spring Hill. These included:

  • establishing an 0800 number as a point of contact for the public;
  • compiling and maintaining a mailing list of interested parties;
  • keeping a record of (and distributing answers to) frequently asked questions;
  • preparing a range of information sheets about the proposed prison, as well as aspects of prison construction and management (in some cases tailored specifically to Spring Hill and sometimes translated so that they could be distributed to the various local communities); and
  • maintaining a public profile through local media and advertising, and issuing Department publications such as newsletters (to provide project updates on a regular basis).

The Department operated a policy of face-to-face meetings if requested, and of responding promptly to communication (such as questions, and requests and actions arising from meetings) from the public. Contract writers were employed at busy periods to ensure that members of the public received timely responses to correspondence and other requests. Local communities appreciated visits from the Minister and Department executives.

The Department held public information days in the communities close to the Spring Hill site, and also held public meetings. The Department assessed the likely nature of these meetings and identified the Department staff and contractors who would be best suited to address questions from the public.

At Ngawha, the Department initially focused on building relationships with the community rather than on obtaining all of the information needed to satisfy RMA requirements. At Spring Hill, the Department commissioned reports on each of the shortlisted sites and released these to the community so that members of the public would have more detailed information, at an earlier stage, on which to base their feedback.

Administration systems

Under the RMA, a requiring authority lodging a notice of requirement or resource consent must submit a record of any consultation that it has carried out. Therefore, it is particularly important that there are systems in place to detail what consultation has taken place, and to record the results.

The expert review of the Ngawha consultation process commissioned by the Department found that the record keeping systems had not worked well. Although the Department had been able to produce a final record of the Ngawha consultation, this had taken additional administrative work to identify all instances of consultation. An incomplete record would have caused the Department’s systems to appear weak during council or Environment Court hearings.

These issues were addressed for the Spring Hill project. For example, attention was given to establishing and maintaining a consultation database. The Department recorded the date of consultation, who had been consulted, the means of consultation, what feedback was provided, and what actions were agreed. This was useful as it provided a single information source for specialists assessing the potential effect of the prison, and allowed the Department to produce a detailed record of all consultation to a standard suitable for presentation to the Environment Court.

The administration systems used for the Spring Hill project were an improvement on those used at Ngawha. Accordingly, the Department used a similar database to record consultation about Otago prison, and continued to ensure that its documentation met Environment Court standards.

However, these improvements did not protect the Spring Hill project from disruption by third parties. For example, the Department had written to neighbours of the Spring Hill site advising them of the Minister’s decision to seek a designation over the site, but an irregularity in the delivery process meant that some neighbours of the site received information ahead of others. This led to uncertainty in the community, which meant that the Department had to spend time explaining the situation to the neighbours of the site. Although this was a minor administrative matter, it had consequences that required close management by the Department to resolve.

The Department used the same approach to communications for the Otago prison that it had used for Spring Hill prison, but with some changes to take account of what it had learned. For example, at the time of the Minister’s announcement that the Milburn site in Otago had been identified for detailed technical assessment and public consultation, the Department arranged for hand-delivery of key correspondence to the neighbours of the Otago prison site.

Consultation with Māori

The RMA requires decision-makers to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. One of these principles is a duty to make informed decisions. While this duty is not absolute, it does require the Crown to consult with Māori on major issues. In its overall consultation strategy for the new prisons, the Department recognised that it had a duty to consult with Māori, especially those who held kaitiaki status over potential prison sites.

The Ngawha prison consultation eventually led to a formal partnership being set up between the Department and local Māori. The Department wanted to establish a similar partnership at all other sites, including the Spring Hill site.

The Department consulted with Māori about the Spring Hill site to understand the cultural effects of the planned prison, and to identify and establish relationships with the kaitiaki of the site. The Assets and Property Group and the RPDP team contracted local expert Māori to help identify key Māori with whom to consult and to make the appropriate introductions on behalf of the Department. The Department also made use of the experience of its own Māori policy teams in this regard.

Identifying Māori with kaitiaki status over the Spring Hill site took longer than expected. The Department was under time pressure to start the consultation process, and so as an interim measure it contracted a number of local individuals to assist the Department in its consultation with Māori. We discuss some issues that arose as a result of these contracts in paragraphs 11.68-11.76. By May 2002, the Department’s relationship with the main Waikato iwi was advanced enough for a formal kaitiaki group to be mandated to deal with the Department about the Spring Hill site.

After the identification of a mandated kaitiaki group, the existing contracts with the individual Māori consultation advisers were replaced by two main contracts between the Department and the representative organisations of the kaitiaki group. Under these contracts, the kaitiaki provided assistance to the Department by:

  • organising consultation meetings attended by the Department;
  • producing technical reports on historical and cultural aspects of the site for the purposes of seeking a designation under the RMA; and
  • providing professional architectural advice on design aspects of the new prison.

One of the objectives of the two main contracts was to build organisational capacity so that the kaitiaki could operate as an equal partner. Accordingly, the Department provided funding to the kaitiaki for project management and administration tasks (for example, it provided funding for full- and part-time staff to carry out these roles).

The kaitiaki were involved in setting operational policies and designing courses to be provided to inmates. In addition, the kaitiaki nominated several local people to receive training in interview techniques and who were part of the selection panel for staff recruitment for Spring Hill prison.

