The Herald reports:

A young man has been granted permanent name suppression after admitting he assaulted two people at a drunken Labour Party youth summer camp.

And in what may be a precedent setting decision, the Court of Appeal said it did so to protect him from a social media “mob” intent on “cancel culture” and internet vigilantism.

The 22-year-old has not been identified since the criminal case was sparked when sexual allegations emerged from the Labour event near Waihi in February 2018.

Midway through a trial last year in the Auckland District Court, however, a plea deal was reached with prosecutors after a jury was asked to consider five charges of indecent assault, relating to two men and two women.

The man ultimately pleaded guilty to two amended charges of assault for the allegations against the two men, and the charges against the two women were withdrawn and dismissed.

He was discharged without conviction but declined permanent name suppression in the District Court, leading to a series of appeals.

Today, the Court of Appeal released its decision granting the man permanent suppression and overturning an earlier High Court decision.

In their judgment, Justice Murray Gilbert, Justice Rebecca Ellis and Justice Sarah Katz took aim at social media and the harm “likely to be inflicted” on the man by its users.

I think this is the wrong decision. If you plead guilty, you should be named.

The fact this was such a politically charged case means there were all sorts of speculation about the young man being connected or related to various Labour Ministers. If he had been named, then it would have shown the speculation was incorrect.

After the sentencing, one of the victims spoke to Newstalk ZB and said the case had became a “political football”.

Both victims and the Crown were against suppression for the man.

The victims are the, well, victims – not the person who assaulted them.

National has released a nice little policy for supporting families for the first 1,000 days of a child’s life. The parts are:

1. A $3,000 entitlement to commission services to support their child’s first 1,000 days of development (up to $6,000 for high need babies)
2. Enhanced screening pre and post birth
3. An entitlement to three days stay in hospital after birth
4. An electronic child’s health passport
5. Paid parental leave flexibility so both parents can take it at the same time
6. Establish a National Centre for Child Development

The type of services parents can spend their $3,000 on include:

• Specialist support including lactation consultants, sleep specialists and pelvic health practitioners
• Additional paid parental leave
• More ECE hours for older siblings
• Home-based visits from health professionals
• Registration with Lead Maternity Carers

National explains:

This new funding, allocated per child rather than directly to service providers, will mean that parental demand will determine which
services receive how much of the additional money. We believe this is a better way to allocate funds than it simply being up to Ministers to choose their preferred options.

The flexibility of having the funding follow the parents is great.

Newshub reports:

A leaked video of last week’s Green Party crisis call shows James Shaw claimed the controversial Green School funding was given “verbal sign-off” by Minister of Education Chris Hipkins.

The comments contradict Hipkins who’s repeatedly stated he did not back the proposal. …

In the video clip, Shaw tells members that Hipkins “wasn’t intimately involved in the decision” but gave it tacit approval in a conversation.

“He did, sort of, give at least a verbal sign-off to the project,” Shaw said.

“He did say that – assuming everything else being equal – as long as the funding partner is the [Taranaki District] Council, which it is, that he was okay with it.”

Labour could have said no. Theyt didn’t.

Thomas Coughlan at Stuff reports:

The Labour Party’s Hutt South wing has been running an apparently unusual subletting “arrangement” in which it gets cheap rent on office space off a local union, sublets the rooms to its local list MP Ginny Andersen, and then bills parliament at a markup, pocketing the difference.

I’ve never heard before of a party renting office space to Parliamentary Service when it doesn’t own the space itself. This looks like an arrangement designed to allow it to profit from the taxpayer.

Rent for MPs’ offices are paid in bulk by Parliamentary Service. Accounts seen by Stuff for the Labour Party’s Hutt South wing, home to Andersen, show a sublease arrangement where Parliament pays the local Labour Party significantly more in rent than the Labour Party actually pays the original landlord, the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU).

Accounts seen by Stuff appear to show $6000 of public money going into a Labour Party account for “rent” in 2019, but with only a quarter of that money, $1500 a year, actually going to the building’s owner.

So Hutt Labour makes a $4,500 profit from the taxpayer for space they don’t even own.

If the Hutt Labour List MP wants to rent space in that office, then they should rent it direct from the building owner, not rent it via their own party, allowing the party to mark it up 300% on the way.

Parliament’s rules allow such subletting arrangements. For the purpose of Parliament, the Labour Party is just another commercial property company renting office space to an MP.

