Literal for profit cameras?

[FJRider]

No, it means one of two things; either more of the populace is within the law or the populace had gotten smarter.

Either way, fewer tickets is in no way an indicator of increased safety.

My bad ... I should have put "would be seen as the safety message is working" to the bean counters anyway. The death rate on the roads would need to back it up though ...

[Moi]

... Why is it wrong? Why can't the government contract out the job?

I'd suggest this from TheDemonLord is a good starting point for that discussion:

IMO it violates part of the social contract between citizens and the government. We accept that if we fall afoul of certain rules, then we can expect that the full tyranny of the state is able to raise, be leveled against us.

That this is done without ulterior motive and with respect only to those rules is key in that arrangement. It is also subject directly (in theory) to the will of the majority.

A Private company has, as it's primary motivation, the requirement to make a profit. This is in conflict with the principle above. It is also in conflict with the Populace having direct control over the entity that is doing the enforcement (the Tyranny of the state)

I accept a level of inefficiency due to Govt bureaucracy and red tape as an acceptable cost to maintain a clear demarcation

And as I said earlier:

This falls into the "privately run prisons" ideology as far as I'm concerned.

If the Crown decides, through one of its entities, to penalise one of its citizens then the Crown must be responsible for the entire process. It should not hand over some of the process to a private business for that private business to make a profit.

The police, acting as the Crown's agent, is charged with road safety and the Crown decides that speed is an issue the Crown wishes to address, then the Crown through its agent, the police, has to take full responsibility for that process. At present, if my understanding is correct, the camera van operators are paid from the police budget and so the Crown, through the police, is taking full responsibility for the enforcement of the law and, consequently, the penalties it enforces. If that evidence gathering stage is handed over to a private entity then, in my opinion, the Crown has abrogated its responsibilities to the citizens.

This part explains what "Crown" means:

Parliament = Governor-General representing the Sovereign + House of Representatives
Government = those members of the House of Representatives who have been appointed as Ministers of the Crown by the Governor-General - can also be called the Executive
Judiciary = they interpret the law that the government administers which has been made by Parliament


Crown is the whole, whereas parliament, government and judiciary are parts of the whole.

I'd suggest that many would say "state" rather than crown.

[swbarnett]

My bad ... I should have put "would be seen as the safety message is working" to the bean counters anyway. The death rate on the roads would need to back it up though ...

Ah, makes sense. I thought that was a bit out of character.

[Zedder]

The way many of you are going on, you'd think it was fait accompli...

Stop discussing how to make it work, start discussing why it is wrong...

In terms of wrong, the Corrections Department contract with Serco was seen as wrong by many but happened regardless.

Ever since the State Owned Enterprises Act of 1986, the New Zealand Government has gone quite a way down the corporatisation and privatisation route and the Serco debacle is only one of many actions.

Regarding the NZ Police, following a indepth review of management and administration in 1998, nearly 400 positions were no longer needed and a further 300 staff were affected by outsourcing.

Additionally in 2008, Authorised Officers (police employees with limited powers) were introduced to replace "temporary constables". These people receive only two weeks training and obviously less pay to work in non frontline duties. However, it is worth noting under the Policing Act 2008 they can be ordered to carry out other roles on a case-by-case basis but do not have powers of arrest. To date there are over 100 Authorised Officers in New Zealand with more on the way.

Given the bid for more cost savings, it's highly likely more privatisation and remodeling is in the pipeline.

[Akzle]

However, it is worth noting under the Policing Act 2008 they can be ordered to carry out other roles on a case-by-case basis but do not have powers of arrest. To date there are over 100 Authorised Officers in New Zealand with more on the way.

actually, any cunt, can be told by any cunt (with higher authority ) to do any shit. cops, parameds, fire cunts, can all rope you in and tell you to act like you know what you're doing.

Given the bid for more cost savings, it's highly likely more privatisation and remodeling is in the pipeline.

vote your socks off everyone!

[TheDemonLord]

The contract tenders usually accepted are the (usually) lowest. Just standard business contract practice.

That isn't my issue per se - although just because someone can do something cheaper, doesn't mean they are doing it better.

In the case of speed camera operations ... the contractor takes the photos and sends them in for processing. They have no control over what happens then. Employees are un-sworn so no confidentiality issues need arise as they have no access to police data bases. They do not enforce ... just take pictures. The enforcement notice comes from LTSA. NOT the contractor.

Does the LTSA do any form of additional checking on each ticket? What form of oversight do they have? What safeguards do they have to ensure sufficient control over the Company? I know I'm going to channel the spirit of Katman here - but what barriers are there to stop a company fudging the figures in order to maximise profit? Whilst you might say that the same barriers exist within the a Governmental department to stop that department from doing the same - there is a level of access that a 3rd party (appointed by the Govt) would have to an internal department that they may not have with a private company.

My issue then becomes that the situation becomes the LTSA assumes a ticket is valid, without the current internal oversight that the LTSA and Police ultimately end up with the same reporting lines.

And when the Tyranny of a Government is brought to bear WITHOUT that safeguard, it is an area where we must tread very carefully indeed.

That's good of you ... you voted Labour probably ...

Well, that shows how little you understand my position and perspective.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you lot fucken retarded?

The profit is in the contract. The money the government pays them to do a job for them. Income from that job goes back to government.

