It is a weird contract. But it means they have to consistently do better than the government or pay us a lot, which is good. As long as they aren’t doing harm in the process.
It seems to heavily favour the government, if I was the prison company I’d be worried about signing it. There is probably more to the fine print, or perhaps just an exit clause so if in the unlikely event the government starts investing heavily in evidence based rehabilitation programmes then the private company can back out.
I’m very untrusting of the private sector getting involved in prisons in general. It’s open to all kinds of corruption and human rights violations. Justice, policing, armed forces, corrections, things like that - they all need to be under direct government control, in my opinion.
It feels, to me, like an insane thing to give up control of to a for-profit company.
I wish we could just ban political donations altogether. Or, probably better, set it at like $1,000 per person per year. Let people run campaigns on ideas, not advertising. Use the media to get the word out.
Parties get public funding for election advertising. I would support a ban on political donations, but I think that would need to come with a boost in public funding. I’d rather funding come without strings, though, so I’d be happy with that.
And, by the way, the only reason Act could have for wanting to hide their donors is because they know it will make them look corrupt.
That’s not necessarily true. There may well be people or companies (for example) publicly talking about their efforts to be more environmentally friendly, while privately donating to Act hoping for loosened rules. Even if the donations have no influence, making them public would make the donors seem like hypocrites.
Don’t get me wrong, this is a good reason to make them public (or ban them completely), but it could be either side of the transaction that would be made to look bad, and either may prevent the donations being made.
It’s worth noting that Act gets like 4X more donations than Labour as per the donation returns. In 2022 they received over $800,000 in donations under $15,000, and Labour received about $400,000 total.
This isn’t unexpected, but you do have to ask what the richest man in NZ gets out of donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to National and Act. I bet he doesn’t spend a cent that he doesn’t get a good return on.
There is probably more to the fine print, or perhaps just an exit clause so if in the unlikely event the government starts investing heavily in evidence based rehabilitation programmes then the private company can back out.
Possibly. My guess is that the prison company said that they could guarantee lower recidivism rates than the public sector, and the negotiators got them to put their money where their mouth was. They may be confident they can do that, regardless of the level of public investment. And I assume any increase in prison budgets to reduce recidivism would go to private prisons too. But it was the National government who made the contract so I don’t trust that they didn’t put in an exit clause to keep their business friends happy.
Parties get public funding for election advertising.
I thought it was basically nothing for parties outside of parliament, but they got $66,000 this election, which really isn’t too bad. Not enough to launch the large-scale advertising campaigns of other parties, though I don’t believe those help democracy. Labour and National both got over a million each anyway.
And you’re right, Act might not be worried about appearing corrupt. I’m inclined to think that if a party’s giving donators what they want, there’s a tendency to interpret that as corruption - even if that would have been party policy anyway. But it may well be that they’re worried about their donators looking like hypocrites.
This is my main take though - the motivation of basically all political donators is to attempt to influence government policy one way or another. It’s essentially a bribe. We don’t allow the people who interpret the laws (judges) to be given “donations” by those who are in court. Why should be let them bribe the people who make the laws that decide if they end up in court in the first place?
And you’re right, Act might not be worried about appearing corrupt. I’m inclined to think that if a party’s giving donators what they want, there’s a tendency to interpret that as corruption - even if that would have been party policy anyway. But it may well be that they’re worried about their donators looking like hypocrites.
Yes, one way to think about it is that a party has a stance and direction, and people who support that direction will donate so the party can keep doing what they are doing. But if new evidence comes to light, they can’t change policy to match because they risk losing the donations they rely on.
This is my main take though - the motivation of basically all political donators is to attempt to influence government policy one way or another. It’s essentially a bribe. We don’t allow the people who interpret the laws (judges) to be given “donations” by those who are in court. Why should be let them bribe the people who make the laws that decide if they end up in court in the first place?
It seems to heavily favour the government, if I was the prison company I’d be worried about signing it. There is probably more to the fine print, or perhaps just an exit clause so if in the unlikely event the government starts investing heavily in evidence based rehabilitation programmes then the private company can back out.
It feels, to me, like an insane thing to give up control of to a for-profit company.
Parties get public funding for election advertising. I would support a ban on political donations, but I think that would need to come with a boost in public funding. I’d rather funding come without strings, though, so I’d be happy with that.
That’s not necessarily true. There may well be people or companies (for example) publicly talking about their efforts to be more environmentally friendly, while privately donating to Act hoping for loosened rules. Even if the donations have no influence, making them public would make the donors seem like hypocrites.
Don’t get me wrong, this is a good reason to make them public (or ban them completely), but it could be either side of the transaction that would be made to look bad, and either may prevent the donations being made.
It’s worth noting that Act gets like 4X more donations than Labour as per the donation returns. In 2022 they received over $800,000 in donations under $15,000, and Labour received about $400,000 total.
This isn’t unexpected, but you do have to ask what the richest man in NZ gets out of donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to National and Act. I bet he doesn’t spend a cent that he doesn’t get a good return on.
Possibly. My guess is that the prison company said that they could guarantee lower recidivism rates than the public sector, and the negotiators got them to put their money where their mouth was. They may be confident they can do that, regardless of the level of public investment. And I assume any increase in prison budgets to reduce recidivism would go to private prisons too. But it was the National government who made the contract so I don’t trust that they didn’t put in an exit clause to keep their business friends happy.
I thought it was basically nothing for parties outside of parliament, but they got $66,000 this election, which really isn’t too bad. Not enough to launch the large-scale advertising campaigns of other parties, though I don’t believe those help democracy. Labour and National both got over a million each anyway.
And you’re right, Act might not be worried about appearing corrupt. I’m inclined to think that if a party’s giving donators what they want, there’s a tendency to interpret that as corruption - even if that would have been party policy anyway. But it may well be that they’re worried about their donators looking like hypocrites.
This is my main take though - the motivation of basically all political donators is to attempt to influence government policy one way or another. It’s essentially a bribe. We don’t allow the people who interpret the laws (judges) to be given “donations” by those who are in court. Why should be let them bribe the people who make the laws that decide if they end up in court in the first place?
Yes, one way to think about it is that a party has a stance and direction, and people who support that direction will donate so the party can keep doing what they are doing. But if new evidence comes to light, they can’t change policy to match because they risk losing the donations they rely on.
I fully agree.