Except the MP decides who to rent off, creating a conflict and a reverse incentive.

Say most MPs have a $40,000 annual budget for electorate expenses. It is in their interest to pay as little rent as possible for their office space so they can use more of their budget on stuff such as advertising, brochures, direct mail etc. So if an MP wants to hire an office in a building owned by ABC Corp, they want the rent to be as low as possible.

But if the building is owned by their own political party, then they want the rent to be as high as possible. Because the higher the rent, the more money their party gains from it, and the more money they have to spend on direct voter advocacy (which a party funds) rather than parliamentary information (which PS funds).

When initially approached for comment, Andersen disputed the figures and declined to comment further.

“Those figures are not correct,” she said.

But a member of Andersen’s electorate committee, Graeme Sharman, told Stuff that the figures were themselves correct, but were “not telling the full story,” although he wouldn’t say what the full story was.

A day later, Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the rules.”

So does Andersen still maintain the figures are wrong?

And PS may sign off on such an arrangement, but the MP is the person who tells PS they want to rent in that building.

Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent represented “a very good deal”.

That isn’t the issue. The issue is Labour making a 300% markup on the office which they don’t even own.

Stuff has seen draft financial statements for the Labour Electorate Committee (LEC)’s 2020 AGM, covering the 2019 calendar year. They record backdated rent payments to the NZPFU of $3000, although they don’t say what years that backdated rent is for.

This suggests someone in Hutt Labour is leaking to the media.

“If the local branch of the Labour Party who lease the space to the member have managed to lease the property for even less, then it is reasonable to assume the lessor is making a donation-in-kind to the Labour Party,” a spokesperson for Parliamentary Service said.

Andersen however denied that the rent was a donation, saying that the agreement with the NZPFU going back decades was “commercial”.

Of course it is a donation (in kind). This raises real issues which the Electoral Commission may take an interest in.

If the value of the entire office space (for both Labour and the sublet to Parliament Service) is say $18,000 a year and they are charging only $1,500 a year for it, then that is a donation in kind of $16,500 a year which must be disclosed.

”The ongoing provision of office space to Labour formed part of a commercial agreement when Labour sold the building to the Firefighters Unions in the early 1990s.

“That provision was reflected in the building’s sale price. As such that commercial arrangement doesn’t constitute a donation,” Andersen said.

I doubt that interpretation. Unless the sale deed specifies how much the ongoing rental will be, then the difference between what is paid and what it is worth is a donation. You can’t avoid electoral donation disclosure laws on the basis of a sale that took place 25 years ago.

Facebook in Australia has announced:

Australia is drafting a new regulation that misunderstands the dynamics of the internet and will do damage to the very news organisations the government is trying to protect. When crafting this new legislation, the commission overseeing the process ignored important facts, most critically the relationship between the news media and social media and which one benefits most from the other.

Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram. This is not our first choice – it is our last. But it is the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long-term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector.

This is entirely predictable and logical. Passing a special law to tax Facebook for the actions of their users in sharing news stories is unprincipled.

If Australian media really claim that Facebook is stealing revenue from them (as opposed to bringing them viewers) then they should be delighted by Facebook blocking their stories being shared.

I suspect though they won’t be. What they want isn’t their stories being shared, but to steal some of Facebook’s advertising revenue as advertisers prefer to advertise on Facebook.

The ACCC presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true. News represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us. Still, we recognize that news provides a vitally important role in society and democracy, which is why we offer free tools and training to help media companies reach an audience many times larger than they have previously.  

News organisations in Australia and elsewhere choose to post news on Facebook for this precise reason, and they encourage readers to share news across social platforms to increase readership of their stories. This in turn allows them to sell more subscriptions and advertising. Over the first five months of 2020 we sent 2.3 billion clicks from Facebook’s News Feed back to Australian news websites at no charge – additional traffic worth an estimated $200 million AUD to Australian publishers. 

Australian media will notice the revenue drop far more than Facebook which will not.

Stuff reports:

A Christchurch lecturer – who served time in prison for selling heroin before becoming one of the country’s top criminologists – has retired.

Greg Newbold has stood down from his teaching role at the University of Canterbury (UC) after a 30-year career in academia.

Newbold received a seven-and-a-half year sentence for drug dealing in 1975. He completed a master’s degree from the University of Auckland during his imprisonment.

UC criminal justice director and senior lecturer Jarrod Gilbert said Newbold got much of his education in prison so “brought lived-experience to teaching criminology”.

“He did a reasonably significant prison sentence. He was at university when he was arrested, so he was always intellectually inclined.”

Newbold went on to obtain a PhD and was named a professor at UC in 2009, where he taught criminal justice and social history.

“He had this brilliant mix between being very smart but also having that lived experience,” Gilbert said.

Newbold’s first hand experience with prison made him very realistic about what the prison system can and can not achieve. He was an excellent contributor to the area of criminology.

Bernard Hickey writes at Newsroom:

Just like KiwiBuild, Auckland Light Rail, the Capital Gains Tax and effective climate change policies, this Government got bogged down in a welter of working groups, coalition disputes, bureaucratic infighting and stonewalling, and an inability at the top level of Cabinet to direct the organs of Government to carry out its will. Weak and overwhelmed ministers accepted ‘Yes Minister’ for an answer and were not able to stop the initial energy and direction from dribbling away into the sands of endless consultation, trials and ways for officials to avoid taking risks or challenging the status quo.

Just like many New Zealanders, the Government was complacent in those 102 days between cases of community transmission through May, June, July and early August. Now that is coming home to roost. We saw it when it emerged the Ministry of Health did not follow through on Cabinet’s order in June to test everyone working at the border and in Managed Isolation and Quarantine facilities. Now we’ve seen it again with the stalling of CovidCard.

It’s rare to see anyone inside the machinery of Government call out hand waving and dissembling by those within ministries and by ministers. The number one rule in Government is to preserve the political optics of ‘something is being done’ and to ensure there are no surprises or embarrassments for ministers. This has created a risk-averse culture of arse-covering and plausible deniability whenever accountability is demanded. 

Sam Morgan and the supporters of CovidCard in the private sector play by different rules and were not prepared to simply accept the status quo. We saw that on Tuesday when he and fellow tech entrepreneur Ian Taylor called out the Ministry of Health’s lack of commitment or ability to deliver CovidCard.

“We’ve effectively all stood down over the last couple of weeks. It became clear to us that it was going to fail and it wasn’t going anywhere,” Morgan said.

“It just became buried in the dysfunction of hopeless project managers,” he said.

“There’s just no execution capability in the ministry to do this.”

Ministers did not have the technical background to recognise this or rectify it, Morgan said. The Ministry was not committed to delivering the bluetooth card, and was instead pursuing the Google/Apple model for using bluetooth on smart phones as the way to track and trace contacts of people infected with Covid-19, he said. 

A very good summary.

“Minister Faafoi said the other day: ‘it’s a number of things we’re looking at. I don’t imagine I’ll put anything in front of Cabinet before the end of the year’,” Taylor said.

Such a sense of urgency.

The Ministry had instead committed to the Apple/Google initiative to use bluetooth in phone apps, but it had massive false positive and false negative rates, and was also not available to the 10 percent of the population who don’t have smart phones, let alone the large percentage unable to download or use apps.

This is why a card is a much better option. You just need everyone to have it in their wallet or purse. No phone needed. No download. No app install. No setup. You just keep it on you and forget about it unless you get Covid-19 or end up in close contact with someone who has it.

Stuff reports:

A judge who enabled someone he had a connection with to attend a funeral was “inappropriate,” but did not meet the grounds for dismissal, the Attorney-General says.

A complaint about the judge was revealed in Judicial Conduct Commissioner Alan Ritchie’s annual report for the year to July 31, 2020.

Ritchie said he received 162 complaints about individual judges, with the number of actual complaints 136, down from 158 in the year to July 2019.

In the report, Ritchie said he believed an inquiry into the conduct outlined in one of the complaints was justified. He added the conduct, which revolved around “usual expectations of judicial impartiality” may have warranted consideration of the removal of the judge and recommended Attorney-General David Parker appoint a judicial conduct panel. …

A spokesman for Parker confirmed to Stuff the complaint was regarding the judge’s involvement in a decision about bail conditions to enable them to attend a funeral.

The judge had a connection with the person, the spokesman said.

“He was satisfied the steps already taken by the Chief District Court Judge were sufficient.”

This is quite concerning.

The reason we have an Independent Judicial Conduct Commissioner is becauise they are independent.

If the IJCC recommends the appointment of a judicial conduct panel, then one should be appointed.

