PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Author Archive

ECan and the Demise of Democracy

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on April 15th, 2010

An impromptu meeting took place last night on the steps of the Our City O-Tautahi building where the Green Party had called a meeting to discuss the sacking of ECan and the new process that has been  imposed on Water Conservation Orders as they apply to Canterbury’s rivers.  I arrived at 7.30pm along with nearly 100 others who couldn’t get into the meeting room as it was already full.  So we had our own meeting outside – I took on the role of MC and set the scene for the debate drawing on the issues I had raised in a perspective piece published in the Press last week.  I then handed over to the soon to be erstwhile ECan Councillor, Rik Tindall, who talked about how he had stood on a Save our Water platform and here he was being sacked on the very issue that had seen him elected.  He talked about the water interests and conservation values that are threatened by this overwhelming drive for intensive development of dairying on the Canterbury Plains. Cr Yani Johanson from the CCC then spoke about how positions were being adopted without going through the democratically elected Council first; he spoke of the closed nature of the Mayoral Forum; and he talked about his frustrations at having to obtain information under the Official Information Act – it arrived 2 hours after the announcement was made.  He was followed by the other soon to be erstwhile ECan Councillor who was elected on a platform of Save Our Water, David Sutherland, who spoke of the undemocractic actions that had occurred. 

There was a lively debate about the actions of the Mayors, especially Christchurch’s Mayor, and a motion of no confidence was carried unanimously given his role in producing the letter that sparked the Creech review.  I reminded people that not one National MP denied in Parliament that the Ministers had indirectly asked for that letter to be produced.  Yani Johanson reminded us that this was a breach of the ‘no surprises’ aspect of the Triennial Agreement signed by all the Mayors with ECan and had not been consulted with the Councils. (more…)

Filed under: Uncategorized, democracy, environment, justice, legislation, local government, protest
37 Comments

Time to Have Your Say about the MMP Referendum

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on April 4th, 2010

I have been appointed to the new select committee established to consider the Electoral Referendum Bill, which was recently introduced, but which hasn’t had its first reading yet.  It is called the Electoral Legislation Committee and it is chaired by Amy Adams, National Party, Selwyn.  I am the deputy chair.  There is a good blend of List MPs and constituency MPs and all parties are represented as follows:

  • Jim  Anderton, Progressive, Wigram
  • John  Boscawen, ACT New Zealand, List
  • Peter  Dunne, United Future, Ohariu
  • Pete  Hodgson, Labour Party, Dunedin North
  • Darren  Hughes, Labour Party, List
  • Rahui  Katene, Maori Party, Te Tai Tonga
  • Hekia Parata, National Party, List
  • Paul Quinn, National Party, List
  • Chris Tremain, National Party, Napier
  • Metiria Turei, Green Party, List

Now that the committee has been established the Electoral Referendum Bill will be referred to us and we will call for submissions. 

I cannot overstate the need for high quality submissions if we are going to get a quality result in terms of the referendum and the rules around third party funding.

Although this Bill covers the referendum, there is another bill that will go to an expanded Justice & Electoral Committee to consider the future electoral finance rules around third party advertising. 

This the point where the two bills coincide and which raises serious concerns about holding this referendum with the election – parallel campaigners will be allowed to advertise in the election campaign and in the referendum campaign ($12,000 threshold for registration).  But registration is where the limitation ends – from that point on these people or groups can spend what they like.

The Minister has said that the registration rules go further than the advertising rules in place for the 1992, 1993 and 1997 referendums, where there was no cap on spending, and no need to register with the Electoral Commission. All that was needed was a promoter statement.  But that was before the Exclusive Brethren showed us what unlimited spending could deliver. 

Some of you will recall the paper bag covered heads of the “list MPs” that featured in Peter Shirtcliff’s campaign – I am positive that he will be much more sophisticated this time. I also think we will see Crosby Textor enter into the campaign as well, and I am equally sure they will donate their time for zip, fully motivated to get rid of a system that does not produce strong, single party governments, that need not compromise anything for anyone.  “Unbridled Power” was a criticism of the system when coined by Geoffrey Palmer – National’s backers think of it as a dream-come-true.

