5 - Nil
The Waste Management Bill has just passed into law today. It will join the Mothers With Babies in Prison Bill which passed through its third reading this morning and the three other Green Party private members bills that have passed this term (youth wages, s 59 amendment and flexible work). Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that makes the count on successful private members bills this term: Greens 5, everyone else 0. I understand this is a record, along with Sue Bradford’s individual record of 3 private members bills in one term. That’s a fairly good return for a little party with no government baubles.
The Waste Minimisation Bill provides a comprehensive system for minimising and managing waste, and means producers will need to take much more responsibility for the waste created over the life of their products, including the end-of-life impacts.
Meanwhile Sue says that the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill does three simple things:
First, once it comes into force, some mothers in prison will be able to keep their babies with them for up to two years, rather than the six months currently allowed. At the moment there is also at times a grace period of up to nine months for some mothers – this three month grace period may also in future be extended on top of the two years, in certain circumstances.
Secondly, mothers who are on remand or who are sentenced prisoners with a high security classification will, for the first time, in some cases have the option to have their babies live with them in prison.
And thirdly, the new law will provide more of a mandate to prison authorities to ensure that if a child in a mother’s care is being breastfed, she will be given opportunity and space to do so. At the same time, the Bill does not discriminate against mothers who cannot or are not breastfeeding – they will have the same option of keeping the baby with them where circumstances allow.
Also passing today was the Public Transport Amendment Bill which, thanks to Jeanette’s amendment is likely to be one of the more revolutionary and important pieces of transport legislation in the country. It only just got there by a one vote majority but it got there. So that’s a seriously good day for Green Party supporters.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
A huge congratulations to Sue Bradford. As Idiot/Savant notes, this a huge acheivement for any member of parliament, let alone one in a party outside Government. It certainly didn’t happen through luck, and is evidence of just how capable she is.
A firm congratulations to Nandor too, and Mike before him, who did well with the Waste bill. Great work guys!
The arrangement of the Order Paper in the last few weeks has been quite interesting. However, not knowing the motives of the individuals responsible, I’ll refrain from speculation.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
So this is the payback for not standing a candidate in Rotorua, you need to be careful or you will be tainted with the same brush as Winston and Clark.
And please, Sue B’s bill is hardly something to celebrate, once again the Greens show that they favour the rights of the criminals over those of the victims..
September 11th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
# big bro Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
> And please, Sue B’s bill is hardly something to celebrate, once again the Greens show that they favour the rights of the criminals over those of the victims..
caring for your babies isn’t a right - it’s a responsibility. Are you saying that criminals should be let off having to fulfil this responsibility?
September 11th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
BB said: So this is the payback for not standing a candidate in Rotorua:
BB, I have confirmed with official Green Party sources that there is no decison to not stand a candidate in Rotorua, and that a prospective candidate is well through the Party’s selection process to standing that electorate.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Nope.
Criminals should have their babies taken from them and put up for adoption if the father is not around to care for the child.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Although my knee jerk reaction on this matter would be something akin to BB’s, I am afraid I must disagree. Having been made to be familar with the matter and having interacted with many people at various posistions within the system; I am inclined to suggest that this would most likley help with rehabilitation and be better for the mother, the child, society and the state.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Why?
Surely the stats should show you that the child will have a better life and less chance of becoming another criminal if they are taken away from a criminal family.
Lets stop pussy footing around here, this is NZ we are talking about and we all know that you do not go to prison for a first offense usually, hell you don’t go for a 15th or 16th offense.
The mothers of these kids are scum, the child deserves a better life and the state deserves a break from the intergenerational crime stats.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
BB: What stats? Come on, you are slipping into your bad old ways of not verifying your assertions.
Give us some links. Otherwise, I will continue to believe that unless a mother is abusive or neglectful, her child’s interests are best served by being cared for by her.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Toad
I do not need to provide stats that show children of recidivist crims are at high risk, if you cannot see or accept that for yourself then you are simply putting up a smoke screen.
Likewise I do not have to provide stats that show we do not lock up first time offenders (unless they have committed murder).
Why is Sue so keen to see these kids put at risk Toad?, is she afraid that if they were adopted out to loving families she might lose a vote in the coming years?
This is simply another example of Sue and the Greens caring more for low life than for the victims of crime, and that is deplorable.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Stuff it bb, you are even more full of it tonight than usual. Not only do the stats show exactly the opposite of what you’re saying, but on this one at least the Greens are in the mainstream with all parties voting for the bill.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
BB,
Now im dont know the exact numbers, but we have approx 7800 prisoners or which about 300 are female, we have a massive shortage of rehabilitative programes for females and prehaps most relivantly; women tend to take to prison differently than men, women tend to become extremly stressed and do all they can to get parole so they can care for their children, their will always be an exception, but in general a new child which they are able to take into their care apon obtaining parole would be a massive motive to seek parole and stay on the right side of the law. the presence of a child may provide a massive motivation for the mother to change her life around.
Intergenerational crime stats? interesting thing those, very very large genetic factor too, atleast according to most twin adoption studies, the future criminality is predicted much more strongly by inherited genetics than by upbringing; though upbringing certainly plays a part. though would a reformed mother not be prehaps the best teacher as to why one should respect the law?
There will be mothers who dont care, but that is of little consequence since chances are they wont want to utilise these optiosn in the first place.
There will be benifits to the state and to society because if the mother is motivated to change due to this then we will have one less law braker, one less prisoner, and one less parentless child.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
When I hear of babies, criminals, unmarried mothers and the welfare system the thought “human shield” comes to mind.
Remember don’t blame the Kahui’s “blame the system fight”: Sue Bradford “Green Party”
September 11th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
5- nill to the reds who dominate the Green party.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
4 to the reds and one to Nandor who was soundly defeated on the green forum with his proposition that: “the greens are not a left wing party”.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
oh that was a hilarious thread!
September 11th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Frankly, any woman who ends up in our women’s prisons is less likely to be a ‘recidivist criminal’ than just a poor woman who has no resources to fall back on. Petty theft is the major crime resulting in imprisonment - lack of funds to make bail, puts a woman in jail.
And being brown rather than white seems to be a precursing factor.
This I know from a close friend who was horrified at the racism evident in our sentencing practice, after a short time incarcerated amongst women inmates. She, being non-indigenous and highly educated, was not held in prison without support from family, friends and lawyers. Others she met were not so well-resourced.
BB, your bigotry against lower-class New Zealanders is breathtaking.
I hope that the economic downturn doesn’t see you losing equity in your property holdings to the extent that you find out what a debtor’s prison cell looks like - as many who lost property portfolios in the ‘90-’97 downturn did.
Being poor is not a moral failure, merely an economic one, predicated by a low-wage climate, where casualisation of the workforce ghetto-ises workers into unlivable job situations.
Think about that the next time you order the special-of-the-week from ‘burgers-r-us’, and guzzle down an upsized beverage for no extra cost - the cost of your discount, is another person’s devalued working life, which creates poverty, feeding into the attractiveness of crime as an alternative.
If wages in NZ had kept up in real terms with even Aussie in the past 15 years, there would be a lot less misery amongst the 1 in 5 or so children being raised in conditions of poverty. Including those whose mothers are in prison!
September 11th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
The Kauis were hauling in a heap from social welfare.
Lower paid workers one rung up from the social welfare gentry are the most peed off about those who are career beneficiaries. I know a machinist and I asked her what she thought of the DPB… there was a pause and I thought I was gonna get an earful but she said “It makes me mad….I know a woman and she would get pregnant every 5 years so she could stay on it…”
I don’t think you reds are popular with the working classes.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Shirking classes perhaps.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
talkback radio - gotta love it!
September 11th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Ma Baker would have approved:
For more than 20 years, Ma and her boys terrorised midwest America, robbing banks and killing at will. The truth behind an extraordinary Public Enemy No.1.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
# greenfly Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
talkback radio - gotta love it!
…………………
I prefer Kathrine Ryan on National Radio and Chris Laidlaw, Shaun Plunket etc. etc.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Is it delicious irony that a criminal who is in jail can keep their baby and a mother who smacks their child can end up behind bars and have their child taken away.
And once behind bars could have the child returned to the them.
Delicious.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Here we go again, the poor criminals being supported by the Greens.
Katie, frankly you are talking rot, any woman who ends up in our prison system HAS to be a recidivist criminal because of our lax Justice system, I note that you are another who seems to support a separate justice system based on race, I suggest it is you who is the racist one not the system.
Your comments on “lower class” Kiwi’s shows that you have no idea at all what it is like to come from this “lower class” (your words not mine) and like most from the hard left you are happy to use these people as pawns in your battle for power.
Having come from that “lower class” (which by the way is an insult to all struggling Kiwi’s and just shows your ignorance of how some of these people live) I know exactly what life is like and what it takes to fight (and yes it is a fight) your way out of it.
I can assure you that people like you and Sue B are NOT helping.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:13 am
please post my comment
September 12th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Would seem unlikely that a violent mother (whether to her kid or anyone else) would get custody of their kid in jail, wouldn’t you say Gerrit?
September 12th, 2008 at 8:48 am
I could be wrong of course.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:35 am
“Here we go again, the poor criminals being supported by the Greens.”
Yea, here we go again, more straw men from bb. What actually happened was the entire House, after seeing the evidence, voted UNANIMOUSLY for the benefit of the CHILDREN.
Get over it.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:40 am
BB - Your world really is black and white, isn’t it? What a shame. It must be terribly lonely in their.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
The ENTIRE house Valis? Is there somewhere we can see the numbers for votes on a Bill? I’ve fiddled around with the parliament website, but hard to find.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:47 am
This was one of the few votes that went through on a voice vote only. There is only a party vote called when there is dissent and the dissenters ask for it. In this case, there were only ayes.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Frog
When you are in that world Frog it IS black and white, no amount of hand wringing from some well meaning middle class lefty can change that.
We have a system designed by the left to keep those people down, it rewards inactivity and acceptance that there is no better life to be gained by hard work and dedication.
Until the “lower class” realise that continued handouts (which are conditional on the recipient not trying to better themselves) are counter productive then nothing is going to happen, until these same “lower class” appreciate that people like Sue B and the hard left of the Labour party actually need them to stay “lower class” then they will continue to be used and abused in the name of socialism.
If you REALLY want to rid NZ of the “lower class” then you would reward them for any attempt to better themselves and help them along the way, you would also penalise those who did nothing.
But then you might end up ending the plight of the “lower class”, and who would vote for the left then?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:02 am
please post my comment Frog
September 12th, 2008 at 11:36 am
‘Parliament voted for it “unanimously” is misleading…. things don’t work that simply. It could have been that they didn’t think it was worth opposing (not the same as agreeing with). The point is about drawing a line between making prison too comfortable so it looses it’s ability to work as a disincentive to engage in criminal activity and (possible) positive developmental benefits.
I think the baby as a human shield is an appropriate metaphor for the behavior of some of the adults involved in these sort of policies and the response of policy makers is sometimes lazy.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Thank you frog.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
“‘Parliament voted for it “unanimouslyâ€? is misleading…. things don’t work that simply. It could have been that they didn’t think it was worth opposing (not the same as agreeing with).”
Well, you don’t know how things work then. Parties almost always vote (and it is usually by accident when they don’t). If they can’t come to a position, they abstain. This bill went through the same select committee and public submission process as any other, with three readings and many opportunities for House debate. All parties spoke in support of the bill on several occasions.
“The point is about drawing a line between making prison too comfortable so it looses it’s ability to work as a disincentive to engage in criminal activity and (possible) positive developmental benefits.”
This bill is about the benefits to children and will not result in cushy circumstances for inmates. You can be assured that the Ron Mark’s of Parliament would have complained if that was happening.
“I think the baby as a human shield is an appropriate metaphor for the behavior of some of the adults involved in these sort of policies and the response of policy makers is sometimes lazy.”
Sorry, you can’t just will this one into something its not. That is a very ill informed statement. Perhaps you should go read Hansard or the select committee report to relieve your ignorance.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Valis, you’re completely right that everyone supported it!
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/5/d/2/48HansD_200807 02_00001422-Corrections-Mothers-with-Babies-Amendment.htm
Hide loves it, Collins loves it. I’ll be damned.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I suggest the Rt Hon BB (Bruv Party) take a gander.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Don’t hold your breath.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
On the face of it, I was moderately keen on the proposal, but after reading some of that stuff…go Bradford!
September 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
# Valis Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
> Stuff it bb, you are even more full of it tonight than usual. Not only do the stats show exactly the opposite of what you’re saying, but on this one at least the Greens are in the mainstream with all parties voting for the bill.
That’s not in itself a valid argument, Valis. If all the other parties in parliament thought the best transport strategy in the face of peak oil and climate change was to build lots of new motorways, would you follow them?
September 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Of course not, as it would be easy to argue the opposite based on the facts. I was reacting to bb’s fact free knee jerk reaction on a topic he obviously didn’t know anything about. A very different thing.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Where’d big bro go?