I’m a westie too, but this is seriously tacky

UPDATE: Well, at least it matches the coat.

 

I’m W(r)ong about almost everything

ACC Minister Nick Smith was conveniently absent for Parliament today when questions were raised by Green and Labour MPs about the proposed changed to ACC counselling for sexual abuse victims. So Associate Minister Pansy Wong was left to carry the can.

7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: How will the proposed changes to the treatment of sensitive claims meet the legal requirements of the ACC scheme to provide “for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has, as its overriding goals, minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact of injury on the community”?

Hon PANSY WONG (Acting Minister for ACC) : ACC’s proposed changes to the treatment guidelines for mental injury resulting from sexual abuse are based on a comprehensive 5-year programme of clinical research commissioned by the corporation. The Massey University school of psychology undertook this research with a team comprising 23 researchers and an advisory committee of 13 people. A multi-method approach was taken, utilising quantitative and qualitative analysis, literature reviews, questionnaires, and focus groups. The research team included specialists in survivor advocacy, psychology, counselling, education, migrant resettlement, indigenous issues, and the mental health of children and older people.

Well, that’s the only bit she got right. Pity, though, that she didn’t actually read the report from the Massey University School of Psychology.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister release the medical and scientific evidence that the Minister has relied upon to conclude that the current clinical pathway for the treatment of victims of childhood sexual abuse is not satisfactory, and why were the professional bodies of the current treatment providers excluded from meaningful consultation?

Hon PANSY WONG: I am very pleased to table the report by Massey University commissioned by the corporation, Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand. It was somehow totally forgotten and neglected by the previous Labour Government.

The Minister says nothing significant actually. The Massey University report (PDF 1.115 MB))was released in March 2008, and actually suggests increased flexibility because of the different victim responses of child v adult sexual abuse and the different victime responses of single instance of abuse to systematic abuse. It does not recommend restrictive regulation, as the Government is proposing – actually it would imply greater flexibility is required.

Sue Bradford: How does the Minister reconcile the proposal to impose an arbitrary cap on ACC funding for counselling for victims of sexual abuse with the statement by the Prime Minister in a recent speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust that “where New Zealanders do become victims of crime, National will give them the support and respect they deserve.”?

Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, this is a new guideline. It has been proposed because it is not fair or right for victims to have one-size-fits-all treatment, so this proposed treatment takes into account tailored treatment for survivors whether they are women, men, children, adolescents, Māori, Pasifika, or ethnic.

But the proposed guidelines, unlike the former regime that relied on clinical judgment of the treatment provider, are a one-size fits all treatment regime, with a claimant being required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances – a very high test in law – to get extended counselling beyond the guideline norm.

Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister reassure childhood sexual abuse victims that the proposed ACC cuts will not detrimentally impact their quality of life; if so, how?

Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, all those have been taken into account because this Government is committed to improving the life of survivors and—

Hon Members: Rubbish!

Hon PANSY WONG: This is a very serious issue. The Opposition might feel agitated and not want to know the real reasons, but others might. According to this study, victims’ traumatic ordeals should be seen as a complex life experience and not as a disorder or life sentence. That is why the best-practice treatment is being implemented.

But best-practice treatment is not being implemented. This regime sets a limit of maximum 16 sessions of therapy, with “exceptional circumstaces being required to gain greater entitlement, That is not what the Massey University study recomended, other than for one-off instances of adult rape or sexual asault – see p.80 of report linked to above.

Sue Bradford: Why is the Government requiring victims of sexual abuse to see at least three different health professionals, and does the Minister think it is easy for victims to go over their traumatic experiences, over and over again, with strangers?

Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, the clinical research conducted by Massey University is not asking victims to relive their traumatic ordeals. This is tailor-made clinical treatment that takes into account each survivor’s personal circumstances.

