Heather is another worker who has come forward to the CTU about being unfairly sacked under the 90 day trial period law. Here’s her story. Now watch the righties go hunting for a conspiracy.
Red Alert
Archive for the ‘justice’ Category
Filling the Prisons
Posted by Grant Robertson on August 16th, 2010For those that did not see it, this article from the Fairfax papers in the weekend is well worth a read. It explores our appalling imprisonment rate, including some statistics where we dont stack up well at all
New Zealand locks up people at a rate of 199 per 100,000. The European average is about 80. Even Australia, our convict cousin, jails a third less than we do, according to figures from the International Centre for Prison Studies.
As I have said before on this blog, we have to get beyond the response that building more prisons is the answer to preventing crime. Of course keeping the likes of Graeme Burton off the streets is important, but that is not going to deal with the overall issue. I like my colleague Lianne Dalziel’s comment in the article that the basis of questioning around these issues should be “what makes our communities safer”. Continuing to lock people up without addressing the reasons behind how they got to be there will not make our communities safer.
Most would accept that crime is the result of addictions, mental ill-health, a bad start in life, poverty and other social factors, rather than because people are inherently evil, she says. So these are the issues we should be targeting with preventative and rehabilitative measures
There is optimism from those quoted in this article that more people are now prepared to look at the drivers of crime and get beyond the empty slogans and dangerous rhetoric of the Sensible Sentencing Trust/David Garrett types. I hope that is true because another election fought around who can throw out the toughest slogans is not what we need as a country. As Greg Newbold says in the article we need to start thinking in terms of 25 year goals to change a culture of violence, rather than in three year political cycles.
As politicians we have a job to come up with better policies, and that is something Labour is working on, but I also think the time has come for a broad based community grouping that can promote the importance of the long term approach to addressing the causes of crime and breaking the cycle. I for one would help that group in any way I can.
SFO nails Judith Collins
Posted by Trevor Mallard on August 12th, 2010The poor relationship between Judith Collins and Simon Power is legendary.
Ministers who get confidential briefings need to know how to keep their mouths shut.
The SFO chief mightn’t have intended to but his switch from denial to no comment nailed Judith Collins who btw is the only Cabinet Minister I have ever seen who talks without her cheeks moving.
Mr Feeley said there was “no briefing to Cabinet” by his office and he knew nothing about suggestions that there had been. “I don’t have a preliminary report myself. I don’t see how we can provide a briefing on a report which doesn’t exist.”
But he refused to comment on whether the SFO had briefed individual ministers, including SFO Minister Judith Collins.
Common Sense from the High Court on Adoption – Now it’s Parliament’s Turn
Posted by Charles Chauvel on June 29th, 2010Last week, a full court of the High Court (this means 2 judges – commonly the way that test cases are heard and decided) significantly widened the pool of adults who can legally volunteer to adopt children in New Zealand.
The last time Parliament considered the issue was back in 1955 when it passed the current Adoption Act. Not surprisingly, given the values of the time, Parliament restricted eligibility to adopt to married couples by the use of the word “spouse” in the Act. When the civil unions and relationship property acts were passed, the definitions in the Adoption Act were left unchanged.
The test case came before Justices John Wild and Simon France, both highly regarded members of the Court. What they had to decide was whether the term ’spouse’ as used in the Adoption Act 1955 should be interpreted today as including unmarried people living together. It was argued that it should, largely because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as enacted in 1990, contains a prohibition of discrimination on the ground of martial status. The Bill requires an outcome consistent with its provisions wherever possible.
The Court found that, to give effect to the ban on marital status discrimination, it had to interpret the word “spouse” as including people in de-facto relationships. The parties to the case had agreed that the interpretation they were seeking extended only to test whether heterosexual relationships were included in the ruling, and the Court records this limitation in its reasons for judgment.
However, logically, the ruling extends eligibility to be considered for adoption to anyone in a marriage, civil union or (straight or gay) de-facto relationship. This is so for two reasons – the definition of “marital status” and the fact that “sexual orientation” is also a ground of prohibited discrimination in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The number of adoptions that actually occur each year in New Zealand is small -guardianship and other legal forms allowing for the care of children without legally extinguishing the birth relationship are more usual these days. But the decision is important. Children who are in need of adoptive parents should have the right to have those parents selected from the widest pool of appropriately-qualified people possible. Unless amended, the current Act, as now interpreted by the High Court, restricts them to people in a relationship. At some point soon Parliament should widen the pool further. Who can seriously argue today that single, or divorced, or widowed people can’t make great parents? And as you would imagine, there are other anomalies in legislation that is now 65 years old that need fixing up.
Right now, though, it’s good to read a sensible decision from our Hight Court that shows the Bill of Rights to be a valuable tool in keeping the law up to date.
Poll – should smoking in prisons be banned?
Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 29th, 2010Late Monday poll – sorry.
Lots of debate over the last 24 hours on smoking in prisons. Some say this is a naked Collins appeal to rednecks, others say she is genuine and is worried about government legal liabilities in 25 years time, some say she cares deeply about prisoner health, others say it is the first step in a government move to totally ban smoking, still others that it will make prisons even harder to control, increase smuggling, push prisoners towards P which is more easily smuggled and place guards at risk.