I will post again once the call for submissions is made.  Make sure you are ready and make sure you read the Cabinet papers and the Regulatory Impact Statement for both bills.

Filed under: Electoral Law Reform, Uncategorized, democracy, justice, legislation, politics
63 Comments

Restorative Justice

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on March 28th, 2010

I spoke at the Restorative Justice Practitioners Conference yesterday and found a very receptive audience for our willingness to work collaboratively across Party lines on the underlying drivers of crime so, over time, we could enjoy safer communities.  

It has been a year next Saturday since I attended the Ministerial Meeting on the Drivers of Crime.  Here’s what one of the participants in the meeting said at the time:

“Locked into three-year election cycles, and well-knowing the vote-catching ability of the tattoo beaten out on the law-and-order drum, politicians have not been prepared to contemplate such a changed approach, notwithstanding the research done, the evidence collected and the experience gained by various persons, agencies (both governmental and NGOs) and groups in our country, which pointed clearly both to causes and to potential cures.”

His prescription called for a bi-partisan political approach and the full engagement of all arms of government that touch on any facet of a child and its family/whanau – health, housing, education, welfare – of communities – of Maori – of Ethnic communities – of all criminal justice departments – Justice, Courts, Corrections, CYFS. He also highlighted the need for the experts and the wider community groups to publicly champion this change in approach and for the media to “absorb, critique and disseminate” the proposed changes and the rationale for them.  The only parts of his prescription that we could offer the government was a collaborative approach and publicly championing that change in approach.  The Labour caucus agreed that I was to offer our commitment to work with the government “to ensure that NZ’s justice policies are aimed at addressing the causes of crime recognising that this is a long-term, intergenerational strategy that requires the commitment of successive governments to achieve”. 

Who could disgree with that? 

Unfortunately Simon Power delivered me with the proverbial ’slap in the face’ before Christmas and, as a result, we are not able to engage with government on these most fundamental of issues – we haven’t even had a briefing on Whanau Ora, which I would have thought was integral to the government’s response to a meeting a that was co-hosted by Pita Sharples.

And before anyone says: “why didn’t you do this in government?” – we did.  We locked in inter-party arrangements around the protection of children, but National pulled out.  Maybe I shouldn’t have been so surprised with this latest rebuff.

Next time Labour is in government we will expand the collaborative approach to include the underlying issues that not only help address crime, but also help address youth unemployment, youth suicide, teenage pregnancy, poor educational outcomes, poor mental health, bad relationships and a wide range of physical health problems.  It isn’t rocket science that these things are connected.  Let’s hope National has worked this out when the offer comes back the other way.

Filed under: justice
19 Comments

$26 Million “Charm Offensive” from Tolley is just Offensive

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 28th, 2010

Waking up to the lead item in the Press that the Minister of Education has been allowed by John Key and his Cabinet to spend $26 million precious education dollars to “win over parents, teachers and schools on the standards” is the most galling announcement by this under-performing Minister since she announced that she would cut exactly half that amount to completely decimate Adult & Community Education.  I thought she had taken $13M out of ACE to contribute to the $35M in private schools – but it now looks like she has money to burn. 

And what about her out-of-touch decision to close Aorangi School 2 weeks before the end of the last term last year ostensibly because the government could not afford the rebuild in these tough times? 

I am incensed!

Even if the $26M includes training for teachers on implementing the standards and the material to support it, it just shows how costly an exercise an unproven methodology will be.    

The Press also has an article in its Good Living supplement, which I cannot seem to link to, but it essentially praises the new curriculum and highlights the complication around its introduction as a result of the government’s desire “to shoehorn national standards in literacy and numeracy into the mix”. 

This reminds me of a CTV Newsmakers special that I appeared on in November last year along with Nicky Wagner from the National Party and Denise Torrey from the Canterbury Primary Principals Association – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Both Denise and I raised concerns about National Standards not measuring the “value add”, recognising that not all students start from the same point, and we were pleased that Nicky said that she had discussed it with the Minister that morning and she too was really interested in schools reporting progress and how they report value add.  Has it happened? No.  Denise reflected on the benefits that were going to come from the most sophisticated, modern, future-focused curriculum in the world. She said that’s where the gains in standards were going to come from.  So where is the evidence to support this “shoehorning” of these untested standards into this curriculum.