The report isn’t, and the Associate Minister is correct in that regard. But she is obfuscating and lying. The Massey University report doesn’t recommend victims of sexual assault have to relate the experience to three different health professionals before cover and entitlements can begin. It is the proposed Government policy that does that.

UPDATE: There has been a partial backdown.

Dr Kevin Morris, said last night that the proposal would be modified in response to feedback before it comes into force on September 14.

“The provider/assessor split – we won’t be taking that because I don’t think that’s going to work,” he said.

“Individuals having to disclose to a number of different people – that has always been a problem in this area. We have no intention of trying to make it any worse than it is. We are quite keen to improve that.”

He said the agency also had no intention of removing a client’s right to choose their own therapist.

How embarrassing for the Associate Minister who denied only a few hours before that the original proposal would require disclosures to additional health professionals!

 

It’s like…

…a really pathetic emissions target, or something, after you’ve already put the already inadequate Emissions Trading Scheme on hold on review.

 

You can’t have it both ways Bill

The regular Parliamentary Register of Percuniary Interests was published in January of this year.

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English’s pecuniary interests were declared in that register as:

Hon Bill ENGLISH (National, Clutha-Southland)
1. Company directorships and controlling interests
Resolution Farms Limited – farming

6. Real property
Family home, Dipton
Farm, Dipton

But earlier this week the first ever MP’s expenses register was published. It revealed, in relation to Bill English and a property in Karori, Wellington, that he was claiming from the Government almost $1000 a week expenses to live in:

A search of the title by the Dominion Post showed the Karori home was bought by Mr English and his wife, Mary, for $800,000 in 2003. However, in March this year the title was transferred to Mrs English alone.

A spokesman for Mr English said the home, now worth an estimated $1.2 million, was always owned by a family trust.
…
They show he claimed $23,763 for Wellington accommodation costs in the first six months of the year for living in the Karori house.
…
A spokesman for Mr English told the newspaper the ownership of the house had remained with a family trust.

The transfer of title in March was caused by “changes in the trustee arrangements for personal and family reasons”.

Okay, so a couple of questions:

Question 1: Why does the home in Karori, which was in the joint title of Bill and Mary English from 2003 until March of this year, not appear in Bill English’s register of pecuniary interests published in January of this year?

Question 2: Is it lawful, and if so, is it ethical, for a Minister to claim almost $1000 a week to live in a house in Wellington that is owned by his wife, who also works as a medical practitioner in Wellington, together with the younger of his kids, who also live and go to school in Wellington.

English is the MP for Clutha Southland. As the Register of Pecuniary Interests reveals, he owns property there, but I understand it is or was either leased or rented out. So where does he stay when he is in his electorate overnight on constituency matters. In a motel or hotel perhaps, with the costs of that being charged back too.

Do I see another Ministerial resignation coming on?

Pity for me personally if it is English, because I have a bet with someone that Nick Smith will be the next to go (and Paula Bennett must already be on shakey ground too).

 

Freedom of Information

You know, being anti-pornography, against the exploitation of children, and being of the view that publishing explicit photos of a person without their explicit informed consent is a form of stealing someone’s right to their own identity, it’s not often I have a chance to defend the availability of child pornography. But here I go, for the first time ever. You can mark it on your calendar if you like.

As you may know if you’ve been reading around, our very own Department of Internal Affairs has been silently chipping away on an internet filtering regime without enabling legislation or public input.

Now, to be fair, the current regime is voluntary, (in that your ISP decides for you if you want to take part) has the support of the three major telcos, (so that you have to join about one in twenty people in finding an ISP owned by a smaller concern if you want a chance to opt out on the ground that you believe in freedom of information) is not used in law enforcement, (except that the DIA logs your IP every time you attempt to access a blocked site) and is only used to filter child pornography. (except that you cannot request a list of filtered sites to verify that they have not made any obvious mistakes, there is no mechanism in place to explain why a given site has been filtered, and there is no guarantee that this regime will not be extended to censoring other objectionable content that falls under the DIA jurisdiction in the future, such as coarse language. Oh, and similar filters “only used for objectionable content” have mysteriously incorporated pages that are critical of government positions in other countries that have similar regimes)