What do you think?
Should smoking in prisons be banned?
- Yes (66%, 280 Votes)
- No (34%, 144 Votes)
Total Voters: 424
Loading ...The power of forgiveness
Posted by Clare Curran on April 24th, 2010Yesterday was my birthday and I went to jail. Literally. Thought it was appropriate.
Jokes aside, I experienced the power of reconciliation and forgiveness that can happen between the victims of crime and the offenders. An experience every politician should have, birthday or not.
The Sycamore Tree Programme runs in 12 prisons across NZ. At the newly established Otago Correctional Facility, based at Milton just south of Dunedin, I think I attended their seventh course to talk to them and hand out certificates.
Prisoners volunteer for this course, it’s based on the principles of restorative justice, that rehabilitation is possible, it requires collaboration between offenders and victims and that healing can happen on both sides.
I heard six prisoners and six victims speak. I saw the rapport that had developed between them all, the transformation that had taken place and the importance of community. It was powerful.
I feel sick every time I hear the Sensible Sentencing Trust talk about retribution.
I believe in consequences. I believe that we must have strict laws and that people should not get away with crime.
I also believe in the power of forgiveness and reconciliation.
Strong communities mean a strong and healthy society.
The standard exposes nact on three strikes
Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 20th, 2010The official advice on the three strikes legislation indicated it could lead to an increase in homicides.
Good work The Standard.
ECan and the Demise of Democracy
Posted by Lianne Dalziel on April 15th, 2010An 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…)
Time to Have Your Say about the MMP Referendum
Posted by Lianne Dalziel on April 4th, 2010I 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.
Restorative Justice
Posted by Lianne Dalziel on March 28th, 2010I 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.
Prisoners Aid Funding
Posted by Grant Robertson on February 26th, 2010It looks like funding for the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society is a goner. There is a story in the Dominion Post today that PARS will lose its $2.5 million contract.
This is a tragedy. PARS play a vital role in helping prisoners re-integrate into the community. For well over a hundred years they have helped with accomodation, facilitating job opportunities, and perhaps more than anything else, just being there for people who many in society want to ignore. They perform roles that busy probation officers simply can not do.
As Clayton Cosgrove notes in the article, the community will be less safe as a result of the funding being cut as people released from prison will lack the support to stop them from re-offending.
There are reports of concerns about some financial management issues. The work PARS does is important enough the the Minister and the Department of Corrections need to actively intervene to ensure it survives.
The overall issue of incarceration and rehabilitation in New Zealand needs attention. In the meantime, no matter what we might think of some prisoners, most people in New Zealand prisons will at some point re-enter society. Surely the key task while they are in prison, and immediately on their release is to work with them to make sure we do all we can to prevent further crimes being committed, and to help them find a path to meaningful and positive future. This is what PARS does, and the government needs to help them keep doing it.
Justice Ministry dispute needs leadership
Posted by Grant Robertson on February 20th, 2010The dispute around the payment of Court staff is becoming increasingly concerning. This story in the Nelson Mail during the week highlights the real concern that a settlement is needed.
A packed courtroom erupted with anger and frustration as Nelson court staff walked off the job again yesterday. Security fears have been raised over the strength of anger in the public gallery, with one lawyer urging the court to lift security in the event of future walk-outs.
Clearly many people in Court, both the accused and victims, will be in a high state of emotional stress, and it seems some of them vented their concern. In addition cases are being delayed as the dispute has been going on for months.
It is interesting in a series of articles in the Nelson Mail on this issue, and backed by my discussions with lawyers, they have a great deal of sympathy for the case of the Court workers. They do a number of very important jobs that allow our judicial system to operate. They are not well paid, with many earning around $30,000 mark. Overall they are paid 7% lower than the public service median for their job type.
My understanding is that the claim with the Ministry of Justice is a modest one. It does include putting in place salary scales, with pay steps so employees can see the potential for some progression on the basis of satisfactory performance. This is a regular feature of collecitve contracts, and does not seem unreasonable.
While the negotiating is not done by Ministers, it is time for the Minister of Courts and the Minister of Justice to show some leadership, and work with the Justice Ministry to resolve this case. A big part of the problem is that the Justice Ministry is bound by the de-facto pay freeze being imposed by the government. But this sutations is now getting serious. Too many cases are now been held up, and it is clear that tensions are rising.
Petition to Protest Youth Justice Closure
Posted by Sue Moroney on February 16th, 2010There have been a number of posts from Jacinda on the stupidity of the Government closing down the Te Hurihanga youth justice facility in Hamilton.
Essentially, the facility has been working with some of our young men who are the worst offenders and are on the pathway to a life of serious crime. It has had extrodinary success rates in the three years of the programme’s pilot, with none of the graduates offending in the first 10 months since they completed the programme.
If you agree with us that this is a shortsighted decision, then you can fill out the petition launched by a local Hamilton woman, aimed at reversing the funding cut.
The petitioner came to my office in Hamilton to seek advice on how to go about doing a petition. When I asked her what her motivation was she said “I just think everyone deserves a second chance.”
She has had no involvement with the programme, but is a fair-minded Hamiltonian who thinks the decision stinks. I’m with her on that!
National: No New Ideas
Posted by Iain Lees-Galloway on February 15th, 2010Simon Power is the MP for Rangitikei, the electorate that completely surrounds mine in Palmerston North. I see quite a bit of him and get on with him quite well. Generally speaking I think he’s one of the more sensible Nats and definitely one of the most competent.
But Simon’s response to the Misuse of Drugs Act review is wrong. To dismiss such a comprehensive piece of work out of hand not only shows disdain for the Law Commission but for the people of New Zealand.
It’s an issues paper, which means it is open for discussion and consultation. But Simon has shut down the discussion and basically told us there is no point in engaging in the consultation. All because John Key decided he would make a ‘war on P’ central to his popularity strategy.
Of course the National Party is a conservative party so it’s not great surprise. But should being conservative be an excuse to ignore any new ideas?
It seems new, good ideas don’t get much air time at cabinet. Look at what the first year of National-led government has brought us: Laissez-faire economics, tax-cuts for the rich, cuts to the public sector, National Standards in primary schools. All old ideas. All bad ideas.
I hope the bigger thinkers in cabinet can start having a bit more say. C’mon Simon, you’re better than this.
Good on you Bob Jones
Posted by Trevor Mallard on February 15th, 2010It is a pity that an individual like Bob Jones has to move to sort people like Mark Bryers out.
The Blue Chip fiasco is disgraceful and I want to thank Sir Robert for taking action that will slow Bryers down in the future.
Misuse of Drugs Act issues paper published
Posted by Iain Lees-Galloway on February 11th, 2010The Law Commission has just released its issues paper on the Misuse of Drugs Act (MoDA), titled Controlling and Regulating Drugs.
This paper (all 400 pages of it) is the result of two years’ work after the Labour Government invited the Law Commission to start work on a review of the MoDA.
Still need to read through it. Some key areas of interest and no doubt debate include:
- No change to the law regarding the large-scale profiting from dealing in drugs.
- A new framework for dealing with new psycho-active substances – essentially prohibition until appropriately analysed and regulated.
- Potential for changes in the way possession is dealt with – especially looking at greater use of diversion and treatment rather than conviction.
- Potential for differential response to ‘social supply’ and dealing for profit.
- Greater resources for treatment.
- ‘Civil Detention’ – ie compulsory treatment where it is believed this is appropriate and only as last resort.
Worth having a good read of this to take it all in.
Lianne Dalziel and I are as keen to hear your thoughts as the Law Commission is.
Consultation closes 30 April 2010.
One Tribe Y’all
Posted by Clare Curran on February 7th, 2010Following on from Trevor’s Minuit post yesterday, with that fab song that stirred the heartstrings about You and me; we are New Zealand, I spent Waitangi Day at Onuku Marae just outside Akaroa. Incredibly beautiful place and I live just up down the road from Otakou Marae on the Otago Peninsula, which is equally beautiful, but different.
The Governor General, Anand Satyanand, gave his first Waitangi Day address in a location other than Government House Auckland or Wellington.
He attended the Ngai Tahu Treaty Festival at the Onuku Marae, where in 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed in the South Island and also the place where in 1998 the Crown gave its apology for breaches of the Treaty in its dealings with Ng?i Tahu.
He delivered a powerful address. Something he said, really stood out for me.
Twenty years ago, the late Emeritus Professor John Roberts, spoke on Radio New Zealand about the sequicentenary of the signing of the Treaty. This was five years after the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal had been extended to examine historical claims, and a few years before the first historical settlements. There was then some uncertainty from both M?ori and P?keh? as to the outcome of the process.
John Roberts foresaw that the process of bringing order to history’s “tangled web” would inevitably be slow and marred by misunderstanding. However, he believed that the Tribunal would one day be seen as a “proud possession of the whole nation.” More importantly, he also saw beyond the grievances of the past to a shared future. He said:
“Years ago, at a conference on race relations in New Zealand, someone proposed … that P?keh? and M?ori would eventually merge into a new and distinct people. Perhaps in the long run they may, and we shall gain something. But in the meantime we must deal with the reality of difference. My hope is not only that we may move closer and understand each other more fully but, far more than that, we may enjoy each other.”
A new and distinct people. Something to truly aspire to though, if at all, a long way off. We need to “get” each other, and as a nation not sure we are up for it yet. The John Key approach to flags and being relaxed about our relationships are not enough. So the reality of difference is what we must get right for now.
I know it’s not Kiwi, but all summer, courtesy of my two nine-year-olds, I’ve been listening to the Black-Eyed Peas. I became a fan of Will I am during Obama’s campaign when he spear-headed the Yes we Can song.
Their One Tribe song below is how I would like to see our future. Acknowledging our differences, but celebrating what binds us.
And ok, I have a bit of hippie in me.
