2765 of 62458 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
quote:
The Cabinet is today expected to give a big tick to legislation that could see most, if not all, of the country's prisons - rather than just newly built ones - run by private companies.

Ministers' approval of the legislation will up the pressure on the problem-plagued Corrections Department to lift its game - presuming the Government allows the department to tender for management contracts in the first place.

-snip-

The details of the bill have yet to be made public - it will be tabled in Parliament this week. It is conceivable the Government might exclude management of medium- and maximum-security prisons like Auckland's Paremoremo from going out to tender - at least in the short term.

But it is clear the Government intends to proceed with privatising prison management where possible, as fast as possible.


www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10560643

wrong on every level IMO

thoughts?
[quote]
bob daktari said:


wrong on every level IMO

[quote]
According to the Herald, the company Collins is talking to is GEO Care. This company changed its name from Wackenhut Corrections Corp. Because of the bad publicity it received. CEO of both companies is a man called George C. Zoley, who when told of the repeated rape of a 14-year-old girl at a Wackenhut juvenile jail which saw two guards found guilty, blamed the girl saying “It’s a tough business. The people in prison are not Sunday-school children.”


The stories are here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EEDD163AF935A25750C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/09/60II/main193636.shtml

and

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/914/81/

Charming company that Judith Collins keeps.
[quote]
Slightly misleading topic heading there Mr D, it's the management contracts, not the prisons themselves (although given that's the day-to-day operation...)


I have serious misgivings. The entire underpinning intent of the managers of the prisons changes to one of profitability. Sure, that's with strict contracts from Corrections overseeing it, but as with any management contract you do what you can to stay within the limits of the contract but at the lowest possible cost. I'm not sure I want our prisons run that way.


And again, the drip-fed PR spin about Corrections to set us up for this is APPALLING government. Exact same blueprint being followed for ACC, Superannuation and they're giving it a go in Health too.
The report to try and get rid of Corrections boss is possibly going to absolve him, just like the ACC one did of the previous Ministers. The whole thing is a beat up to drive through an ideology that for some reason they don't feel comfortable explaining in full.
[quote]
Here is the wikipedia entry on John Key's new friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEO_Group

The GEO Group is an international corporation that operates prisons around the country and is frequently in the news for its abuse of prisoners in its care resulting in many preventable deaths. Its operations in Texas have been sharply criticized over poor conditions and the treatment of some of its prisoners. Previously known as the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, its name was changed in 2003 as a result of a merger with Group 4 Falck.

A full scale prisoner uprising occurred in 2007 at the Geo Group-operated New Castle Correctional Facility in Indiana. The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel reported that "Authorities were investigating whether the six-hour fracas that involved about 500 inmates started Tuesday afternoon because some of the newly arrived prisoners from Arizona were upset about their treatment at the medium-security men’s prison."


Welcome to the prison-industrial complex.
[quote]
garethw said:
Slightly misleading topic heading there Mr D, it's the management contracts, not the prisons themselves (although given that's the day-to-day operation...)


Apologies - there is of course the opportuity for private prisons also on the law & order agenda, this could be seen as step one towards that action

interesting times
[quote]
Another interesting point around Geo Group, especially in light of the current Government's "tough on crime" look:

quote:
CCA and The GEO Group are major contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington, D.C. based public policy organization that develops model legislation that advances tough-on-crime legislation and free-market principles such as privatization.

Under their Criminal Justice Task Force, ALEC has developed and helped to successfully implement in many states “tough on crime” initiatives including “Truth in Sentencing” and “Three Strikes” laws. Corporations provide most of the funding for ALEC’s operating budget and influence its political agenda through participation in policy task forces. ALEC’s corporate funders include CCA and The GEO Group. In 1999, CCA made the President’s List for contributions to ALEC’s States and National Policy Summit; Wackenhut also sponsored the conference. Past cochairs of the Criminal Justice Task Force have included Brad Wiggins, then Director of Business Development at CCA and now a Senior Director of Site Acquisition, and John Rees, a former CCA vice president.

By funding and participating in ALEC’s Criminal Justice Task Forces, critics argue, private prison companies directly influence legislation for tougher, longer sentences.[27] The legal system may also be manipulated more directly: in one case (Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp) a private prison company was found guilty of paying two judges $2.6m to send 2000 children to their prisons.
[quote]
The *only* good thing i can see from this is perhaps they will get a taste what kind of issues we are going to get with wholly owned private prisons.

Im all for looking at all alternatives but im not convinced there is enough of an efficiency saving to cover profit and still maintain proper service levels.

I dont believe the current system is broken.
[quote]
garethw said:
And again, the drip-fed PR spin about Corrections to set us up for this is APPALLING government. Exact same blueprint being followed for ACC, Superannuation and they're giving it a go in Health too.
The report to try and get rid of Corrections boss is possibly going to absolve him, just like the ACC one did of the previous Ministers. The whole thing is a beat up to drive through an ideology that for some reason they don't feel comfortable explaining in full.

In fact, FUCK OFF JUDITH COLLINS YOUR OVERREACHING SETUP BACKFIRED: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10560732
Dear Mr Key, how about we look for some of your beloved accountability for our ministers and when they go beyond their remit and undermine the work of their own departments you stand them down from that portfolio?
[quote]
Bloody hell. That is the SECOND time she has been slapped down over this!
[quote]
garethw said:
The report to try and get rid of Corrections boss is possibly going to absolve him,...


What the report wont say is he is head of a very difficult job - a no-win really - but that, under his tenure, things have gone pretty poorly in public perceptions. That alone almost warrants his replacement. If people don't trust he can do it...

Worse yet, he was the same guy who was at the helm during the royally f***ed up implementation of the new Police computer system in the late 90s. How many chances does he need?
[quote]
Rob, the report is out. It specifically states that there is no rationale to fire Matthews and he has actually been presiding over improvements.
Given that the whole thing was setup specifically to get rid of him, and the SSC would have found it easiest to say "yup, he needs to go" it's practically a ringing endorsement!
[quote]
garethw said:
Rob, the report is out. It specifically states that there is no rationale to fire Matthews and he has actually been presiding over improvements.


Yep. That's why I said: "What the report wont say is he is head of a very difficult job - a no-win really.."

Those jobs basically cannot be done to satisfaction in the public eyes - no matter what, like policing and healthcare provision etc.

I think that public perception of ability, results etc counts for a lot and prior to this report a study into 100 cases showed almost all of them had serious failings/omissions and mistakes in them. He runs the place and should be given a year to correct these sort of easily measured aspects. If they don't improve - fire him automatically.

We have a pretty bad public sector culture in NZ of always looking at the plans, the endless plans for improvement and what they're going to do - even after someone has had years in the job. The job goals need to be framed much tighter imo and allow the govt the automatic right of removal if any aren't met. Too often we have top public servants in under-performing departments keep their job based on what they're going to do while failings blamed/passed down the chain. It's a poor approach imo. If they knew their job - like in the corporate world generally - was at risk they'd make sure the organisation culture was more accountable throughout.
[quote]
Perhaps you're right.
My main beef is with the blatantly transparent template that the Ministers for ACC, Health and Corrections have been using to bring about privatisation/competition changes that they think might be unpopular.
- Find some piece of info to beat up your own Dept over
- Commission a report in order to fire the board, blame a previous Govt or put huge leverage on the independent SSC to fire a CEO that you can't. All of whom happen to vote for another party it seems too. They're finding that those reports don't back them up though.
- Then a week later, out pops a "we're going to put competition in the work account/use private hospitals for waitlists/privately manage prisons".
It's a blatant template, and this Corrections one has been the worst instance to date.

Why can this (or any) Govt not have an upfront open discussion about what they want to do?
[quote]
Those articles make me vomit, fishy Sad I'm all for harsh treatment but it has to be transparent harshness; not the filthy depravity of some scumbag prison guard.
[quote]
But there is more Vadz - They were the company chosen by John Howard to run his refugee concentration camps in the desert, where they regime was marked by suicides, gang-rapes, and widespread abuse.

https://lists.uwrf.edu/archives/socwork/2002-March/006935.html

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/transcripts/s858341.htm

They've been found guilty of murder in Texas -

http://www.fox59.com/pages/landing/?Private-prison-company-indicted-for-Texa=1&blockID=117397&feedID=16

and in Los Angeles, they've been barred from future city contracts for widespread discrimination, poor labour practices, and incompetence.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=201647

And they engage in billing scams -

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2008/11/10/daily22.html?ana=from_rss

http://www.nbc6.net/news/16201618/detail.html

Imprisonment is properly the business of the government.
[quote]
garethw said:
Another interesting point around Geo Group, especially in light of the current Government's "tough on crime" look:

quote:
CCA and The GEO Group are major contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington, D.C. based public policy organization that develops model legislation that advances tough-on-crime legislation and free-market principles such as privatization.

Under their Criminal Justice Task Force, ALEC has developed and helped to successfully implement in many states “tough on crime” initiatives including “Truth in Sentencing” and “Three Strikes” laws. Corporations provide most of the funding for ALEC’s operating budget and influence its political agenda through participation in policy task forces. ALEC’s corporate funders include CCA and The GEO Group. In 1999, CCA made the President’s List for contributions to ALEC’s States and National Policy Summit; Wackenhut also sponsored the conference. Past cochairs of the Criminal Justice Task Force have included Brad Wiggins, then Director of Business Development at CCA and now a Senior Director of Site Acquisition, and John Rees, a former CCA vice president.

By funding and participating in ALEC’s Criminal Justice Task Forces, critics argue, private prison companies directly influence legislation for tougher, longer sentences.[27] The legal system may also be manipulated more directly: in one case (Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp) a private prison company was found guilty of paying two judges $2.6m to send 2000 children to their prisons.


Given the similarities of name for the policies, i wonder if any M.P. or journalist will have the gumption to ask Garrett or the Sensible Sentencing trust if Geo have given them any money? Or if, more seriously, they've donated to the ACT or Natyional party?

I say this because I once asked a very senior and hard bitten ex-dectective of my acquaintance (a man of the Schollum and Schipton generation, a man by no means a liberal namby pamby) why we didn't have NSW-style police corruption. He replied straight away that it was only because NZ was to small for criminals to offer the sort of money to make corruption worthwhile, and to small to be able to hide the money you got.

Well I tell you what. Even in N.Z. An idustrial-prison complex would be worth a LOT of money. Millions and millions. And as night follows day, if we get these private prisons entrenched here we will see political, judical and police corruption. If, given the clear similarities in nomenclature outlined above, we haven't already.
[quote]
would people here be OK with privatising prisons if the government chose a different company with a less sordid history of abuse??
[quote]
fish_boy said:

I say this because I once asked a very senior and hard bitten ex-dectective of my acquaintance (a man of the Schollum and Schipton generation, a man by no means a liberal namby pamby) why we didn't have NSW-style police corruption. He replied straight away that it was only because NZ was to small for criminals to offer the sort of money to make corruption worthwhile, and to small to be able to hide the money you got.


Well I can guarantee you fishy I've never received a cent from anybody but I support heavier sentences for the arguments I have put forward before and have no reason to do AGAIN. We have to punish outlawry in and of itself regardless of the nature of the crime!
[quote]
virgo1 said:
would people here be OK with privatising prisons if the government chose a different company with a less sordid history of abuse??


for me NO

there are certain aspects of governing that should nevr be given over to private enterprise

what next a private army/navy & air force?
Vads storm troopers patrolling the streets?
[quote]
Could someone give me a brief bullet pointed summary of how these prisons will work?

At the moment,

I pay taxes that go to building prisons, paying prison guards, as well as providing any food, bedding, clothing etc for the prisoners.

The government says privatisation is more efficient, does this mean they will ask me for less taxes to do the same job?

if that is the case then what is the problem?

if we're worried about a company being corrupt and possibly making the prisoners live in filth as a way of cutting costs and making more profit, then we can have a quality / performance based contract, it's not uncommon.
[quote]
In theory it works, particularly when you look at the life long job public service of the pre 80s/90s. Since then there has been some improvements in running old state departments as businesses/SOEs or just applying normal business practice where applicable.

The benefits of privatisation is generally, a fixed cost (contract) and low or zero risk of a blow out. The cost of that is that when someone else assumes risk they need profit to make it worthwhile.

To me, prisons are stable, mostly unchanging, policy driven instruments and there is little to be gained by letting someone else assume that risk.

I cant see how saving a little bit in the short term is likely to have any advantages in the long term.

That said, i have no particular issue with private managers if it can demonstrate a sustainable savings. Maybe there are areas that can be improved.
[quote]
virgo1 said:
if we're worried about a company being corrupt and possibly making the prisoners live in filth as a way of cutting costs and making more profit, then we can have a quality / performance based contract, it's not uncommon.

What is uncommon is for that contract to be able to deal with the myriad political and social issues involved with the denial of liberty faced by a prison. The fundamental shift in underlying motive to one of profit opens up a bunch of potential hazard for very little possible gain. I fail to see how private organisations can run it cheaper once you add the private requirement for a profit take and the costs of complex contract oversight - overseas studies have supported this, showing no provable saving.
So we're creating a bunch of possible social hazard for no proven cost saving?
[quote]
have the Geo Group given the government an outline of how the system will be streamlined so that the prisons run the way we'd like them to and still have some profit left over for themselves?

More importantly have the government demonstrated how this will translate into a benefit for NZers in general? As mentioned before, am I going to see my taxes go down because of this, or perhaps, is a larger portion of my tax money going to go into other areas like health, education etc?

If they haven't demostrated these things then this privatisation just looks like it has a lot more negatives than positives.
[quote]
Speaking of potential corruption, it is interesting that:

A/ The Sensible Sentencing Trust has exactly the same rhetoric and policy solutions as the groups funded by GEO Corp in the United States, and

B/ The Sensible Sentencing Trust refused to register under the Charities Act despite the tax benefits, because doing so would force some transparency over who’s paying the bills.

C/ The Sensible Sentencing Trust refused to register under the Electoral Finance Act - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/594921 - because it would require transparency over their funding.

D/ The Sensible Sentencing Trust funded a trip for high profile ACT candidate Stephen Franks to the United States (Did GEO Corp. really pay for that trip? Who knows, the SST won't tell us) and it clearly did a deal with ACT to get their law and order nutjob David Garrett into parliament. Now, if National were to privatise prisons under GEO Corp. and ACT were to get it's "three strikes" law onto the books it isn't hard to work out who stands to amke a lot of extra lollie from all those extra billions we will have to spend on the new prisons to house the estimated extra 14,000 prisoners and the costing running them, is it?
[quote]
even more disturbing is the fact that we have 14,000 more people out there who are willing to commit not 1, not 2 but 3 violent offences each of which warrants a 3yr sentence on their own.

p.s - just because you don't want transparency over your finances doesn't make you corrupt.
[quote]
OI FISHBOY - QUOTE ME ON THE STANDARD WHEN TAKING MY HARD-RESEARCH... Razz
[quote]
garethw said:
OI FISHBOY - QUOTE ME ON THE STANDARD WHEN TAKING MY HARD-RESEARCH... Razz



Hey! You were unsourced! If you notice, I went off and found it on wikipedia.
Laughing Razz
[quote]
fish_boy said:
garethw said:
OI FISHBOY - QUOTE ME ON THE STANDARD WHEN TAKING MY HARD-RESEARCH... Razz



Hey! You were unsourced! If you notice, I went off and found it on wikipedia.
Laughing Razz

If this goes from me posting in CA, to you putting it in comments on TS, TS writing a lead post to mainstream media coverage then I want a blacked-out-face interview with John Campbell where I refuse to reveal my sources for fear of retribution Very Happy
[quote]
Oh man and PA too? THAT'S MY HOOD MAN Razz

(Jokes btw. Although I was about to say "its just wiki surfing and surely a half-decent journo would pick up on..." and then I trailed off in a depressed silence)
[quote]
Fishy if you're going to worry about the billions required to put the 3-strikers behind bars, worry about the billions in social cost saved from them not committing any further crimes
[quote]
garethw said:
Oh man and PA too? THAT'S MY HOOD MAN Razz

(Jokes btw. Although I was about to say "its just wiki surfing and surely a half-decent journo would pick up on..." and then I trailed off in a depressed silence)



Hard News is little more than a whole lot of navel gazing by a bunch of self absorbed and self satisfied late baby boomers these days.
[quote]
quote:
the wider consequences of the trade in human lives created by private prisons. In the US and the UK they have a powerful incentive to ensure that the number of prisoners keeps rising.

The United States is more corrupt than the UK, but it is also more transparent. There the lobbyists demanding and receiving changes to judicial policy might be exposed, and corrupt officials identified and prosecuted. The UK, with a strong tradition of official secrecy and a weak tradition of scrutiny and investigative journalism, has no such safeguards.

The corrupt judges were paid by the private prisons not only to increase the number of child convicts but also to shut down a competing prison run by the public sector. Taking bribes to bang up kids might be novel; shutting public facilities to help private companies happens - on both sides of the water - all the time.

The Wall Street Journal has shown how, as a result of lobbying by the operators, private jails in Mississippi and California are being paid for non-existent prisoners(4,5). The prison corporations have been guaranteed a certain number of inmates. If the courts fail to produce enough convicts, they get their money anyway. This outrages taxpayers in both states, which have cut essential public services to raise these funds. But there is a simple means of resolving this problem: you replace ghost inmates with real ones. As the Journal, seldom associated with raging anti-capitalism, observes, “prison expansion [has] spawned a new set of vested interests with stakes in keeping prisons full and in building more. … The result has been a financial and political bazaar, with convicts in stripes as the prize.”

-snip-

This revolting trade in human lives creates a permanent incentive to lock people up; not because prison works; not because it makes us safer, but because it makes money. Privatisation appears to have locked this country into mass imprisonment.


www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/03/03/the-proceeds-of-crime/
[quote]
bob daktari said:
there are certain aspects of governing that should nevr be given over to private enterprise


this. no one would conceive of privatized courts, how on earth do they justify privatized prisons? punishment and its administration is a core function of government.

in UK, private prisons are less safe than public prisons BUT prisoners prefer them because they are newly built (as opposed to the Victorian gaols which are the alternative).