Finally when we discussed a new programme to address serious behavioural  problems, Nicky Wagner made it clear that such programmes must be proven, rolled out carefully and evaluated.  Given that the Prime Minister has appointed an eminent scientist to push the evidence-based message, why is Tolley exempt from these standards?

Filed under: education
54 Comments

Crime and Punishment – what about rehabilitation?

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 24th, 2010

W’hat’s good about the regular radio programmes being on holiday is that they replay some good stuff from the previous year.  This programme first broadcast in May is worth listening to.

Chris Laidlaw introduces the interviews with these words: 

This week Ideas looks at crime, punishment and rehabilitation. In 1910, that old softie Winston Churchill had this to say about the need to rehabilitate criminals: “We cannot impose these serious penalties upon individuals unless we make a great effort and a new effort to rehabilitate men who have been in prison and secure their having a chance to resume their places in the ranks of honourable industry. The present system is not satisfactory.” A century later the voices of those calling for tougher penalties and a harsher approach are drowning out anyone echoing Winston Churchill’s concerns. Ideas producer Jeremy Rose talks to Chris Elisaia a man – who has spent half his adult life behind bars – and Waitakere District Court Judge Phil Recordon who has sentenced Elisaia to prison more than once. And Chris Laidlaw talks to Victoria University associate professor Michael Rowe about his research which shows some categories of violent crime are actually falling.”

Filed under: justice, law and order
10 Comments

Just Smile & Wave Boys

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 20th, 2010

A friend mentioned that her daughter was a fan of the Madagascar movies.  She said that Skipper, the penguin leader reminded her of the Prime Minister - I think it was the catch-phrase.  Or maybe that would be better expressed as a key phrase!

Filed under: humour, national
20 Comments

Company Registration – the Fastest System in the West

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 13th, 2010

On the World Bank Ease of Doing Business Survey New Zealand finds itself in the number one position when it comes to company registration – within hours a company can be registered on-line and a tax number issued by IRD.  It was that last feature that truly made our Companies Office the fastest register in the west.

The question is now being asked whether we want to hold on to that status in the face of an apparent loophole, (a loophole that knows no geographic boundaries I might add and which does not solely reside in New Zealand), which enables multiple layers of shelf companies to disguise the identity of the individuals who lie behind transactions that would otherwise be the subject of a high level of scrutiny from international intelligence and law enforcement agencies. 

There is no question that this requires the attention of the government.  In the paper I was indirectly quoted as saying that I thought our current company laws were lax.  In fact I said they were relaxed, which in my view is appropriate.  My husband had to apply for a new driver licence recently because he had lost his old one and he needed to front with two forms of ID – his passport and an official letter showing his address.  We could not possibly want to require that degree of verification of every director of every company in New Zealand.  That’s why I said we needed to apply balance in assessing what risks the current system posed and what the cost-benefit analysis would look like if we were thinking of changing it.

I also made the point that this must be an international issue, because New Zealand is not the only developed nation with a self-certification requirement for registering as directors. 

Now that the world has responded to the threat of money laundering and the financing of terrorism through imposing reporting requirements on financial institutions, then perhaps it is time that the World Bank turns its attention to the company registration systems that may be the next target to hide such activities.

But there are other reasons why I think our government should place this on its agenda now.  Having heard a number of submitters on the Commerce Committee’s Inquiry into Finance Company Failures I am convinced that there are sufficient issues around directors – including ‘celebrity directors’ offering reassurance to unsophisticated investors, directors with a troubled past not known to unsuspecting investors and examples of the use of the corporate veil to disguise related-party transactions – to warrant some strengthening of our laws. 

At the same time I want us to hold on to that World Bank ranking – because it is important that we don’t impose unjustifiable compliance costs on those who know that limited liability is a privilege not a right and who use it to advance their interests in an ethical manner, because they make up the vast majority of NZ businesses and are the lifeblood of our nation’s economic interests.