That is not to say the Judge should have been dismissed. That would be for the JCP to recommend.

But for the Attorney-General to basically ignore the Independent Judicial Conduct Commissioner and take no action at all, is not satisfactory.

I suspect Labour is not going to do well in New Plymouth.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal the second round of testing of our border workers is off to a bad start with just 200 of about 10,000 port workers tested so far.

In just one fortnight, there were 80,000 movements through our sea ports – 10,000 workers – and getting them tested has been slow.

Slow is generous.

The Supreme Court has ruled:

On 4 September 2019, Mr Ellis passed away. This raised the issue of whether the appeal should continue despite his death. The Court heard argument on this issue on 14 November 2019 and 25 June 2020. The second hearing addressed the relevance of tikanga to the issue of continuation of the appeal.

The Court has decided that the appeal is to continue despite the death of the appellant.

Reasons for this decision will be provided at the same time as our judgment on the substantive appeal.

I’m delighted the Supreme Court has ruled this way, hopefully allowing Peter Ellis to clear his name.

I think any exception to the “must be living” rule should be relatively narrow. You don’t want appeals occuring 30 years after someone has died. But as he was alive when the appeal started, it seems fair.

I have always thought the Ellis convictions were unsafe, to put it mildly. But since having children of my own, I am even more convinced they were a misscariage of justice.

My oldest is aged three, the age most of the Christchurch Creche kids were. And let me tell you he comes up with absolute nonsense that he insists is real. Kids that age simply do not have reliable memories. His stories are hilarious and endearing but also often fantasy.

A good example was at the ECE Centre the other day. The teacher asked who had done something, and two of the kids replied with the the name of another girl. That girl had in fact left the ECE for school around four weeks earlier!

I am hopeful that the fact the Supreme Court has even allowed the appeal to continue may indicate they see it has some merits. If they thought it was without merit, I doubt they would have ruled it should continue.

University of Otago researchers have put together a very good website on the cannabis referendum. It doesn’t tell you how to vote but presents data from the gold class Dunedin and Christchurch longitudinal studies.

Some of their findings:

• 80% of adults have tried cannabis at least once
• When they were young adults, around 50% had used in the last year
• Cannabis use starts to decline in early 30s
• Around 4% to 10% of population are diagnosed as cannabis dependent
• There is a relationship between cannabis use and other drug use, with it being strong if people start regular cannabis before age 17
• Cannabis use elevates the chance of psychotic symptoms, but the size of the risk relation is small
• A loss of 8 IQ points was found amongst study members who began using cannabis in adolescence and continued until age 38
• Overall the major risk is with those who begin using in adolescence or are dependent
• The illegal status of cannabis does not prevent some people from using
• Arrests and convictions do not lead to a reduction in use

To me this reinforces that a health based approach is the best way to reduce harm from cannabis use.

Stuff reports:

First-term councillor Tamatha Paul is poised to make a run for Wellington’s mayoral chains.

The 23-year-old said she was considering challenging incumbent Andy Foster, who had endured a torrid first term so far and was reportedly already planning for the 2022 election.

Paul told Stuff on Tuesday that a run for the mayoralty was “definitely something that I’m thinking about”.

If Paul runs and wins, she might be the first Mayor to never have paid rates directly!

There have also been several reports Rongotai Labour MP and former deputy mayor Paul Eagle was considering a mayoral run. However, when approached by Stuff on Tuesday, Eagle said he had no current plans to run for mayor.

LOL. That is the most half hearted denial I have seen. Of course he is standing.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal just how hard Green Party co-leader James Shaw advocated for the $11.7 million promised to the privately-owned Green School in Taranaki.

The Green School was one of 150 projects getting a piece of a $3 billion pie – the shovel-ready infrastructure fund – and Shaw was willing to put them all at risk.

Newshub has obtained an email that went to Government ministers and the Treasury from Shaw’s office and it included a stark ultimatum.

“Minister Shaw won’t sign this briefing until the Green School in Taranaki is incorporated.”

The email said Shaw discussed the ultimatum with the Education Minister. 

“Minister Shaw has also discussed this one with Minister Hipkins.

“Sorry to be the spanner-in-the-works, but if we can get the project included, he’ll sign everything this afternoon,” the email said.

This is astonishing. James Shaw was so motivated to get $12 million for the private school that bears the name of his party, he blackmailed the Government by refusing to approve every other proposal, unless they included this one.

I seriously doubt Shaw was the only Green MP who knew of the funding proposal. You don’t blackmail the entire Government for a project unless you know you have your party with you.

It’s even been reported he hosted a meeting in his office with the school owners and Hipkins to try and convince Hipkins. How realistic is it that no other Green MP knew about this?

The Greens didn’t just advocate for this wealthy elite private school with 25 domestic students to get $12 million of taxpayer funding, they demanded it.

Radio NZ report:

The number of beneficiaries rose by 12 per cent in April this year, the highest increase ever in the past 24 years, and nearly double the next biggest increase.

A report, compiled by the Ministry of Social Development, has assessed the impact of Covid-19 on welfare recipients, and compared it with other recent economic downturns.

It found that, if Treasury projections are correct, and the percentage of the working population on benefits reaches 16.2 per cent, it would be the highest number ever – far eclipsing the rate of beneficiaries during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), when it was at 12.4 per cent.

It would see the country return to a rate similar during the economic recessions of the late 80s and early 90s.

The real impact will be seen a month or two after the wage subsidies have ended and notice periods have been gone through.

Barry Soper writes:

We are all running the risk of losing our sense of humour (well maybe not all, but some of us).

To describe posts on Facebook by Judith Collins’ husband David Wong-Tung as ‘aggressive misogyny’, as some have done, is simply ridiculous.

The Nats are making good use of humour on the platform with what they are calling the National Party’s Meme Working Group.

The fiercely private Wong-Tung has been re-posting some of them on his personal Facebook site, like the one where they have tinted the Prime Minister’s face green, making her look like the Marvel comic character The Incredible Hulk, followed by one calling her The Incredible Sulk with a caption saying: “Don’t make me angry. You won’t like me when I’m angry.”

That of course was a play on her telling us she was indeed uncharacteristically angry over a call-out by the Government’s Covid team telling everyone in South and West Auckland to have a Covid test, regardless of whether they had symptoms.

If you had been waiting in your car for several hours waiting for a test you could be forgiven to being angry – particularly when you discovered the message should never have been sent.

Collins handled her husband of more than 40 years’ Facebook posts the way they should have been handled saying she’s never been able to get him to do anything she tells him to do.

She says Wong-Tung gets sick of people having a go at both of them but it’s up to him how he responds. Collins says if anyone has got the secret for how to control a 64-year-old man who used to play a lot of rugby and was a policeman then they should let her know.

He’s no sexist, she protests, he’s married to her!

And before everyone gets carried away, they should reflect on Jacinda Ardern’s partner Clarke Gayford – who hasn’t exactly been a wilting violet when it comes to defending her and indeed himself.

Before she became the Prime Minister, the fishing show host compared a Herald columnist as a bottom feeding fish for her criticism of him for trading on her image.

Ardern rightly laughed at the time saying that she wasn’t about start editing her partner’s social media comments.

We live in an ultra sensitive society where perceived transgressions are far too easily labelled by keyboard warriors as misogynistic, racist and bullying.

Hear hear,

Stuff reports:

National has announced a $4.8 billion plan to fix the nation’s classrooms and create modern learning environments for students.

During a visit to New Plymouth Boys’ High School (NPBHS) on Monday, National leader Judith Collins said $2b of the money would be rolled out under a five-year scheme called Fix New Zealand Schools Alliance, if the party won the election in October.

It would be part of a wider, 10-year programme, worth a total spend of $4.8b, which aimed to fast-track education infrastructure investment and get ahead of student roll growth.

News of any potential investment in schooling infrastructure was welcomed by NPBHS principal Sam Moore.

Smart move by National to presumably move this announcement forward.

And a very nice contrast with Labour and Greens frittering away money on pet causes.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal the Green School which received nearly $12 million in Government funding hosted a ‘sacred ceremony’ run by a school parent who believes COVID-19 is a manufactured natural disaster.

The self-described ‘new age architect’ also planned a $15,000 tour of New Zealand that included planting crystals with the school’s students.

Christof and Alaya Melchizedek were excited to be selling the tour that would stop at the privately-owned Green School in Taranaki for the “main solstice piece” – a two-day activity with the children.

So the $12 million private school is doing a two day solstice piece for their students.

“We’re going to be laying down a crystal bed. Everyone will be bringing crystals from all around the world. We are going to be unifying them and bringing in this 5th dimensional consciousness,” Christof Melchizedek explained in a video.

5th dimensional consciousness is very difficult to achieve. It requires much more money than 4th dimensional consciousness.

1st dimensional consciousness is all one and connected with no past, present or future.

2nd dimensional consciousness is the plant kingdom and lower animal kingdom

3rd dimensional consciousness is normal human eaking consciousness.

4th dimensional consciousness is the astral plane where we dream

5th dimensional consciousness if the realm of higher level thought forms. Angels are from here.

It is very important to taxpayers that we give a wealthy private school $12 million so students can learn about this.

In a long Facebook post on Sunday, Melchizedek described COVID-19 as a “manufactured natural disaster”, a “UN 2030 vision” including “vaccinated nanochip technology” and “looming possibility of vaccination agendas” – all baseless claims circulated by conspiracy theorists.

The post was deleted after questions from Newshub.

Of course it was. Newshub is controlled by the UN and are part of the nanochip empire.

The crystal planting activity appears to have been thwarted by the lockdown, but the couple hosted a fundraising event at the school – a “lion’s gate abundance and manifestation ceremony” including “bio-energy field cleaning” and “DNA activation”.

DNA activation is of course vitally important. Where would be we if we didn’t activate our DNA.

The Government should apologise for the $11.7 million handout to the school that is hosting this mumo jumbo.

Stuff reports:

Former deputy PM Sir Michael Cullen has come out in support of a yes vote on the euthanasia referendum, as he faces a terminal cancer diagnosis.

Cullen said he did not want to lose his dignity as he entered his final stages and wanted the choice to be able to decide when it was right for his life to end. …

He was diagnosed in Feburary with Stage 4 small cell lung cancer and secondary cancer in the liver. While chemotherapy has “knocked back” the cancer, the 75-year-old Cullen said it will return and he will die earlier than he had expected.

Cullen said despite “excellent” palliative care in New Zealand he was concerned about dignity and control in his final days.

“Many of us with terminal illnesses think about what the last weeks or months may be like. Our health services talk us through this. Our good people in the hospice movement provide excellent end-of-life care for many. We are told our pain can be controlled to a tolerable level. This will suit many of us. But for many others, myself included, there is an overriding issue of control and dignity,” Cullen said.

He said he had carefully read the End of Life Choice Act, which the referendum seeks to make active law, and was confident the legislation was sound.

“I have carefully read the End of Life Choice Act. It provides safeguards against pressure coming on the dying person from others. Its scope is limited. It does not force any medical professional against their conscience. It respects the rights of those who find assisted euthanasia morally abhorrent,” Cullen said.

“But it offers to people like me the chance of finishing the life I have enjoyed so much in a way consistent with my moral beliefs and my sense of the dignity of human life.”

“It is not about what some rather too lightly dismiss as ‘being a burden’. I do not want my only choice being to die in a near-comatose state on morphine, which has been administered knowing it will shorten my life anyway.”

“I do not want to lose control of my bodily functions so that my dignity has disappeared with the ebbing of my life. When I reach those last stages, if that is the prospect, I want the choice to be able to decide when the time is right to complete the circle of life.”

On this occasion I am in agreement with Sir Michael.

Many people may not know that the ability to sentence someone to Life WIthout Parole is very new in New Zealand. It has existed for just a decade.

The genesis is that National in 2008 campaigned on bringing in a Life Without Parole sentence for the worst murders. ACT has a similar policy and also a three strikes policy.

On 18 February 2009 the National/ACT Government introduced the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which amended the Sentencing Act 2002. This had a clause which said:

If the court that sentences an offender convicted of murder to imprisonment for life is satisfied that no minimum term of imprisonment would be sufficient to satisfy 1 or more of the purposes stated in subsection (2), the court may order that the offender serve the sentence without parole.

This was separate to the three strikes provisions which got most of the focus, and was in the same bill. The provision is restricted to offenders aged 18 or older.

It passed first reading 64 votes to 58.

The select committee made significant changes to the three strikes provisions, but left the LWOP for the worst murders unchanged. It then passed second reading on 4 May 2010 by 63 votes to 59.

The committee stage was on 18 May 2010 and the third reading on 25 May 2010 by 63 votes to 58.

I’m glad Parliament did pass the bill and brought in the sentence of Life Without Parole, as no lesser sentence would have been appropriate in the case of the Christchurch terrorist.