Peter Dunne’s return

Peter Dunne has answered one question via Twitter by positively signalling his return to Parliament after taking a week’s leave.

@PeterDunneMP
A magnificent rainbow over Wellington at present – I’ll take it as an omen of good things to come.

Toby Manhire@toby_etc
Could be the gay onslaught.

@JudithCollinsMP
Good to have you back Peter

I checked:
Hope you’re talking about a political omen. The outlook there is certainly better than the weather forecast.

As did…

@robhosking
Maybe not on the weather front though…

@PeterDunneMP
Political of course Pete, certainly not meteorological!

@robhosking 
According to Bible rainbow meant God wouldn’t destroy the world by water again. Left Himself some worrying wriggle room there.

This confirms that after a week’s leave from Parliament he is back and at least trying to sound positive and optimistic after what he dscribed as his most difficult time in Parliament.

I hope he uses his time well, there is plenty of opportunity to do very worthwhile things. In some ways not being burdened by ministry workloads and responsibilities mans he has more freedom to do as he wishes.

I’ll be watching with interest.

Update:

And already an interesting snippet:

@felixmarwick
Peter Dunne’s back. Not talking about Kitteridge leak. But says he won’t be supporting @jamileeross ‘s strikes Bill

That will make it difficult to pass the strikes bill.

 

Protection from online harrassment and bullying

Judith Collins has annnounced measures to address cyber bullying and harmful online behaviour. It is something that will be very difficult to address reasonably. It has to be balanced with the practicalities of monitoring and controlling online behaviour, and protecting online freedom of expression.

Time’s up for cyber bullies

Justice Minister Judith Collins has announced a raft of new proposals to hold cyber bullies to account for their bullying and harmful online behaviour.

“I am pleased to have developed a set of measures that aim to stop the growing incidence of cyber bullying and its devastating effects, particularly for young people.

“Many New Zealanders share my serious concerns about this problem as the reach and impact of bullying has increased considerably in the digital age.

“Tormenters are able to harass their targets 24 hours a day, seven days a week, wherever they go, and the trail of abuse lives on in cyberspace, following victims for years.

“These new measures send a clear message to cyber bullies: Time’s up. Your behaviour is not acceptable,” Ms Collins says.

Collins pointed to more detail on ‘objectionable’:

Judith Collins ‏@JudithCollinsMP
For those wondering what ‘objectionable’ means this link provides the answer.


http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/DLM313407.html

Lawyer Steven Price discusses it at his Media Law Journal:

Digital harrassment remedies coming

Justice Minister Judith Collins has (by and large) accepted the Law Commission’s recommendations to better protect victims of cyber-harrassment.

I think these reforms are justified. The Law Commission has made a good case that there’s plenty of cyber-bullying going on, and some of it is very harmful indeed.

He has some concerns and criticisms but the overall the reforms seem to have solid legal profession involvement.

To some extent, the devil will be in the details. The government has left a lot of work to the drafters of the legal framework.

Incidentally, that legal framework will be contained in regulations. That strikes me as a little bit odd. The government is creating a new remedies regime, and conferring extra juridiction upon the courts. The Law Commission was envisaging a statute. The advantage of regulations is that they can be easily changed without full Parliamentary rigmarole and scrutiny. The disadvantage of regulations is that they can be easily changed without full Parliamentary rigmarole and scrutiny. I would hope that at least the essential foundations of this new law will be set out in a statute.

Price’s whole post is worth reading.

Online harrassment and bullying is a significant problem but it will be challenging to allow this to be addressed reasonably without impinging on freedom on online expression.

 

Do Labour fear a Labor debacle here?

It wouldn’t be surprising if there were fears here that we could see a panic leadership debacle like Australian’s Labor Party.

It’s common for fears to to be projected.

IrishBill at The Standard turns a diss On Dame Susan Devoy into trying to talk up leadership friction and factions in the National Party. That’s like trying to light some kindling while his own party pants are on fire.

Wishful thinking about distant future National battles won’t hide the fact that IrishBill’s Labour have real leadership concerns of their own right now, and there is genuine fear in the ranks about next year’s election campaign if Shearer remains.

Irish concerns about race relations appointments and trying to fan National flames that don’t really exist may simple reflect his own fears.

When political activists start lashing out it’s worth having a wee look within.

An attempt to ditch a Labor leader across the ditch in a panic reaction to a pre election poll could be easily echoed here. It has also been openly talked about as possibility.

Should Susan Devoy’s appointment be squashed?

I don’t know if Susan Devoy would make a good race relations commissioner or not, I know too little about her. I’m a bit of a maverick amongst bloggers, I don’t spend thirty seconds on Google and then rip in to a rant on topics or people I know little about.