Filed under: economic, economy, finance, legislation, policy, regulation, select committee
9 Comments

Darwin’s Sacred Cause

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 12th, 2010

Ok this was not a book I pulled off the airport bookshop shelf as part of my ‘must read over Christmas’ collection – although my Executive Assistant thought that if I had chosen it, it would have been a natural selection!  My Christmas present from my brother and sister-in-law (she is the anthropologist in the family so I know she chose it) Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery & the Quest for Human Origins has been the most challenging read of the break, but it is extraordinary.  I learned a lot about Darwin, but equally I learned a lot about the time when he was formulating his theories.

World authorities on Darwin, Adrian Desmond & James Moore offer an amazing insight into how Darwin came to his view of evolution, linking it to his commitment to the abolition of slavery.  They researched unpublished family letters, manuscripts, notes that Darwin wrote on other books, ships’ logs…everything they could lay their hands on. 

In the introduction they say “Not only is the evolutionary upshot of his hatred of slavery unknown, Darwin’s humanitarian imperative itself has never been brought adequately to the fore.  We try to show how it locks him into the context of nineteenth-century abolitionalism, and how it speaks directly to our post-colonial age, with its hatred of ethnic cleansing and apartheid.  Ours is a book about a caring, compassionate man who was affected for life by the scream of a tortured slave.”

As it says on the fly-leaf, Desmond & Moore argue that only by appreciating Darwin’s Christian abolitionist inheritance, can we fully understand the perplexing mix of personal drive, public hesitancy and scientific radicalism that led him to finally in 1871 to publish The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 

The book was published last year to coincide with the worldwide Darwin celebrations of 2009 – the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Extremely highly recommended reading - 376 pages plus an almost 80 page bibliography!   There are a number of on-line reviews – I have just linked to one.

Filed under: Book Reviews
4 Comments

Why is current NZ MP still working overseas?

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 11th, 2010

There is no secret that Act Party MP David Garrett has been representing Commander Lupeti Vi, head of the Ports Of Tonga Authority, at the Royal Commission Inquiry into the Sinking of the Princess Ashika.  Having now read some of the transcripts of the Inquiry, I feel a vague sense of unease about a New Zealand Member of Parliament playing such a significant role in such a major inquiry.  Given the position Mr Garrett’s client holds I think there is a real question about the judgement in taking on this brief.  What do others think?

Filed under: act party
13 Comments

Superfreakonomics

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 9th, 2010

Sorry for the delay to those who have been desperately awaiting my latest book review, but I was out of cellphone range (hurray). 

I read Freakonomics (Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner)  a couple of years ago.  I had been meaning to read it for a long time before I finally got round to it, because I was put off by the title to be frank.  In the introductory explanatory note to Superfreakonomics the authors admit to the alarm expressed by their publisher over the first book: “…you could hear the sound of palms smacking foreheads: ‘this pair of bozos just delivered a manuscript with no unifying theme and a nonsensical, made-up title!’”  Such was the success of that book the publishers did not even blink at the title Superfreakonomics. 

Freakonomics was of course controversial for the suggestion that the dramatic reduction in the crime rate in the United States could be traced back to the landmark Roe v Wade decision.  I seem to recall the theory was that fewer children were born into the kinds of environments that tended to produce the drivers of crime. 

This time the authors take on a range of subjects from prostitution, suicide bombers, apathy and altruism and climate change.  Their approach encourages the reader to look at things a different way – whether you agree with their conclusions or not, it is an entertaining read.

My favourite chapter is on apathy and altruism, largely because it reinforces my view about the impact of television and the effect that it has had on the generations born since its insidious takeover of the lounges of the modern world.  But that is only a small part of a chapter that revisits the Kitty Genovese case (where 38 witnesses allegedly did nothing while she was murdered in the street outside her apartment building) and also the experiments on altruism which failed to repeat the results in a live situation contrasted with the laboratory results where people knew they were being tested.  It appears that we might just be a little more altruistic when we know or think we are being watched. 

It’s all good fun and does make you think.  Here’s the link to their flagrant self-promotion!

Filed under: Book Reviews
13 Comments

What the Dog Saw

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 3rd, 2010

The second book I have read since Christmas is Malcolm Gladwell’s What the Dog Saw.  I am a huge fan of Malcolm Gladwell having devoured The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make a Big Difference, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking & Outliers: The Story of Success. 