The Department set up and funded a Kaitiaki Support Team to co-ordinate feedback from the kaitiaki groups for each prison site and to provide input into decision-making forums. The role of the Kaitiaki Support Team included conducting joint review of important papers as a source of formal input into the design and commissioning processes. The Department found the Kaitiaki Support Team to be a useful feedback system and is investigating ways in which the team can contribute to the ongoing operation of the new prisons. In addition, by drawing on its previous experience, the Department has incorporated the wider learning from its consultation with Māori into a Department-wide kaitiaki consultation strategy. It hopes to be able to set up kaitiaki relationships at other prisons, where suitable.

Managing consultation contracts

Government agencies that contract for services from non-government organisations are accountable for public resources used by those organisations. Both parties need to understand their respective obligations and ensure that the terms of the contract are adhered to. Effective contract management is important to ensure transparency over the use of public resources.

A number of allegations were made about the way in which the Department managed contracts for consultation activities with Māori at Spring Hill (see paragraph 11.05). The Department investigated the allegations regarding the contracts and reported back to the Minister of Corrections in April 2004. In the report, the Department accepted that the process for managing consultation with Māori could have been better managed.

The Department considered that there had been too many individuals contracted to provide consultation services at Spring Hill in 2001/02 and 2002/03, in the period before it had reached agreement on the formal kaitiaki mandate and set up the two main contracts for consultation. The Department also noted that more detailed background checks should have been carried out, as one of the individuals contracted was found to be facing fraud charges (unrelated to the work with the Department). In addition, the Department did not stand down the contractor once the charges were brought to its attention.

The Department also identified other concerns, including that there had not been enough monitoring and review of the contracts. It identified contracts with prices that were potentially higher than market value and thus did not ensure value for money.

The Department reported that, for the whole of the new prisons project, existing consultation contracts would be reviewed and a report made to the Minister. The Department also said it would tighten its contract management processes, and bring future contracts for consultation to the Minister’s attention.

At the time of our review, the Department was able to provide evidence that contract management practices had been reviewed and improved since the Spring Hill prison consultation experience. We also saw evidence of some reporting to the Minister on existing consultation contracts, with an internal audit review of one of the main consultation contracts completed and reported to the Minister.

The Department’s contracting procedures for new prisons evolved during the course of the overall project. At the start, the Department’s main set of policies and procedures for contract management were set out in its Finance Manual. As the project progressed and the RPDP team was established, a range of more specific manuals were developed, including:

  • a procurement manual;
  • a contract management manual; and
  • guidelines for appropriate costs for contracting with Māori.

The Department had not awarded any new contracts for kaitiaki consultation since it reported to the Minister in April 2004. However, there had been contracts with kaitiaki for services for the commissioning and ongoing operation of the Auckland Women’s, Spring Hill, and Otago prisons. The Minister received briefing reports on the proposed agreements for kaitiaki services at these prisons and approved the draft contracts.

The Department’s management of contracts for kaitiaki services has been tightened since the Spring Hill project was completed. The Department’s contracts now include detailed performance expectations and enforceable accountabilities. This decision was driven by the controversy about contracts with Māori advisers for Spring Hill prison. Department staff we interviewed were all very aware that contracts were to be tightly managed.

The Department also noted that this strict approach to contracting sometimes caused tensions in the relationships between the Department and the kaitiaki groups contracted at each prison. This issue led the Department to conduct research into the way it contracts with all non-government organisations (that is, those that provide health, spiritual, and rehabilitation support to prisoners), and the appropriateness of using highly commercial contracting approaches to achieve outcomes in a non-commercial sector.


The Department’s project to deliver four new prisons presented challenges for a public entity with little experience in consultation under the RMA for the purposes of constructing large public works. These challenges were compounded by the fact that the new prison projects overlapped each other, at times creating pressure on project resources. There was also a pressing need to deliver new prisons within defined time frames to meet high growth in the number of prisoners.

Accordingly, the Department had to establish new systems, policies, and processes to support consultation under the RMA, and these evolved throughout the process. Although lessons were learned and several improvements were made, these were put in place later than they ideally should have been. One way to have avoided this would have been to implement a system of regular reviews at key consultation milestones throughout the entire project, with the intention of amending systems, policies, and processes as required.

We are pleased that the Department is conducting a formal “lessons-learned” review for the process as a whole, as part of finalising the RPDP. This was due to be reported to the Department in mid-March 2008.

1: The Department originally considered potential sites for new prisons in Northland, Auckland, Dunedin, Bay of Plenty, and Nelson.

2: These were Northland, Auckland, Bay of Plenty, Nelson, and Otago.

3: The Assets and Property Group is responsible for the maintenance and improvement of the existing national prison portfolio, as well as the acquisition of new prison sites.

4: Auckland Women’s prison and Otago prison were the next new prisons to be announced. Consultation for these sites started in 2000 and 2001 respectively.

5: The Department opted not to take this approach for the Auckland Women’s and Otago prisons. Instead, it followed the division of responsibility set out in paragraph 11.30.

6: State Services Commission, 2006, page 54.

7: After cost increases in the construction of the Spring Hill and Otago prisons in late 2005, Cabinet invited the State Services Commission, in consultation with the Treasury, to review the processes, systems, and contracting practices in the RPDP to learn lessons for future capital projects and to determine the cause of the cost increases. The report was released in August 2006 and is available on the SSC website:

page top