I give the people who make appointments like this the benefit of the doubt unless there is good reason to criticise. And it can take time to evaluate, especially with appointments that seem to come out of left court.

Stuff give some opinions in Dame Susan: I have to be voice of reason.

Justice Minister Judith Collins, who appointed her, was firm that the right appointment had been made.

“She’s a very fair, honest and decent person, and frankly, she’s got a spine that I admire.”

If accurate that sounds like a good enough starting point.

Mana Party president Annette Sykes called for Dame Susan to be sacked for her “racist viewpoint”.

Passing the Sykes non-racist test would exclude many people, but I suspect Sykes would fail the test of many too.

What race is Devoy?

Dame Susan Devoy admits she is not yet in a position to make statements as the country’s race relations commissioner – she is not even sure whether she is part-Maori.

“It’s a long-held view that we are of Ngati Kahungunu descent. But that has never been proven in any births, deaths and marriages certificate,” she said, describing questions yesterday about her ethnicity as “awkward”.

“My mother’s name was Tui and if you saw her you would instantly think we were Maori … I think you’re as Maori as you feel.”

I had no idea she was possibly part-Maori. And I wonder if that matters.

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples yesterday described the appointment as “fantastic” but his colleague Te Ururoa Flavell questioned whether it was appropriate, given her views on Waitangi Day.

Interesting contrast of opinion there. The Waitangi Day criticism has been prominent.

Yesterday she described Waitangi Day as “extraordinarily important” but “it isn’t New Zealand Day, is it?” she said.

That sounds perceptive to me, Waitangi Day is obviously important to some but many don’t see it as a New Zealand type of day. And ambivalence isn’t along racial lines, Otago Maori chose not to make a big thing of Waitangi Day this year.

There is more to Waitangi and New Zealand than some people wanting an annual soapbox.

“What I would like is to see New Zealand celebrate our national day [in a way] that is a celebration, and perhaps that might be my first role, my first job, sorting it out,” Dame Susan said, before insisting that it wasn’t a public issue and “I certainly won’t be making it one”.

It could be a good thing for her to sort out – perhaps by trying to reconcile a variety of views, but that might be too radical for Sykes.

She had never considered whether she was politically correct enough for the role, but it was “quite possible” she would continue to speak freely.

Being seen as “politically correct enough for the role” would be terrible criteria for the position – political correctness has become a corruption of broad views and understanding.

“But I think in this role I have to be the voice of reason … This is not a platform for me to voice my own views, it’s really to advocate on behalf of.”

That sounds like a reasonable approach to me. She must have said things like that in her job interview.

But I still don’t know enough to decide whether to offer a blogger bouquet or bollocking yet. I sometimes get accused of sitting on the fence, but I prefer to look at it as working out what the fence is made of – and for some reason blogger barbed wire reminds me of pricks and arses.

In any case I’m backing Devoy’s appointment, unless I see good reason it was flawed, and I haven’t seen anything convincing to suggest to me it is.

Bain, Binnie and Fisher discussions

The reports are available on Scoop. There are a number of discussions on the David Bain case looking at the Binnie and Fisher reports.

At The Pundit:

Crowdsourcing the Binnie report (and the Fisher report on the Binnie report …)

by Andrew Geddis

Want to say something about the Binnie Report on David Bain’s innocence? Or Robert Fisher’s review of that report? Or Judith Collins’ handling of the whole matter? Here’s your chance.

Imperator Fish (Scott Yorke):

On Fisher v Binnie

I haven’t read the Binnie or Fisher reports in full, or all the various correspondences or press releases being fired out by the participants in the latest David Bain fiasco.

But from what I have so far read and heard I am left with some misgivings about the attacks by Judith Collins or Robert Fisher QC on the Binnie report. My understanding is that Justice Binnie was asked by Cabinet to prepare a report on whether or not David Bain was innocent of murder on the balance of probabilities, rather than a formal judgment. Some of Fisher’s criticisms arise from a view that Binnie’s reasoning failed to follow a particular deductive process, but Binnie has responded that such an approach is usual in criminal procedure, which the review process is not.

The arguments and counterarguments by Fisher and Binnie are complex and technical, and I’m left none the wiser on which authority is to be believed.

The Standard:

Campbell on Collins

Gordon Campbell on Judith Collins and the Binnie report (go read the full article on Scoop). “This is banana republic stuff from Collins”…

Kiwiblog (David Farrar):

The David Bain reports

This poses a real challenge to the Government. Do they make a decision on the basis of the Binnie report, or do they now commission a new report? I am firmly of the view that  if the Binnie report had not had the issues detailed above, then the Government would follows its recommendations (even if some Ministers have different private views). Not following a recommendation is politically damaging. But unless Dr Fisher is incorrect in his peer review, it is hard to have confidence in the conclusions.