Now, I may be an irredeemable liberal, but I subscribe whole-heartedly to a couple ideas that to me are even dearer than the possibility of momentarily impeding people from accessing images of child molestation, at least until they learn how to use a proxy. (better hope those people who have felt so spurned by adult society as to develop a pathology such as pedophilia aren’t complete shut-ins who learn how to operate a computer really, really effectively… oh crap!) The first is freedom of information, or really, anti-censorship. This may be a video game quote, (hah!) but it has a kernel of truth: “Beware the man who would seek to deny you information, for in his mind he sees himself as your master.”¹ Now, I have to admit, being denied access to child pornography impedes me about as much as living in an environment where the air consists of a small amount of oxygen. But that isn’t my worry, and it brings me to the second point.

I’m often quoted as saying something to the affect of “those who would have peace must first defeat war and its weapons.” Likewise, those who would have democracy must first defeat autocracy and its weapons. One of the chief weapons of autocracy and the forces that geld democracy is the censorship of information- and often with the best of goals. I am incredibly disturbed at the idea of New Zealand having an active censorship capability that cuts off access to information, no matter how it is used. Such an infrastructure can only be seen as a continued justification of the political and social censorship of countries like Iran and China, cutting off the gradual flow of democracy into the rest of the world. And yes, every time a supposedly liberal democracy censors its internet, we lose the legitimacy of our criticisms of these types of regimes. Our advocation of nuclear disarmament is only as effective as it is because New Zealand lived by its principles and paid the political cost for them. We are not paying the political cost of a free democratic society when we censor at all, let alone actively putting a filtering mechanism on the flows of information.

We really can’t have it both ways- if we want democracy, we have to accept a completely open system, and search for information on illegal pornography (and collecting IP addresses is certainly a search) only when we have a legal warrant based on suspicion that a crime is committed. If we want the spread of democracy and the values that we hold dear that are so intimidating to some countries, then we must accept the infiltration of information we find similarly disgusting into our country, until such time as we hold an open and impartial review. And then we must leave open a legitimate and open process of appeal. If we are to stay a democracy in whole, there can be no room for active and centralised censorship, where a central authority can arbitrarily cut off access to information without prior review under an open process with a chance of repeal later. All we are given under this new plan is a link to request a blocked site be re-checked, a link with which there is no guarantee, no feedback, and no official disclosure. That is not merely censorship, it is suppression of information without transparency or review.

If we keep this regime in place, even if the remaining ISPs do not sign up to it, we have still essentially loaded a gun and pointed it at the heart of our democracy, which sits there blindfolded while the DIA promises not to shoot and protests that it cannot remove the blindfold, but only for our protection.

 

Happy birthday g.blog

g.blog turns 1 today.

In the year we have been around, we have had 466 posts, 1465 comments, generated 631 tags, and had 45,115 visits to the site.

Well done to all those who have contributed. But we’re still far from a top rating political blog, and recently it’s been largely me, stevedore, anarkaytie and Ari who’ve been left to do most of the posting. And we’re all people busily engaged elsewhere, so it’s not surprising g.blog has averaged only 1.28 posts a day over its first year.

What we really need is a few more Green members who are prepared to be active post authors. Even if you can only commit to one post a week, that would be great. Just email stephenday19[at]gmail[dot]com to sign up as an author.

And our very first post that we’re celebrating today – well it was a rather boring one about blog design I’m afraid.

 

Build your own referendumb

In the tradition of Build your own billboard (linked site from that post no longer active), you can now build your own referendum.

Here’s my effort:

[EDIT: Original Image © Crown copyright http://bit.ly/electcopy] – this edit added due to stupid and draconian copyright law.

Unfortunately, they don’t seem to have got them going into the gallery yet, as it is still reporting as “Nothing here at the moment.”

