Stays of prosecution are running at the highest level since Labour was elected in 1999, says National’s Associate Justice spokeswoman, Kate Wilkinson.

“Labour’s justice system is dropping into further crisis, with new figures showing a disturbing number of stays of prosecution in the past year.”

She is releasing figures which show that In 2006/07 there were 18 stays of prosecution, more than half of them caused by systemic reasons. This compares with just seven in 2005/06. And 2007/08 is shaping to be just as bad, with 12 in the first eight months indicating it will be at least the second highest year since 1999.

“These figures are concerning and are mostly a direct result of the rapidly worsening log-jam in the courts.

“The latest figures I have show big increases in the number of criminal trials outstanding and in median trial waiting times:

241 criminal trials outstanding in the High Court, and 1,437 in district courts.
The median trial waiting time in the High Court was 290 days, and 256 in district courts.
The average wait for a trial from committal to scheduled date was 283 days in the district court and 305 days in the High Court.
At September last year there were 18,682 cases on hold because defendants had absconded while on bail or had simply not turned up.
 
“The longer the waiting list for trials, the more people are walking away without trial because they are not being tried on time.

“Labour is failing to ensure justice is being served in a timely manner.

“In the past, the type of cases not being heard because of systemic problems in the court system include people charged with assault with intent to injure, male assaults female, unlawful possession of a firearm, importing drugs, and wounding with intent, and perverting the course of justice.

“This issue goes to the heart of public safety, and Courts Minister Rick Barker must tell the public what he is doing about it.

“After all, it was Phil Goff, a former Justice Minister and the present Corrections Minister, who said in 1995: ‘It is a scandal that we have a system that has so broken down that we have those delays in hearing cases and we have people who, in all probability, would have been found guilty but the charges against them have been dismissed.’

Image: answer to parliamentary question

 

Posted by staff in News at 15:14

After first raising this issue in last year, National MP Kate Wilkinson is again urging the Council to amend the Tram Road Speed limit to 80km at Swannanoa School and Pre-School.

“At the recent Swannanoa Fair I conducted a survey which indicated overwhelming support for a reduction in the speed limit outside Swannanoa School and pre-school. Suggestions from locals ranged from between 40 kmh to 80 kmh along this stretch of road. What was evident was that no one is happy with the current 100 kmh limit.

“With increasing traffic flows along this section of Tram Road, Swannanoa parents share my concerns that this strip is increasingly a potential death trap for our young people. When you have tennis courts, a community hall and domain on one side of a busy road and a primary school and pre-school on the other it is a recipe for disaster.

“In other rural residential areas such as McHughs Road in Mandeville, there is currently an 80 kmh speed limit in place. It seems inconceivable that an open road speed limit in Swannanoa outside a primary school and pre-school should be retained.

Swannanoa must be one of the very few schools in our area that has an open road 100kmh speed limit outside its gates. Some rural schools are on side roads with T intersections, some have had the speed limit reduced. It is time for the speed limit outside Swannanoa School to be reduced to stop cars or trucks hurtling by, to make sure our motorists are aware of the danger to our school children and the vulnerability and unpredictability of our school children. We must keep our school children safe.

“I have written to the Council again outlining the depth of community concern and asking for a progress report on how the Council is addressing this issue. It is simply too dangerous to overlook. The safety of our children is paramount.”

Posted by staff in News at 13:24

The purpose of the bill, as has been stated, is to prohibit the wearing of gang insignia in specified places in the district of the Wanganui District Council. Gang members are already prevented from wearing their gang patches in public places, including court houses, petrol stations, and police stations. That is not so different from what the Wanganui District Council wants to achieve with the bill: banning patches in the city centre and local parks.
Yes, there is a fear of what comes next—the banning of anything that might be vaguely intimidating, such as burkas and hoodies. That is certainly worth considering. But this bill is a start. It is at least starting the debate. The prohibition of gang insignia is a field we should be looking at. It is debatable and National believes we should debate it.

Wanganui residents have expressed fear of patched gang members, including those from the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, and Hell’s Angels gangs, all three of which are prominent in some neighborhoods, shopping centre’s, parks, and central business districts. This fear was expressed clearly in the results of a local referendum in early 2007 whereby 64 percent of voters in Wanganui approved of the intentions of this bill.

Who could forget the fatal shooting of 2-year-old Jhia Te Tua as she slept on a couch in the lounge of her parents’ house in May last year? This poor child got caught up in Wanganui’s gang wars between two of the gangs, and none of it was of her own making. She paid for it with her life. We must make it clear, however, that this bill was initiated before that tragedy and is not a knee-jerk reaction to it.

I also praise the efforts of the New Zealand Police, whose increased presence in Wanganui, policing gang activity in the wake of that incident, substantially reduced crime. Their presence has also made it clear that antisocial criminal activity shown by members who are involved in or with the gangs will not be tolerated. The question that we must ask is what will happen when the spotlight is removed from Wanganui once the trial has been conducted and completed. Will the police be able to police the gangs with the same intensity as has been displayed so far?

There is no doubt that if we want to get tough on crime we need to crack down on gangs. The police are in total agreement. They view this legislation as another tool in the tool box, making it easier for them to do their job. Yes, there are those who portray gangs as a mix of those from the school of hard knocks searching for an identity or for a family substitute, and for where they can find the sense of belonging and connection they are lacking. But it is also arguable that some gangs exist to plan and commit crime. The links of many gang members to crime are plain for us all to see.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the wearing of gang insignia is not the only factor that makes gang members intimidating, nor will the banning of gang insignia in the city centre and parks within Wanganui completely rid the city of gang activity. What it will do, hopefully, is allow the residents of Wanganui to reclaim their streets in order to go about their business without fear or trepidation. This bill is a small step. It may give the police the extra tools they need in order to take direct enforcement action and stop any perceived or real intimidation to public safety.

The bill raises some issues that need to be dealt with during the select committee process. Issues such as enforcement, the tattooing of gang insignia on faces, and freedom of speech have been mentioned, just to name a few. There is a concern that by banning gang patches we are simply glorifying the patch and what is symbolises. But I hope that the Law and Order Committee will be able to take a serious look at the bill, seriously debate it, seriously examine it, and seriously consider the issues. On that basis, National supports the bill going to select committee scrutiny.

Posted by staff in Speech at 15:20

As the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Trevor Mallard, has just outlined, this Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill has two main parts to it. Firstly, it requires employers to provide facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed, and the second part relates to rest breaks and meal breaks.

In the media releases following the announcement of this bill, which, incidentally, was on Easter Sunday, we note comments such as: “ ‘This is a very uncontroversial matter - in thousands of workplaces across the country employers and employees make sensible agreements in their mutual interests without having written rules’,  ‘Inflexible rules advantaged unions, not employees or workplaces. The Government should do research to see if a problem existed, … [We have] not seen any evidence that required a new law.” I was also interested to read the press release from the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, which stated: “The old Factories and Commercial Premises Act used to provide for breaks during the working day, but that went in 1992 … and there was nothing put in its place. The proposed new law marks another win by union members for every working New Zealander.” I would like to know why, if it is such an issue of fundamental fairness and healthy work practices, as the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union states, it has taken 9 years for such legislation to be introduced into the House. There have been ample opportunities, with all the various amendments to the Employment Relations Act under the watch of this Labour and union - led Government, yet there has not been one mention of meal breaks and breastfeeding facilities. How much effort have unions really made to get meal breaks and breastfeeding facilities enshrined in law, or is this perhaps more opportunistic election-year posturing?
 
The Minister has said categorically that new laws are needed, and “We wouldn’t be doing it if there wasn’t an issue”, and I would have to say that we are very interested in getting some evidence that there is an issue and that new laws are needed. Even the union acknowledges that nearly all unionised workers already have paid breaks and lunch hours written into their agreements. In fact, the explanatory note itself acknowledges that little is known about whether break provisions are included in the individual employment agreements that cover a majority of the workforce. One would have thought that some research would be done before the Government introduced this bill to the House to corroborate any need for the bill in the first place. This bill seems to have been drafted in the anticipation that there may be an issue, but there may not be an issue. Is there a problem, or is this merely a solution looking for a problem? National will be looking forward to seeing some objective research on this matter to ascertain whether there is a problem.
 
National will cautiously support this bill going to a select committee for scrutiny. By and large it codifies what is already happening in most workplaces. We need to be satisfied that there is a problem and that new laws are needed. We also need to be very careful that the bill does not impose additional costs on employers, and another set of processes and procedures to navigate through, that it does not restrict the freedom of employees without giving them appreciable benefits, and that it does not have unintended consequences, such as putting up a barrier to employing women. The bill uses the phrase “reasonable and practicable” -employers must ensure that “so far as reasonable and practicable in the circumstances” appropriate facilities are provided in the workplace for breastfeeding and appropriate breaks, and we will want to examine what that phrase actually and practically means for both the employer and the employee. I would ask what would be considered to be an appropriate breastfeeding break and what reasonable and practicable facilities are—for example, what breastfeeding facilities would be required for a breastfeeding travelling saleswoman? We support efforts to encourage New Zealand women to breastfeed. We appreciate that sensible workplaces should be making all reasonable attempts to attract and retain valuable female employees, but we also want to ensure that we are not creating a culture where breastfeeding mothers feel under pressure to return to work too quickly.

National will be looking at these newly announced provisions very carefully and very cautiously. Employers can work out the issues they address for themselves without having another set of prescriptive and inflexible processes and procedures to navigate through. If there is a problem, then we should be looking for a solution, but if there is a solution, should we be looking for the problem? We need to be prudent as to unintended consequences—as to what burden is being imposed on both employers and employees when perhaps common sense should prevail. We support choice, but we must be mindful that legislation attempting to support choice may, indeed, hinder that choice. National will be expecting the select committee officials and the ministry to show us why this law is needed, what the problem is, and the extent of the problem that this legislation is attempting to address.

Posted by staff in Speech at 17:42

“We are making a difference for everyone.” Labor says. That is what this Labour-led Government claims. Actually, it is making a difference, but for the wrong reasons. This Labour-led Government tells everyone else to obey the law, but that it does not have to. This Labour-led Government passes a law that allows taxpayer money to be used for all but the most blatant election advertising. It passes a law that exempts the same material from the electoral spending caps, and then it spends hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on a pamphlet that is blatant election advertising. There is one rule for Labour and another rule for everyone else. In this country, at least under a National-led Government, no one should be above the law - not even Labour. Yes, this Labour Government is making a difference for everyone.

One would have thought Labour would go out of its way to ensure that in regard to the Electoral Finance Act it operated well above the law. But no, the arrogance of this Labour-led Government is absolutely astounding. This Government has been criticised for cynically manipulating the loopholes of a system it set up in the first place, and that is exactly what it has been doing. Yes, this Labour-led Government is making a difference. It is setting a precedent that says it is OK for it to breach the law, not once, not twice, nor even thrice - it goes on, and on, and on. It is OK for it to breach the law but not for anybody else to do so.

Labour has the dubious distinction of being the first Government to breach its own law, and then it tries to justify that. The Minister said even today that Labour seeks to obey the law. I say that is absolute rubbish. There was an $800,000 pledge card. It was illegal; it broke the law. Labour passed retrospective law to try to fix that up. It rushed through an incompetent law, and now it is the first to break it. Labour seeks to obey the law? Yeah, right! The Minister, in the press today, was quoted as denying that the law was unclear. Actually that makes it worse. If she thinks this law is not as clear as mud, then not only is she misguided but, worse, it suggests that the breach of the law - the inaugural breach of the Electoral Finance Act - was blatant. It was not a mistake at all. It was a deliberate, flagrant, arrogant breach of the law, which can be regarded only with some considerable cynicism, if not, with absolute disbelief. Yes, this Labour Government is making a difference all right. It has taken its own disdain for the law, its own disregard for the law, to levels not often seen before.

Can we really be expected to believe that only one of Labour’s taxpayer-funded booklets We’re Making a Difference for Everyone was handed out - only one; just one? And can members guess what? This unique, collectable pamphlet fell coincidentally into the hands of National. No one else in the country has one. There is only one copy, and National has it.
This is an arrogant disdain for the law. It is a law that this Government wrote. This is an arrogant disregard for the law that this Government wrote. It is an absolute disgrace. It was bad enough that the Electoral Finance Bill was rushed through without any thought being given to the proper democratic process. That was bad enough. Now this Government, this Labour-led Government, has the absolute arrogance to think it is above the law. It is the first to breach that law. This is a law not for Labour but for every other New Zealander to comply with. I say again that no one is above the law, not the Labour-led Government; not the Minister and it is time this Labour-led Government realised that.

Labour members talk about the Government having a good record. They talk about good governance, and they talk about making a difference. But the headlines state: “Criminal justice system in crisis”; “Court delays a national disgrace”. Yes, this Labour-led Government is making a difference - “Court delays a national disgrace”. There are delays of up to 4 years; cases are being delayed for 4 years. That is what is happening in our courts today. We have a bill of rights that says people are entitled to be tried without undue delay, yet some people have to wait 4 years. Two men in their 20s in Christchurch who were accused of assault were given a stay of proceedings 114 weeks after they were charged - a delay of 114 weeks. The average time for a trial committal date is 283 days, and it is 305 days in the High Court. The number of delayed cases is getting worse and worse. That headline is right; the Court delays in New Zealand are a national disgrace.

Posted by staff in Speech at 17:38