Gladwell makes you think twice about things you might otherwise take for granted or just not think about at all.  This book comprises a collection of Gladwell’s articles from The New Yorker. 

I will give you a quick dip into two of these articles.  The first changed my mind about a television ad that has irritated me for a long time – it’s LÓreal’s “Because you’re worth it”. I have always thought this is somewhat cynical when associated with make-up and hair colour.  What Gladwell presents however is the context for a campaign designed to follow Clairol’s “Does she or doesn’t she? Only her hairdresser knows for sure”.  This was a very clever campaign to present hair dyes as natural in appearance.  The response from L’Oreal was designed by a 23 year old woman working for McCann-Erikson. She decided that L’Oreal’s ad was not going to be about women wanting to meet men’s needs - it was about how this slightly more expensive product made her feel about herself – she didn’t mind spending a bit more meeting her own needs – “Because I’m worth it!”  It was a deliberate push back against the ‘I have to look good for my man’ attitude.  And it worked! So although the phrase has changed, I have seen it in a different light and am much less irritated – maybe I am worth it!

Another article should be required reading for the Minister of Education “Most Likely to Succeed”.  It starts off by highlighting how difficult it is to select a quarterback for the NFL from the College superstars.  The difference between how the games are played are just too great.  As Gladwell says “There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they’ll do once they’re hired.” 

He goes on to compare this to teaching.  He describes ‘value added’ analysis, which uses standardised test scores at the beginning and again at the end of the school year and then follows the teachers’ scores over the next three or four years.  Over time it is possible to assess the quality of the teaching.  

He refers to an economist, Eric Hanushek, who estimates that students of a very bad teacher learn on average half a year’ s work; whereas students of a very good teacher learn a year and a half’s worth of learning in a single year.  That’s an entire year’s difference.

“Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a bad school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a better teacher.”

The trouble is that “no one knows what a person with the potential to be great teacher looks like. The school system has a quarterback problem.” 

Would one of the Tories out there get the Minister of Education to think about value added analysis before she wastes another cent on national standards!  Unless the standards measure the ‘value-add’ (which they don’t) they will obviously be meaningless!

Malcolm Gladwell makes you think and that’s why I love reading his stuff.

Highly recommended!

Filed under: Book Reviews, education
8 Comments

Don’t You Know Who I Am?

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on January 3rd, 2010

I had planned to write the odd book review on Red Alert as I planned to use this break to read all the books I have bought at airport bookshops over the past year.

Disappointingly I have only read two books since Christmas but I enjoyed them both.  I started with a total no-brainer – a few years ago Piers Morgan wrote a book called The Insider: The Private Diaires of a Scandalous Decade, which is what encouraged me to buy Don’t You Know Who I Am? Insider Diaries of Fame, Power and Naked Ambition.

Piers Morgan is a clever writer – he knows how to string together a good yarn and and despite his loathing of politicians, (which seems to me comes from a sense of having been personally let down by Tony Blair over the decision to go into Iraq), this politician loves reading his stuff.

He understands all to well the superficiality of ‘celebrity status’ and yet in a self-deprecating manner describes how he gets to splash around in the depths of that particular bird-bath.

There is something quite human though underneath the bravado and I get the feeling that there is more to him than meets the eye as I scan the words on the page.

But let’s not go there.  Let me instead quote my favourite paragraph from the book.  This will appeal to all of you who enter quiz evenings where as Morgan says ‘they all pretend it’s not competitive, but of course it is.  Everybody there wants to win’.

On this occasion Morgan’s team has managed the ring-in of all times – the 2004 winner of Mastermind, Shaun Wallace – they cream it.

And as Morgan accepts the trophy he boasts ” I stand here rather as Douglas Jardine stood in Australia at the start of the 1932/3 bodyline series. As the bouncers started, one member of the crowd shouted, ‘you won’t win many friends playing like that Jardine,” to which the great man turned with a bemused look on his face and said haughtily, “my dear fellow, I haven’t come here to win friends.  I’ve come to win the Ashes.”

Filed under: Book Reviews, humour
5 Comments

Yes I did get up that early, but it was August!