Hopefully that will be fixed shortly. [EDIT: It now is fixed.]

BTW, don’t forget to Vote Yes, despite the stupidity of the question. A yes vote is a vote against child abuse.

 

Human Rights Commission backs child discipline law

So much for the scaremongering about “uncertainty” in the current section 59 of the Crimes Act coming from those advocating corporally punishing children. The Human Rights Commission has released a legal opinion condemning the previous law for its uncertainty and backing the current law.

Most significantly, the Commission’s legal opinion states:

Critics of the legislation consider that the law is now so uncertain that many parents don’t know what they can or can’t do and risk prosecution for every slap, no matter how trivial, administered to a child in their care.

Before it was amended, under s.59 parents, or those acting in loco parentis, were justified in using force “by way of correction” towards a child if the force was “reasonable in the circumstances”. The reasonableness of the force was a question of fact. Section 59 now allows parents (or someone acting in that role) to use reasonable force for a variety of purposes including (inter alia) the prevention of harm to the child or others or to perform the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting[7]. It does not, however, permit the use of force for the purpose of correction. There is also an avoidance of doubt provision, which confers discretion on the Police whether or not to prosecute if the offence is considered so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Legal certainty is particularly important in human rights law. Any legal constraints on a right must be sufficiently “accessible, precise and foreseeable” so that individuals are aware of the consequences of their actions. The guiding principle is that individuals must be able to regulate their conduct with a reasonable degree of certainty as to the legal consequences of acting one way rather than another. The earlier original version of s.59 which stipulated that force must be “reasonable under the circumstances” provided any better guidance than the present legislation. The subjectivity that inevitably dictated what parents considered permissible and the different interpretations of what is “reasonable” meant that parents were acquitted of disciplining their children even when they had used belts, hose pipes and pieces of wood to do so.

While the only way to import greater certainty would be to abolish s.59 entirely, even this may not be the complete answer since it will always be open to the police to decide whether or not to prosecute at common law. The Commission prefers a provision such as the amended s.59 which favours the child as the more vulnerable party.
…

Children are completely dependent on adults to give effect to their rights. Society has a duty to ensure those rights are respected.

Children have the same right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity as everybody else including the right not to be subject to violence in the guise of corporal punishment.

While parents have responsibilities and duties, as well as the right, to provide appropriate direction and guidance, the wording of s.59 does not remove those rights, responsibilities or duties, but rather shapes how they should be exercised.

Another good reason to Vote Yes.

 

Silly headline of the week

Man found dead in own vomit at backpackers

Ever heard of someone being found dead in someone else’s vomit?

Well, I suppose you could slip over in it and hit your head. But really?

 

Thar he blows!

Just when we seemed to be working towards a political consensus on the foreshore and seabed, out crawls Winston Peters from his self-imposed political exile:

They are arguing about title. Make no mistake about it they are arguing something separatist. And if that’s the way that New Zealand is to go then our future towards the Third World is certain.

How do you construct a different world view when the mass majority of Maori activists I know have less than a quarter Maori in them and when I know so many Europeans who value the beach for, its shellfish, for its contact with nature and for their love of New Zealand being the way it is.

Of course “they” are arguing about title. That is because title to the foreshore and seabed, or at least the right of hapū to go to Court to establish whether they have title to the foreshore and seabed, is what was extinguished by the Foreshore and Seabed Act. This is about property rights – pure and simple.

Peters’ comments are nothing short of nasty old-fashioned colonial racism of the sort that categorised people of mixed race as sambos, mulattos and quadroons.

Even the National Party appears to have moved on from the days when Don Brash espoused that type of bigotry.

So I guess Winston just couldn’t resist the chance to exploit the vile racist underbelly that still exists in New Zealand society.

Let’s hope New Zealand has grown up somewhat over the last few years, and that the vast majority of New Zealanders want to see him rapidly slither back under the rock from which he’s emerged.