A Contract that most likely would have one or a combination of the following:

1: a Fixed component with no regard to the number of tickets written - this would likely see a decrease in the number of tickets written as there is no financial incentive for going above and beyond

2: a fixed component with a minimum number of tickets required (and a financial penalty for meeting that number) - all well and good unless they are getting to the end of the month and need to make up the numbers

3: a fixed component with a per ticket bonus - this would financially incentivize the company to over-issue tickets - especially in the knowledge that few people fight speeding tickets so they are unlikely to be found out

4: a pure per-ticket model - same issue as above

There are other models they could adopt - but all lead back to the same fundamental issue - any financial reward or pressure that is directly tied to the performance of the company (where the most likely metric used will be number of tickets issued) will open up the likely hood of dodgy practices.

[FJRider]

That isn't my issue per se - although just because someone can do something cheaper, doesn't mean they are doing it better.

No ... it certainly does not. But that is how the tender contract system works. The Company awarding the contract has the responsibility to award it to a capable company that can do the required job. And it is up to the company awarded the contract do do it under budget ... (or pay the excess if they don't) but they also must fulfill the contract to the standards and requirements laid down in the original contract ... or be subject to the penalty's also stated in the contract.(You knew about the penalty bit didn't you ... ???)

Does the LTSA do any form of additional checking on each ticket? What form of oversight do they have? What safeguards do they have to ensure sufficient control over the Company? I know I'm going to channel the spirit of Katman here - but what barriers are there to stop a company fudging the figures in order to maximise profit? Whilst you might say that the same barriers exist within the a Governmental department to stop that department from doing the same - there is a level of access that a 3rd party (appointed by the Govt) would have to an internal department that they may not have with a private company.

Read the bit above. You obviously do not know the conditions that would be required to be filled to fill the contract. You can bet LTSA will not allow (possibility of) ANY falsification of the record keeping or access to ANY information not required to do the job.

My issue then becomes that the situation becomes the LTSA assumes a ticket is valid, without the current internal oversight that the LTSA and Police ultimately end up with the same reporting lines.

The contract is to operate a speed camera ... not issue tickets .....

And when the Tyranny of a Government is brought to bear WITHOUT that safeguard, it is an area where we must tread very carefully indeed.

The idiocy of the general populace is of more concern to me ...

Well, that shows how little you understand my position and perspective.

If you voted Labour ... your position would be usually sitting on your ass ... and your perspective is a shade tilted ...

[pete376403]

No ... it certainly does not. But that is how the tender contract system works. The Company awarding the contract has the responsibility to award it to a capable company that can do the required job. And it is up to the company awarded the contract do do it under budget ... (or pay the excess if they don't) but they also must fulfill the contract to the standards and requirements laid down in the original contract ... or be subject to the penalty's also stated in the contract.(You knew about the penalty bit didn't you ... ???)

do Government contracts work that way? Didn't seem to be that way when Talent2 did the Novapay fuckup? I recall the Govt (ie you and me) paid for the fixes, even though it was T2 who made the cockups

[Berries]

You obviously do not know the conditions that would be required to be filled to fill the contract. You can bet LTSA will not allow (possibility of) ANY falsification of the record keeping or access to ANY information not required to do the job.

Just for reference, the LTSA ceased to exist over ten years ago. NZTA contracts these days are a whole different kettle of bananas.

[TheDemonLord]

No ... it certainly does not. But that is how the tender contract system works. The Company awarding the contract has the responsibility to award it to a capable company that can do the required job. And it is up to the company awarded the contract do do it under budget ... (or pay the excess if they don't) but they also must fulfill the contract to the standards and requirements laid down in the original contract ... or be subject to the penalty's also stated in the contract.(You knew about the penalty bit didn't you ... ???)

Do you consider it possible to meet all the requirements of a Contact and still do a Shit job?

Read the bit above. You obviously do not know the conditions that would be required to be filled to fill the contract. You can bet LTSA will not allow (possibility of) ANY falsification of the record keeping or access to ANY information not required to do the job.

I agree that it will be clearly stipulated, however without full, open access to ALL of the private companies data by the NZTA, there remains the possibility of things being fudged.

I'm thinking along the lines of the VW emissions saga.

The contract is to operate a speed camera ... not issue tickets .....

One has a direct causal relationship to the other....

The idiocy of the general populace is of more concern to me ...

Well yes, I just wish we'd stop making it harder for themselves to remove their stupidity from the Gene pool...

but in seriousness, once the part of the State's ability to enforce something onto a citizen is delegated or contracted out - full control (in terms of the government being mandated by the will of the people) is lost.

There are some situations where this may be acceptable - but it requires very careful thought, discussion and debate. This current situation is not one that IMO meets the extremely high burden of necessity to warrant that delegation.

If you voted Labour ... your position would be usually sitting on your ass ... and your perspective is a shade tilted ...

Whilst I laffed at that - no, I didn't vote Labour - hence my point about you not understanding.

[Akzle]

Do you consider it possible to meet all the requirements of a Contact and still do a Shit job?

the comstabulary / ministry of works no longer put down roads, y'know...

[TheDemonLord]

the comstabulary / ministry of works no longer put down roads, y'know...

Case in point....

[Moi]

... but in seriousness, once the part of the State's ability to enforce something onto a citizen is delegated or contracted out - full control (in terms of the government being mandated by the will of the people) is lost.

There are some situations where this may be acceptable - but it requires very careful thought, discussion and debate. This current situation is not one that IMO meets the extremely high burden of necessity to warrant that delegation...

+1

I'd suggest that John Stuart Mill would have said much the same...

[Moi]

the comstabulary / ministry of works no longer put down roads, y'know...

Case in point....

Do contractors build better roads than what the Ministry of Works built?

Yes the technology has improved, so why do so many major roads have the seal peeling off?