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on December 27th, 2009

Sunrise at New Brighton Pier

I have had feedback from recipients of my Christmas card this year inquiring whether I had taken the photograph myself – yes I did.  It is Sunrise at New Brighton Pier on August 2, 2009.  I have decided to share it on Red Alert, so you can all enjoy the beauty of the electorate I have the privilege to represent .    And for those who have asked about whether I have had any training, well a certain Minister would call it a ‘hobby class’, but I did attend an Adult Education class at Papanui High School a few years ago and it has excited a passion for photography that far exceeds my natural talent!  I will try and share some of my holiday snaps with you.  Seasons Greetings!

Filed under: Christmas, personal
3 Comments

When will it end?

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on December 23rd, 2009

The Work Assessment and Rehabilitation Service is a specialist clinical service within the Mental Health Service, Canterbury District Health Board, providing specialist work assessment, work preparation and securing of employment for people who experience serious mental illness.  So says the CDHB website.  It could be argued that the announcement that was made last week to shift the provision of the rehabilitation part of the service to the non-government sector and which will be explained to interested parties at a meeting this afternoon will mean they won’t have to change the definition on the website.

But Acheron Works and Lincoln Green will disappear from the website, because the CDHB is getting out of the delivery of the rehabilitation programmes themselves.   There are those who will see this as in line with the government’s announcement of devolving service delivery from government agencies to non-government community organisations.  So what’s the problem?  There is no guarantee in this pre-Christmas announcement about what the nature of the service delivery will be next year.  I only found out about the “consultation” because a constituent who uses one of the services let me know what was happening so I was able to make a submission.

I am going to the meeting this afternoon to ask questions about the level of funding that will be provided to the community sector and the security of tenure they might expect.  And also what assurances the CDHB will give to vulnerable consumers two days before Christmas about what they can expect next year. 

Why do I have a sinking feeling about the response I am going to get?

Filed under: health, social development
3 Comments

Final Nail in the Coffin of PM’s old School

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on December 21st, 2009

I didn’t make it into the court today to hear the decision on Aorangi School’s last-ditch attempt to save the school from closure and haven’t yet read the judgement, but I am gutted – not because of the decision of the court – the threshold to judicially review a Ministerial decision is very high – but because the Minister was dishonest in her dealings with the school right from the beginning of her tenure as Minister. 

Aorangi Primary School had its rebuilding programme approved under a Labour government.  They asked the Minister for a higher rate of funding than they were qualified for – no harm in asking – and the Minister said no – no harm done.  The Ministry stuffed up the numbers and that didn’t help, but it meant that the final figures were not clear as a new government took over.  So the school thought they would ask the new Minister for the extra funding – no harm in asking – well actually there was great harm in asking, because the Minister said she was going to review the matter (which the school was pleased to hear) and then 10 days later the Minister signed the school’s death warrant without telling them that she had asked the Ministry to produce a report which included the option on closure. 

When I asked the Minister why she had done this she said “I am perfectly entitled to ask the ministry for advice”.  And therein lies the problem.  This is an arrogant Minister who covers up her lack of knowledge with these high-handed statements.  

It is important to remember that the ones who will pay the price for Tolley’s decision to close the school are the children whose education has been disrupted and who will be at very high risk in new schools which are not set up to cater for the most vulnerable of them.  The Board of Trustees only went to court because they felt they owed them a moral obligation to fight for them – and if you heard some of the stories I have heard you would understand that.

One of members of the Board of Trustees said on radio today that the government didn’t seem to realise that they had ripped the heart out of this community.  I agree, but I don’t think Anne Tolley cares.

Filed under: community, education, justice, national
13 Comments

Natural Justice

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on December 12th, 2009

Dame Margaret Bazley is a trusted public servant who has been called upon by successive governments to take on challenging and complex roles – the Review of Legal Aid was the most recent of these.  When the Minister of Justice appointed her to undertake the review I was pleased.  I felt that there were serious issues around the Legal Aid system and I was confident she would undertake a thorough review.  I was disappointed when the Discussion Paper came out, because it did not appear to be a first principles review at all – more a patch up job.   However, when the final report came out it exceeded my expectations.  It had some great insights into how the legal aid system could be used to address the inter-generational drivers of crime and contained recommendations about strengthening and expanding the Public Defence Service and the Community Law Centres. 

However Dame Margaret went further than that – she said in her report that she had been told that up to 80% of the lawyers practising in the Manukau District Court could be gaming the Legal Aid system and with this single sentence she condemned them all.  A group of them wrote an open letter to the Minister which was published in the Herald.   Charles Chauvel and I arranged to meet with the lawyers and although the meeting was cut short for some as a result of the industrial action that the court staff have been taking (something the lawyers completely understood by the way) we had enough time with enough lawyers to get a very clear picture of what needed to happen.  As a result Charles and I issued a challenge to the Minister to meet with the lawyers as we had done and to be fair to him he has agreed to do just that. 

However he has refused to repudiate the 80% figure which condemns Manukau lawyers to be judged as likely to be one of them and this has demoralised everyone – including the Public Defence Service – and damaged their reputations.  This unsubstantiated claim taints the whole report and should have been excised before the report was published by the Ministry of Justice.   It is nothing less than a breach of natural justice.  Dame Margaret did not follow a proper process by listening to this hearsay – which any lawyer will tell you is not evidence – and nor does it become evidence the more often it is repeated – otherwise we could dispense with inquiries and just leave it to talkback radio. 

I would love to know who seeded that figure in her mind, however I keep coming back to the fact that Dame Margaret must have trusted the source.  This leads me to think that someone of standing has an axe to grind or something to hide or both.  The sooner the Minister investigates the better.

Filed under: Labour Party, justice
11 Comments

Erebus – 30 years on

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on November 28th, 2009

Today I attended Air New Zealand’s Christchurch Memorial Service commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the Mt Erebus air accident and the first anniversary of the air accident off the coast of Perpignan, France.  It was a very moving experience. 

I was having a drink in the small bar at the White Heron Lodge (over the road from Christchurch Airport) on the 28th November 1979 when one of the airport staff came in to say that the Antarctica flight had not returned.   I can’t recall exactly when it was confirmed that the plane had gone missing, but it was a very sombre night. 

I was a law student at the time and I well remember the inquiry that followed .  I bought a copy of the Mahon report as soon as it was published and read it cover to cover.  Although the media focussed on the language – the ”pre-determined plan of deception” and “the orchestrated litany of lies”, I remember the list of about 10 things he listed, the absence of any one of which may well have meant the accident would not have happened.  Some of these were influenced by human action or inaction – others, like the white-out conditions, were not.   It reinforced for me how important it is in the wake of a tragedy to get to the bottom of what has happened, to acknowledge any mistakes, to say sorry where apologies are due, to take responsibility for those mistakes and to learn from them so that the risk of a tragedy occurring again is diminished.  Preventable deaths cause pain beyond the loss, because there is always the “if only…” that can act to disrupt the path to acceptance in the grieving process.  I am convinced that if those in any way responsible for what has occurred own up to mistakes and commit to rectifying them, it helps bring closure to those affected. 

Today’s memorial service was timely for the families of the men who lost their lives off the coast of Perpignan, but 29 years overdue for the families who lost loved ones on Mt Erebus.  But in saying that, it is never too late to say sorry and I felt that Air New Zealand’s apology was genuine and heartfelt and that they had learned the lessons so tragically evidenced that fateful day 30 years ago.

Filed under: events, history
5 Comments

Roots of Empathy – not from Tolley!

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on November 25th, 2009

Roots of Empathy

On Monday afternoon in Christchurch, the Peace Foundation hosted an afternoon tea and celebration of the Roots of Empathy programme.

The programme basically brings a new baby (with their mum or dad) into a class of 10 year olds, and the baby teaches the children about their development. It teaches them about love and support, about growing and learning – it’s a great concept!

Two interesting points about the event – the first is that it was held at Risingholme Centre, where community and adult education classes have been run for years and years – but this year, they have had all their funding cut so these wonderful classes will stop.

The second point is that one of the schools which hosts the Roots of Empathy programme is Aorangi. My colleague, Ruth Dyson, is pictured at the event with two students from Aorangi, and baby Gabriella and her mum. The children were so happy to be at this celebration, and very proud of “their” baby Gabriella.

Little did they know that at the very time of this event, Anne Tolley was less than 24 hours away from announcing the closure of their school.  She of course wouldn’t have the guts to front up to the school - a bureaucrat would be sent to deliver an envelope to the chair of the Board of Trustees at the airport, leaving the Minister to release her decision to the media.

The National MP who turned up to the Roots of Empathy event gave the Aorangi Principal and the students a very wide berth.  Funny that.

Filed under: Uncategorized
5 Comments

No Fairytale Ending for Aorangi School

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on November 24th, 2009

Once upon a time there was a powerful woman who held the future of nearly 100 students in her hand.  She had the choice to listen to her advisers or to listen to the people who knew the children and what the school could do for them.  To be fair to her advisers, they had been asked to help her find $35M to pay to the private schools, but even so, a poor little public school serving a vulnerable community was served up to her on a platter and she devoured it – every last morsel – (despite the staple diet).   But this poor little school is fighting back  – and so to court!

I knew that Education Minister, Anne Tolley, had made up her mind back in February to close Aorangi School and I knew that no amount of logic or passion would persuade her otherwise.  But it still hurt when I heard that she had made the call this afternoon; and in typical high-handed fashion she notified the media of her decision, before the school could let their community know.  This decision is wrong – plain and simple.  I have read every briefing paper that the school has obtained copies of under the Official Information Act and I have never seen such biased and prejudicial ”advice” .  Everything has been written with closure to the forefront.  In fact the Minister signed the death warrant in February – today’s announcement is just the execution warrant.

You might ask why I am so interested in this school - their own MP, Hon Gerry Brownlee, has been missing in action – in fact he has white-anted the school behind their back.  It simply isn’t good enough.  I have already started questioning who wants the land?   

There will be more to be said about this subject!

Filed under: children, education
29 Comments

Finance company inquiry

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on November 22nd, 2009

The Commerce Committee has held its first day of hearings on the Inquiry into Finance Company Failures. I have been criticised for chairing the inquiry as I was Minister of Commerce during the period that the finance company collapses occured – 2005-2008. They ignore that an incoming Labour government inherited what I’ve described as a regulatory wasteland and it took a considerable amount of time to bring our regulation up to international standards – starting from ensuring the Takeovers Panel had a code to enforce – through to providing appropriate regulatory oversight for registered exchanges (including rules around continuous disclosure, and much stricter rules around insider trading and market manipulation) – through to the Taskforce on Financial Intermediaries which I inherited as Minister after the 2005 election and the Review of Financial Products and Providers – which involved the release of 9 discussion documents in 2006 and the passing of 3 major pieces of legislation before the 2008 election. The current government has carried on this work and more regulation will be introduced as they work through the remaining elements of the reform package. The finance company failures have also highlighted deficiencies that were not apparent prior to the last government announcing decisions in 2007 about a fortnight before Bridgecorp collapsed.

This current inquiry is not designed to duplicate the work the previous government has done and the work the current government is doing. However I believe that my role as a former Minister of Commerce has given me some insights into the ‘what’s missing’ from the government’s current workplan. If anyone thinks that I am immune to the suffering of people who had no idea they were exposing their hard-earned money to the level of risk they were, then they don’t know me very well. Lessons must be learned about what attracted people to certain investments in the first place and whether we need tighter rules around what people are told about the nature of the risk they are taking.  We have been accused of being populist by looking at tracing the money post failure and sheeting home responsibility to directors – but tell Mum & Dad investors that these things don’t matter when directors maintain their high life protected by family trusts and limited liability.

The role of the media has been interesting and will continue to be so. Read this story about the first day of hearings. In light of recent comments about the media being afraid to take on high profile individuals for fear of legal action I found it fascinating that not one media outlet reported the high profile politician who was mentioned in Professor Adams’ damning case study; nor the name of the high profile financial adviser the Crone’s referred to – even though such reporting would be covered by Parliamentary Privilege. More to come as the hearings continue!

This is going to be a very interesting inquiry.

Tags:
Filed under: Labour Party, economic, finance, regulation, select committee
12 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »