Commercial confidentiality should not stand as an impediment to private prisons' full accountability to the public. The experience in Victoria (Australia) discussed in this article indicates that it was governments, not the competing private providers, who were anxious to hide behind the shield of commercial confidentiality. It is governments, not the private companies, that fear public scrutiny. One of the major reasons for this is that governments "over-identify" with the private sector operators, because they need the private sector to succeed and to vindicate their ideological campaign to privatize prisons. Access to contract documents represents only one form of accountability. The process of regulation, monitoring, and supervision are central to the successful operation of a good contracting system. The performance of both the operator and the supervisor must be open to public scrutiny. This can only be done if information relating to the operator's performance standards is made available, as well as the regulator's responses. The system of accountability that operated in public corrections to date -- the various administrative law remedies, freedom of information legislation, ombudsman laws, annual reporting requirements, publication of accounts, and ministerial responsibility -- must also be adapted and upgraded to ensure that similar or even higher levels of accountability apply to privately delivered correctional services. 26 references and a list of four court cases