9/10 – Chris Bishop (nc), Judith Collins (+2), Chris Penk (+2)
8/10 – Christopher Luxon (nc), Winston Peters (nc), Simeon Brown (-1), Erica Stanford (-1), Mark Mitchell (+1), Todd McClay (+1), Shane Jones (+1), David Seymour (nc)
7/10 – Nicola Willis (-1), Paul Goldsmith (-1), Louise Upston (+1), Simon Watts (nc), Brooke van Velden (nc), Nicole McKee (nc), James Meager, Andrew Hoggard (+1), Karen Chhour (-1)
6/10 – Shane Reti (-1), Tama Potaka (nc), Casey Costello (+1), Scott Simpson, Mark Patterson (+1)
There would have been four articles but the use of taxpayer’s money to pay for teacher registration has already been posted.
An interesting article re moving away from State Schools altogether.
I believe that there are a number of reasons why the Australian system now appears to be moving well ahead of NZ. You can stipulate the others but the fact that nearly 36% of students are in private schools in Australia and less than 4% in New Zealand.
This article – raises many interesting points – e.g.
“Thus, ‘modern education’ has abandoned the school functions of formal instruction in favor of molding the total personality both to enforce equality of learning at the level of the least educable, and to usurp the general educational role of home and other influences as much as possible.”
2. In a small nation like NZ we are far more prone to pendulum swings in “best practice”.
In our current situation I believe that it will be shown up in the directives that every school must deliver “structured literacy” to every child. As I have pointed out to some proponents – just my three children alone would have been lost to the system as they were proficient readers of chapter books at 5yo and had heard books such as The Lord of the Rings read to them from 3yo. Someone asking them to say: rat, cat, fat, twat … would have seen them disappearing into the distance. Plus – the very best programme can only have, at best, marginal gains – if the children that need learning the most are not regularly at school. The government needs to point the hose at the heart of the fire.
“If schools want across-the-board gains in reading achievement, using one reading curriculum to teach every child isn’t the best way. Teachers need the flexibility and autonomy to use various, developmentally appropriate literacy strategies as needed.”
3. I was a huge advocate in the last National government for the potential and effect of Charter Schools.
As I have stated – currently – Ass Minister Seymour has over-promised, underdelivered and attempted to defend the indefensible re Charter Schools.
He has accused me of sour grapes. That is simply impossible given that I have offered to create schools that cost me a lot more than I can otherwise do. Same for a range of other applicants.
Well done on your interview with David Seymour re Charter Schools.
David thinks a few of us are picking on him. We are not. I am a huge supporter of the potential of the policy. What we are asking is:
Why – according to his own statements – is the reality so different from what he promised?
Many applicants were bemused by the first round process. David kept telling media (including yourself) that there was enough funding for 15 schools to be established at the beginning of 2025. Many good people and significant organisations (plus people with suitable properties – worth millions – holding off leasing them) took David and the CSA at their word. The applicants were equally bemused when the first 6 tiny schools (and by definition most of them will stay tiny) were announced. Followed by Tipene in December.
It took an OIA to explain what was really going on. Seymour only has $10m to allocate until June 30 2025 for establishing and running the schools (and $2.5million was used for CSA salaries) – so only small schools could be approved. We have an OIA in to discover when Seymour knew about that funding level – because it is not in keeping with many of his 2024 statements.
Around that there was much secrecy, applicant blaming and incredibly poor and time delayed processes.
In the interview Seymour stated that they were further ahead than last time. Not true by two measures:
– 2014 saw 5 start and 2015 saw 4 more start.
– There were more students. For example – South Auckland Middle School started with 120, quickly went to 180 – and had 100+ on a waiting list. That could actually be regarded as good demand. Middle School West Auckland (started 2015) also got to near 200 quickly. Vanguard was over 100 and Raewyn Tipene’s two schools in Whangarei were also well populated. NB: the schools had an average of 85% Maori and Pasifika.
We also know now that the fund through to the end of 2026 is only $123million but, bizarrely, $30million of that is allocated to the CSA, Authorisation Board and ERO. The salaries for advertised roles have been stunning – an assessment of the schools role was advertised for $263k for what I would generously estimate to be a month’s work.
A few things with the State School conversion situation:
1. It is State, State Integrated and Designated Character Schools that can convert. Some considering it might be former Charter Schools but most of those did the numbers and it did not work.
2. What research was done to support the notion that 35 would want to convert anyway?
3. The CSA, Seymour and AB give different answers when asked if the 15/35 ratio is fixed.
4. I think that your question about Seymour and his lack of appeal to Maori is accurate. For David to say that Maori people put off by him are politicising it and are “maybe not the right people” is poor. He is also barely shifting the dial on our attendance crises – and is probably the wrong person in both roles.
A possible theory on why none of the CS this time around in any way challenge the established network is that Seymour did not want to rile the unions (who have been very quiet) in an attempt to try and minimise the opposition to State school conversions.
For David to say that there is a “whole lot of children benefiting” was laughable. 215 out of 850,999 is … umm … a tiny amount.
Tipene should always have been approved as an Integrated School – either by Labour or by the new government. The CS approval for them was cost-saving as there is little/no property funding and no boarding funding the CS model. They have 45 students. The cost of boarding there is $20,000pa – although the Tipene Board is assisting with some of that – which is an expensive option for families.
In summary. We have a genuine education crises in NZ but we are tinkering like only National/ACT can do.
16 days ago I wrote on Patreon why I was predicting that Tory Whanau will withdraw from the Mayoral race.
I hear from informed sources that Whanau has indeed withdrawn, and that the Herald has an exclusive story on this tomorrow morning, due for release at 5 am. It seems the Green Party have pulled their support from Whanau, which was the final straw.
UPDATE: Whanau may still be on Council though. I hear she is looking to stand in the Māori Ward.
The Government has announced a $53 million boost for teacher registrations and practising certificates fees through to 2028.
Education Minister Erica Stanford said it will also cover any increases the Teaching Council may implement through their current fee review.
From July 1, teachers will save up to $550 when applying for registration or renewing their practising certificate, Stanford said in a statement.
Many teachers are not that highly paid, so the renewal fee was a significant cost to them. I’m comfortable with the Government funding the Teachers’ Council directly, but with that should come stricter fiscal discipline.
China’s embassy in New Zealand has expressed its “strong dissatisfaction” over a visit to Taiwan by a cross-parliamentary group of MPs.
A lengthy statement posted by the embassy accused the MPs of “wrongdoings” and that they “insisted on colluding with ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces” during their trip.
By meeting with Taiwan’s president, China said the visit sent a “gravely wrong signal” which was not in line with China-New Zealand relations.
China viewed the Taiwanese government as separatists and said the meeting was a violation of New Zealand’s commitment to the One China policy.
“The wrongdoings of relevant New Zealand MPs severely violate the solemn political commitments made by New Zealand to China when the two countries established diplomatic ties,” the spokesperson said.
China lodged “stern representations” with New Zealand in both Beijing and Wellington.
According to the Chinese embassy spokesperson, New Zealand responded that the MPs did not hold official positions in government, their trip to Taiwan was “private and individual,” and their “words and deeds do not represent the New Zealand Government.”
Taiwan is a democratic country, and it is good that MPs visit it. The agreement is that Ministers do not visit it as they are the Government, but MPs who are not Ministers are free to do so.
The Canadian election is on Monday (Tuesday NZ time) and the Liberal Party has gone from being 20% behind a few months ago and facing a loss of well over 100 seats to leading in most polls and projected to win re-election.
They may not get a majority, which needs 172 seats. Current projections have them getting 186 seats. 338 Canada projects they have an 89% chance of winning the most seats and a 68% chance of getting a majority.
The chances of a Conservative majority is now under 1% and in December the chances were over 99%! Trump has destroyed the chances of the Canadian Conservative Party with his attacks on Canada.
The seat projections are:
Liberals 186 (+26 from 2021)
Conservatives 124 (+5)
Bloc Quebécois 24 (-8)
NDP 8 (-13)
Greens 1 (-1)
The last few polls have shown the race getting tighter, so the Conservatives may do better than the projections, but the betting markets have the Liberals at between 82% and 88% favourites to win, so it would be a real upset.
TVNZ says it cut a story featuring an anonymous Destiny Church whistleblower from the digital version of a 1News bulletin out of an “abundance of caution”.
Some viewers claim the whistleblower’s face was too visible during the segment and say they were shocked by what they saw. …
Campbell, in the clips that aired on 1News, interviewed a woman who was said to be living in hiding after fleeing abuse from her former partner, a member of the Destiny Church’s anti-violence group, Man Up.
But the face of the victim – who is said to be “under a protection order” and “asked for her face to be hidden” – was too visible during the bulletin, according to some viewers.
That’s a pretty bad way to treat a whistleblower. Surely someone viewed the footage before it went to air?
This road will effectively connect the region to the rest of the country, replacing the unreliable goat track we are all too familiar with. …
For too long, Northland has been ignored by the decision-makers in Wellington and has languished as one of our most economically deprived regions.
People and businesses have suffered because of bureaucratic inaction and inefficiencies.
Those who live in the winterless north, often working in small operations and seasonal tourism ventures, can now see a future where their livelihoods aren’t determined by weather and how long authorities take to clear the roads.
Labour had derided the building of the northern expressway as a “holiday highway”, claiming it was only going to serve the wealthy bach owners of Ōmaha, Matakana and Mangawhai.
I have no doubt this will make a huge difference to Northland.
The difference between single laned and double laned roads is massive. In the former you travel at the speed of the slowest vehicle. In the latter you travel at around the speed limit (and have double the capacity).
Just look at how the combination of Transmission Gully, Kapiti Expressway and Otaki Expressway has transformed getting into and out of Wellington. Last week I got to Whanagnui in just two hours and 15 minutes. Used to be close to three hours.
You used to have around six to eight traffic jams of several minutes to half an hour or more to get to Levin. The change has been amazing – not just less time, but so much less stressful.
What Labour called the Holiday Highway will be a huge boon to Northland.
Climate change is no longer a top threat for the defence force in its latest spending plan. …
It marks a departure from the 2019 Defence Capability Plan, which identified climate change as a key driver of security events affecting New Zealand, mentioning it 13 times and dedicating a chapter to outlining how climate change would stretch the defence force.
Both the Defence Assessment 2021 and Defence Policy and Strategy Statement 2023 identified compounding impacts from climate change as one of the two top threats to New Zealand’s defence interests in the medium-to-long term.
If the Defence Force today listed climate change as one of the top two threats to NZ’s defence interests, I’d want the leadership put into a lunatic asylum.
Climate change is a serious environmental and economic issue. It might have an impact on defence and security in 50+ years time, but to have an article demanding to know why it is no longer in the top two shows how slanted the worldview is.
Currently the world is facing:
A land war in Europe
The collapse of NATO
A trade war which could lead to China moving faster on Taiwan
Iran closer to nuclear weapons
China doing live firing exercises in the Tasman Sea
The Israel-Hamas war
The collapse of trust in institutions
If you really think climate change is one of the top two security issues, then you most be living on Mars.
The “standard” sentence for murder in New Zealand is life imprisonment with a minimum non parole period (NPP) of ten years. This can be increased at the sentencing Judge’s discretion. For murder with aggravating circumstances, the sentence is life, with a minimum NPP of 17 years. Such sentences are rare. The third option is life without parole (LWOP) which thus far has only been imposed once, on the terrorist Brenton Tarrant.
New Zealand is a common law country, which simply means that our law is derived from the law of England. Other such countries include the US, Canada, Australia, India, the West Indies – and Tonga, where I now live. There are of course considerable differences in the laws of the countries I mention – the most notable of course being the USA, the states of which have some offences which are nonsensical to an English or New Zealand trained lawyer. For example I haven’t the foggiest idea what “voluntary manslaughter in the second degree” might mean.
The laws of Australia and the UK are much more similar to New Zealand law. In all three cases, the sentence for murder is life – whatever that might mean in a particular jurisdiction – with a minimum NPP.( Interestingly there are no NPP’s in Tonga – in the Kingdom, life means life). All three countries – the UK, Australia and New Zealand – also now have LWOP as a possible sentence. (LWOP is referred to as a “whole of life Order” in the UK which means exactly the same thing).
The use of LWOP varies greatly between the UK, Australia and New Zealand. There are currently 77 “whole of life” prisoners in the UK. My research suggests that a person in the UK who kills two or more people, or someone who kills, is released on parole and then kills again, is almost certain to be sentenced to LWOP (much easier to write than “whole of life Order”). One significant difference between the UK and New Zealand is that it is possible to receive LWOP in the UK for an offence other than murder – in particular rape. This is not possible in New Zealand because the maximum penalty for rape is 20 years as set out in the Crimes Act 1961. UK judges seen to have a much wider degree of discretion than here. There appears to be no Sentencing Act in the UK, although I stand to be corrected.
I have been unable to ascertain the number of prisoners serving LWOP in Australia – I would be most grateful if someone with better research skills than I possess could tell us how many there are. Suffice it to say that there are a number – I would guess perhaps a dozen, but perhaps more or fewer. What is very clear is that minimum NPP’s in Australia are generally much longer than here, with thirty years being not uncommon. As in the UK, a double or repeat murder in Australia will inevitably attract a life sentence – if not of LWOP then with a minimum NPP of in excess of 25 and up to 30 years or more.
Here in New Zealand, other than Tarrant, the longest NPP remains the 30 year sentence – reduced from 33 years on appeal – imposed on William Bell for the murder of three people at the Panmure RSA in 2001. Bell committed his crime while on parole from a sentence for a particularly nasty aggravated robbery, during which Bell made it clear he wished to kill the service station attendant he attacked in the course of the robbery. Had Bell committed his crimes in the UK or Australia, I have no doubt he would have got LWOP. Instead he will become eligible for parole in 2031 – although it is fair to say he is unlikely to released. Well, that is unless the Green Party is then in charge of appointments to the Parole Board.
The next longest NPP I am aware of is 28 years imposed on Paul Tainui – formerly known as Paul Wilson – for the murder of Nicola Tuxford, a woman who was trying to help him but with whom he had become obsessed. Prior to the murder of Ms Tuxford, Tainui had killed his girlfriend in 1994, served 13 years of a life sentence, and been released on parole. In 2018 Tainui broke into Ms Tuxford’s house, lay in wait for her for eight hours, and upon her return, he raped and murdered her. At his trial in 2019, the Crown sought a sentence of LWOP, or if not that, then a minimum NPP of 30-32 years. The judge refused, and sentenced Tainui to life with a minimum NPP of 28 years.
The third relatively recent such case I am aware of is that of Pauesi Brown, who killed “good Samaritan” Austin Hemmings, who came to aid of a woman Brown was attacking on an Auckland street in 2010. Brown had killed his ex-girlfriend in Australia. He repeatedly stabbed his estranged girlfriend in the neck and chest while they were living in Melbourne in 1992. He was charged with murder, but the charge was reduced to manslaughter, and he was convicted in December 1993. He spent eight years in jail for that killing. Brown has a lengthy record of violent offences both in Australia and here.
In what I regard as an outrageous sentence, Brown was sentenced to life with a minimum NPP of a mere 16 years – one year less than the prescribed sentence for murder with aggravating features. Again, had Brown killed for a second time in Australia, if not LWOP, he would have been given a minimum NPP of at least 30 years – double what he received in New Zealand – if not more.
In my view – which I am sure is a view shared by most New Zealanders – sentences for murder in New Zealand are ridiculously light, and as I have shown, far more lenient than in either Australia or the UK, two countries with which we compare ourselves. Prior to Tarrant, the Crown had applied for LWOP in at least four cases that I am aware of, all for either second killings, or the killing of children. In all four cases, the NPP’s were considerably less than the 30 years William Bell is serving.
Murder – particularly the murder of children – is rightly the most serious crime on our statute books. While it is fair to say the circumstances vary widely – from the “mercy killing” of a terminally ill spouse by the other spouse to the crimes committed by Bell and Tainui – I believe our sentences for the worse murders, such as those discussed in this piece are woefully insufficient, and do not come close to satisfying either the gravity of defying a person of life, or the public’s wish for the worst killers to pay commensurately for their crimes.
So how to change that? Given the nature and attitude of our judiciary, statutory direction is essential. The Sentencing Act could be amended to provide for a mandatory sentence of LWOP for any person who either kills two or more people, or is guilty of two killings separated by a prison sentence. We have already seen the folly of including a “manifestly unjust” get out of jail card. If that was part of any amendment I am as sure as I can be that the judges would avoid imposing LWOP.
I believe such an alteration to our law for murder would enjoy widespread support – even among Green voters. When Curia polled on the original three strikes law some years ago, to my considerable surprise it enjoyed the support of something like 45% of Green voters. The Green party by contrast would almost certainly vote against it.
New revelations this week show Te Pāti Māori still hasn’t produced an auditor’s report for its 2023 financial statements of political donations. The party told the Electoral Commission that a “delay with the auditing firm continued to be a problem” in explaining why its 2023 accounts remain unaudited. This was reported yesterday by BusinessDesk’s Denise McNabb – see: Still no sign of Te Pāti Māori audit report (paywalled)
This excuse comes despite Te Pāti Māori having already paid the audit firm for the work, and it highlights a troubling pattern: the party has repeatedly failed to comply with basic electoral finance laws. Te Pāti Māori’s ongoing issues with late and incomplete financial disclosures – from annual accounts to donation returns – raise serious questions about its commitment to legal obligations and political integrity. The general public should be concerned that a party which aspires to represent Aotearoa’s indigenous voice is also gaining a reputation for flouting the rules meant to ensure transparency and trust in our democracy.
Why would they bother to comply with the law, when the Police give them a free pass? The way you get compliance is to haul the party secretary into court. Instead the Police have closed the file, despite TPM now being almost 10 months later (and after three weeks it is meant to be escalated to a more serious offence).
I regret to inform you that cultural reports are back, wearing a wig and a false mustache.
In March 2024, Parliament passed the Legal Services Amendment Bill, which abolished public legal aid funding for section 27 reports, also known as “cultural reports”. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith stated:
“This will put an end to what has become a cottage industry costing the taxpayers millions with no benefits to the real victims of crime… legal aid funding for section 27 reports has increased from approximately $40,000 in 2017, to more than $7 million in the last financial year. It’s also resulted in further discounts at sentencing, something the Government is widely concerned about.”
As a defence lawyer, I am very familiar with cultural reports and it would often be my duty to arrange such reports for my clients. Critics cited three main problems with cultural reports:
– Cultural reports were very lucrative, with most cultural report writers charging $3000 or more per report, despite often not having any formal qualifications. For a 1-2 hour interview followed by a couple of hours writing the report, a seasoned cultural report factory could generate nearly $1000 per hour. By contrast, a qualified lawyer preparing written submissions for sentencing would receive a fixed fee of $450-$600 + GST for most legal aid cases.
– Cultural reports were explicitly aimed at securing lower sentences, giving the more soft-hearted Judges an excuse to give enormous sentencing discounts and allow home detention for even very serious offending. Report writers would boast on their websites about the discounts their reports had achieved. For example, one cultural report writer displays a testimonial on her website:
– “Your cultural report was a revelation. The Crown wanted 8 years. He got 6.5 years [less all the discounts above]. In the end he got 2y7m and will be eligible for parole very soon. I can’t wait to send you the sentencing notes. He got a really big discount.“
– Cultural report writers would not verify the offender’s claims, meaning offenders could sometimes exaggerate their backstory to secure greater discounts at sentencing.
The rebrand
When the “cottage industry” was shut down in March 2024, many cultural report writers gathered up their riches, packed away their templates, and moved on to new careers. But some of the more enterprising cultural report writers decided not to give up in the face of mere legislation. A plan was born to rebrand cultural reports under a new name, to allow the gravy train to keep on rolling. Goodbye publicly-funded Cultural Reports, hello publicly-funded “Alcohol and Drug Reports”.
Alcohol and Drug Reports have been ordered occasionally for many years, often by the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODTC). Some defence lawyers would also request legal aid funding for such reports, even before the new law. But an OIA request has revealed that since legal aid funding for cultural reports was abolished in March 2024, annual legal aid funding for “alcohol and drug reports” has increased by 254%.
In the two years prior to the change in March 2024, $957,662 was approved for “alcohol and drug reports”.
In slightly less than one year after the change, $1,623,766 was approved for “alcohol and drug reports”.
The cultural report gold rush is over, and the “Alcohol and Drug Report” gold rush has begun.
The report writers
Could the 254% increase in the 11 months since the cultural report taps were turned off be a coincidence? Let’s look at who is providing the reports.
The OIA response from the Legal Services Commissioner did not provide the requested breakdown of which companies had been paid to prepare the “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. This was because “the information does not exist, as the Ministry does not record this information.” This is concerning for three reasons:
– This information could easily be collated. When a lawyer submits a quote from a report writer to Legal Aid for approval, the report writer’s company name is listed on the quote. Later, once the report is prepared, the lawyer forwards the report writer’s invoice to Legal Aid, and then pays the report writer themselves.
– More than $1.6 million in public funding has been provided for these “Alcohol and Drug Reports” in less than a year, a sufficient sum to be worthy of some basic record-keeping.
– Legal aid lawyers are rightly subject to transparency for the public funding they receive. Every year there is a table published which shows how much each legal aid lawyer has been paid that year. This allows for public scrutiny of the big earners who are in some cases receiving over $1 million per year in legal aid alone. There was no such table published when the cultural report industry was generating $7 million per year, which would have allowed the public to see who was profiting from the reports, and would have also allowed Legal Aid Services to audit and scrutinise how much each cultural report writer was earning. With some proper record-keeping, Legal Aid might have concluded that $3000 or more per cultural report was excessive given the gargantuan profits that were being made by some of the more prolific cultural report writers. Now, funding for “Alcohol and Drug Reports” has exploded by 254% and Legal Aid has no idea who is profiting from this, because they don’t keep any records of it.
So without any OIA data, how do we know who is providing the “Alcohol and Drug Reports”? It’s a matter of a simple Google search.
Formerly prolific cultural report writing companies are currently advertising themselves as available to write “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. Please note that in the absence of data from Legal Aid Services, I cannot confirm how much these companies received for “cultural reports” prior to the new law, and for “Alcohol and Drug Reports” under the new law. However, Google confirms that cultural report companies are currently advertising “Alcohol and Drug Reports”. For example:
– “Independent Research Solutions Limited”, of which the sociologist Jarrod Gilbert is the sole director and shareholder.
– “H2R Research and Consulting Limited”, of which the patched Mongrel Mob gang member Harry Tam is a 50% shareholder and director.
Legal Aid Services do not have any specific policies in place to insist on the report writer having any particular qualifications. For example, the “Alcohol and Drug Report” writers are not required to be a registered member of DAPAANZ – the Drug and Alcohol Practitioners’ Association Aotearoa New Zealand. Nor are they required to be registered counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists or doctors. Thousands of dollars are being paid out per report to people who are not accountable to any professional standards board.
Meet the new reports, same as the old reports
It is also clear from a quick search of legal databases that “Alcohol and Drug Reports” are often just cultural reports in drag. For example, in The King v Wharekura [2025] NZHC 751, a decision dated 1 April 2025, the Judge stated:
I have the benefit of two reports that were prepared for your sentencing: a pre-sentence report, prepared by Corrections; and an alcohol and drug report, prepared by four report writers…
The pre-sentence report [prepared by a probation officer from the Department of Corrections] assesses you as being at a high risk of further violent offending… the writer does observe that, despite assertions that you wish to use your time in prison to better yourself, you have accumulated 11 misconducts in prison for tattooing, seven for possession of homebrew, two for possession of non-prescribed medication, one for fighting, offensive behaviour toward staff, and possession of razor blades and cannabis oil…
I turn now to the alcohol and drug report. That report provides that it includes a component under s 27 of the Sentencing Act. Under that provision, the Court can hear from people on (amongst other things) a person’s background and on the way in which it may have related to the commission of an offence.
I observe at the outset that the report writers are not trained in medicine or psychology and that their findings are based on self-reporting from you. But the information is helpful and the report writers have relevant qualifications, one of them having a speciality in addiction which enables a useful perspective.
You are of Waikato-Tainui – a proud and just people, who suffered immeasurable loss when the Crown invaded and then confiscated Waikato-Tainui’s tribal lands and taonga. The widespread loss, suffering and deprivation has lasted for generations. It weighs heavily.
The above case highlights the difference between a pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections and a legal aid-funded “Alcohol and Drug Report”. The first aims to provide a neutral report regarding the background of the offender, the reasons for the offending, and the prospects of rehabilitation. These reports are by no means perfect but generally aim for a neutral perspective. “Cultural reports”, or their rebooted franchise of “Alcohol and Drug Reports”, aim to minimise the sentence, and just like section 27 “cultural reports”, will canvass alcohol and drug use as well as cultural and family background. Despite the new moniker of “Alcohol and Drug Report”, much of the focus remains on cultural factors which have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol.
The website of Harry Tam’s “H2R Research and Consulting Limited” openly admits this:
“With the recent defunding of s27 reports, our AoD reports also include insights into clients’ personal, family, whānau, community, and cultural backgrounds in their drug and alcohol assessments.”
Where these “Alcohol and Drug Reports” commissioned under legal aid, this is at best a calculated evasion of the new section 99(4)(ca) of the Legal Services Act 2011, which states:
“The Commissioner must decline… any claim to the extent to which it is for a disbursement incurred in relation to a report or statement (whether oral or written) of a person called by an offender under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002;”
Conclusion
Cultural reports are symptomatic of deep-rooted issues in our justice system – issues which are too extensive to cover in this post. It should come as no surprise that when the Government has attempted to weed out one of these issues, the weed has stubbornly regrown. It is now up to the Government to once again weed out the problem, this time hopefully by root and stem.