What I will be interested to hear, are opinions from lawyers who have some expertise in this area, who are not connected to the case. Do they think Fisher’s concerns are correct?

There are some good discussions going.

NZ Herald covers it in an editorial:

Editorial: Minister errs in dismissing judge’s Bain compo report 

It seemed apparent from the Justice Minister’s tone yesterday that retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie’s report into David Bain’s compensation claim will do nothing more than gather dust.

Christchurch Press:

Compensation would be ‘travesty’

OPINION: Compensation for David Bain would be a travesty, writes Martin van Beynen.

The ODT reports:

Police reject Binnie’s criticism of Dunedin staff

The ”egregious errors of Dunedin police” led to the wrongful conviction of David Bain, who in the interest of justice deserved compensation, the former judge appointed to review his compensation claim concluded.

Try hard rumour of the day

Not sure why Newstalk ZB reported this: Labour claims ‘below surface’ National leadership talks

West Coast MP Damien O’Connor says front benchers Judith Collins and Steven Joyce are both jostling behind the scenes for a shot at the top job.

He says a leadership change may come before the next election.

“There’s quite a bit in the National Party just below the surface. There are a couple of people lining up there and Collins is one of them of course and Mr Joyce. We’ll see what comes of that over the next year or so.”

That’s so non-specific it’s hilarious.

This is a rumour I’ve seen tried quite often on leftie blogs. Like the GCSB tape, never any evidence, not even any indication of anything happening.

And there’s also an attempt to raise something here too:

Judith Collins sat beside Key. She looked lovely in pink.

Are Labour trying a wee opposition leadership debate campaign?

Public Protection Orders – good intent, bad idea

Judith Collins announced the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill yesterday. It is intended to protect the public from potentially dangerous ex-criminals by keeping them in custody indefinitely at the end of their sentence.

Dangerous ex-prisoners targeted

Highly dangerous ex-prisoners who are being supervised in the community could be recalled to jail indefinitely in a law change due next year.

Authorities could apply to have child sex offenders and violent criminals kept in prison after finishing a finite sentence, or returned to prison if they had been released into the community under a bill introduced to Parliament yesterday.

Justice Minister Judith Collins said the legislation was likely to apply to a “very small number of extremely dangerous” people – between five and 12 offenders over 10 years.

I have serious concerns about this. The intent – to protect the public from ‘evil’ people – seems ok on the surface, but this would set a very bad precedent, and is contrary to basic principles of justice.

What does Labour have to say about this? Charles Chauvel:

“The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill, introduced today, was first promised by Judith Collins and John Key almost exactly one year ago, during the election campaign.

“Labour raised concerns five months ago around the fact the Government had not delivered on its election promise. We offered to discuss with Ms Collins the problems she said the Bill was designed to address, and also – in light of reports of divisions in Cabinet about the shape of the Bill – the intended design of the legislative solution.

“We heard nothing from Judith Collins until the introduction of the legislation in the House today. In the interim, one of the five to 12 offenders it specifically targets – Stewart Murray Wilson – has already been released.

“The delay of 12 months in introducing legislation first foreshadowed during the election campaign, allowing one of the targeted offenders to be released last month…

Chauvel is criticising National for not consulting – fair enough. But he’s complaining that it hasn’t been rushed through faster.

Kiwiblog’s legal contingent have other views commenting on this post:

F E Smith Next on the agenda, a District Police Superintendant will be able to apply to have persons believed to be likely to engage in criminal behaviour held in prison until they convince the High Court that they will not offend…

F E Smith In which case, why has this law been passed? To address cases where the offending wasn’t serious enough to warrant Preventative Detention, but where the prisoner is considered so dangerous as to warrant continued detention? Or is the very high bar to be read to a very low threshold?

GPT1  This actually proposes to lock people up not for criminal acts done but the possibility of criminal activity in the future. What is the next step? Pre-investigation detention just in case someone might be a criminal in the future?

Even if there is no next step this bill seems like it intends well, but would set a very bad precedent for locking people up in case they might commit a crime. There are a lot of criminals who might fit that category.

Judith Collins supporting marriage equality

Twittering suggests Judith Collins has expressed support for marriage equality:

Justice minister backs marriage equality. Awesome. Confusing but awesome.

@jordantcarter memory is that’s she opposed civil unions because it wasn’t marriage. Some ppl will be surprised by some of the yes votes!

(edit: corrected he to she)

@KevinHague @jordantcarter it’s great JC is supportive

10:58 PM – 20 Aug 12

The only news reference I could find seems to confirm this:

Justice minister now pro gay equality, marriage

In a remarkable change in her attitude to equality for glbt people, senior government figure and Minister of Justice Judith Collins has voiced her support for marriage equality, legal adoption by same sex couples and legal recognition of a person’s gender identity which may have changed since their birth.

Speaking briefly to GayNZ.com Daily News yesterday afternoon…Collins said of marriage equality: “I’ve got no problem with it.”

On enabling same-sex couples to legally adopt children she responded: “I’ve got no particular problem with that either.”

And regarding appropriate recognition of minority gender identities: “It doesn’t hurt for us to acknowledge people’s diversity… it actually helps us.”

Asked if she felt glbt people in New Zealand are generally getting, in the words of the Human Rights Commission conference theme, “a fair go for all,” Collins said: “There are some issues that need to be dealt with. Frankly it would be really nice if we could look at people as human beings rather than be always saying ‘you can’t do that because you’re gay’ or whatever.”

Collins versus Little on bullying and hypocrisy

From question time in the house today:

7. Cyberbullying—Law Commission Report

[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:5. Text is subject to correction.](edited)

7. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Justice: What reports has she received on the potential impact of cyberbullying?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) : Cyberbullying has a wide-reaching impact now, increasingly online and in the digital world. Our young people, whose lives are increasingly enmeshed in social media, are particularly at risk of cyberbullying.

In May I asked the Law Commission to fast track its recommendations on harmful digital communication as part of its report on new media. Those recommendations have been released today in the commission’s report on rights, responsibilities, and regulations in the digital age.

Tim Macindoe: What steps will the Minister consider to address the harm being done through cyberbullying?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Law Commission has made a range of recommendations. We will consider all the recommendations. In particular, we will consider creating a new offence targeting offensive, indecent, or obscene digital communication that causes harm.

We will also consider changing existing laws to make sure provisions apply to digital communications, and we will consider making it an offence to incite a person to commit suicide, whether or not the intended victim attempts suicide—

[Interruption - a racket from the opposition benches]

I must say I would have thought the Labour Opposition would take this seriously.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Andrew Little: Will the cyberbullying laws prevent a Minister from trawling through a citizen’s personal details and making them public to score political points?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course, there have not been changes made yet and we are looking at the recommendations. But I would have thought that that member would want to be involved in serious discussion on this, not silly comments like that.

Tim Macindoe: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Tim Macindoe.

Tim Macindoe: Why is cyberbullying such a concern for the Government?

[Interruption - racket]

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Bullying is no longer confined to the classroom or the playground. Bullies are targeting—

[Interruption - racket]

which, I have to say, has been evidenced by the behaviour today from the Opposition—their victims by cellphone, instant messaging devices, and social networking websites.

I have to say that the worst of it is under the guise of anonymity. We must not underestimate the devastating effects of this new form of bullying, particularly on young schoolchildren. It has shown that it increases truancy, failure at school, and emotional problems of many young people such as depression, self-harm, and suicide.

Again, it is absolutely very concerning that the Labour Opposition does not take this situation seriously.

Very poor behaviour from Labour.  And very poor point scoring hypocritical question from Andrew Little.

InTheHouse.co.nz video:  Question 7: Tim Macindoe to the Minister of Justice

Veto Monday-ising Bill English?

There is confusion about whether Bill English said he would veto the Monday-ising bill or not.

In the NZ Herald it says he would:

Government opposes ‘Monday-ising’ holidays bill

The Holidays Amendment bill put forward by Labour Party MP David Clark will be debated in Parliament in its first reading.

One cabinet minister said the idea to “mondayise” public holidays was “appalling”.

Justice Minister Judith Collins said Anzac day was a day of commemoration and remembering the dead.

Prime Minister John Key said he did not know what the party’s position was.

Other Ministers said they would not comment until caucus had made a decision on the issue.

 Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said the Government would veto the legislation.

But Stuff suggests not:

Government to oppose Mondayising holidays

The Government is expected to oppose Mondayising Waitangi and Anzac Day holidays with one Cabinet minister saying it was an appalling suggestion.

Prime Minister John Key said he did not know what the party’s position was.

Ministers Hekia Parata, Steven Joyce and Bill English declined to comment saying caucus would make a decision on the issue.

However, Justice Minister Judith Collins said she did not support Mondayising Anzac and Waitangi Days.

So the Herald says yes, but either they have it wrong or they heard different to Stuff.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers