Sex Bomb, Sex bomb

Just in case anyone thinks the Greens were letting some hard core sex offenders run riot by voting against yesterday’s sex offender law amendment, here are the facts:

The key amendment in the bill was not “just implementing the intention of the original legislation”, as the government claimed .

The Attorney-General’s Report on Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill makes it clear that the power to subject a sex offender to 10 year’s home detention post-release is an entirely new provision.

The existing legislation only allowed for 12 months home detention. Under the present legislation, without the amendment, released sex offenders can still be electronically monitored and be subject to special conditions (such as not to go near schools and kindergartens) – for the full 10 years.

There was no need to ram through legislation in an hour yesterday. Dealing with sex offenders requires well thought out legislation – not rushed lawmaking.

40 thoughts on “Sex Bomb, Sex bomb

  1. Keith

    It would be really great if you spend half as much time caring or fighting for the victims of sexual offending instead of the low life scum who commit these crimes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. So BB – any rushed legislation will do, as in let’s do the whole thing in an hour type rushed, is OK with you, regardless if it’s bad law and the nation’s top lawyer has said so, as long as it appears to be tough on crime?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Frog

    Where was your faux concern at the rushed EFA legislation?

    The truth is that the Greens (or maybe its just Keith) are more concerned about the civil rights of child rapists than they are about the victims.

    More selective morality from the Greens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. BB – there is a world of difference between a Bill that Gerry Brownlee wanted to ram through the house in literally one hour, than one that, despite it’s controversy, went through all stages of the house over months.

    Not even in the same league, mate!

    Stuff your imagined selective morality or your misguided ideas about our priorities. You haven’t got a clue!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. Utter rubbish Frog, perhaps if you Greens dropped your National/ACT=Bad mindset then you might be able to see the wood from the trees.

    And please, many of us know exactly what your priorities are, what you don’t like is having those priorities exposed as you prefer to hide behind the “nice granny” image of Jeanette.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. No Right Turn had a go at the Greens for not holding the bill up longer. Guess you can never win huh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. Do you believe it was a genuine intent by National to deceive as to the nature of the bill? Or a (lamentable) belief that extending non-sentence punishment is simply a technicality?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. garethw, I have to say the former!

    See my post here. I would suggest that Chris Finlayson must be spewing – a very senior Cabinet Minister over-ridden to appease the David Garrotte constituency.

    How long will Finlayson hang in there if this continues? I believe he is one National Cabinet Minsiter who has some integrity, but he must be being severely tested by this undemocratic behaviour from his own party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. 10 years of home detention? What the hell? That is completely unfeasible. You can’t simply up it from 1 year to 10 years. Home D. is an incredibly difficult sentence to adhere to because of the immense reliance on others to do so much for you, for 10 years!

    CD possibly, but even that… there are other ways.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. BB
    You really don’t know what you are talking about! This is about proper parliamentary process and democracy. What we are seeing from the current lot who control the purse strings is that as far as parliamentary process, openness of government, and the rights of every person in this country – and that includes EVERY person and not just BB – all of these fundamental aspects of what makes NZ the country it is – are but NOTHING to them. This is not the future I am sure the majority of people who voted for them voted for. But will our msm report it as it is? Not likely – too busy counting their tax breaks.

    The Nats had the report – the same as everyone else! If they didn’t understand the nature of the report on the Bill then that is just incompetence – otherwise it was a genuine attempt to deceive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. macro

    Proper parliamentary process..blah blah blah..

    It is nothing but faux outrage on the part of the Greens, I will ask you the same question that I have asked others here and no doubt you will side step it as well but here goes anyway..

    Where was the Green parties concern about parliamentary process when it came to the EFA?

    Hypocrites, every single one of you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. big bro

    The Green’s still want the EFA, what do you think it is they like about it? The anonymous donations or the use of secret trusts?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. There’s heaps we’d change about the EFA, starting with anonymous donations and secret trusts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. Valis

    I guess it was your laughable assertion that the EFA went through proper process.
    Even Labour admit the EFA is unworkable and a hastily arranged poor piece of legislation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. Agreed very strongly that bills should not be rushed through. Also one hour is an insanely short amount of time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. Would the Greens support this point if the requested and desired seperate justice system for Maori was to set a home detention post release for Maori sex offenders at 1 year and those for non-Maori at 10 years?

    Amazing that the Greens call for a seperate Maori justice system has not been promoted on frogblog.

    After all it in that sacred declaration on indeginous people rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. Valis

    OK so if it is not nonymous donations and secret trusts, is it the requirements for protesters to write their name and full residential address on their protest material that the Green party want to retain in the EFA?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. I guess it was your laughable assertion that the EFA went through proper process.

    You really don’t know what we’re talking about do you. “Proper Parliamentary Process” refers to the rules in place to ensure legislation can be vetted by the public and other MPs. This includes providing at least three days for MPs to look at proposed legislation between it being introduced in Parliament and it being voted on at first reading. It includes a select committee process that provides time for further scrutiny both by MPs and the public via submissions. It includes time between readings and committee stages again so that people can debate the issues and seek change. None of these processes were subverted by Labour in passing the EFA. That’s why there was able to be such a campaign against it. If they had done what the Nats did, no one would have known what was going on until it passed. Which is exactly what happened with the Parole Bill because the Nats withheld key information until leave was granted to take shortcuts. I can just hear you baying for blood if Labour had done such a thing. I don’t think they did anything like this in their whole nine years.

    Even Labour admit the EFA is unworkable and a hastily arranged poor piece of legislation.

    It was hasty in the sense such a complicated law needed more than the year or so Labour allowed for it to be completed. But they did not subvert proper procedure to get it through and at a year, it took longer than many laws to pass. The Nats did this in an hour. That you didn’t like the outcome re the EFA is no excuse for refusing to understand Parliamentary procedure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. OK so if it is not nonymous donations and secret trusts, is it the requirements for protesters to write their name and full residential address on their protest material that the Green party want to retain in the EFA?

    No, that requirement predates the EFA. But the Nats sought leave of the House to table a bill to have it changed to be a business address and then never followed through. I wonder why they did that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. Jarbury: that was before i found out the government had misled them about the nature of the bill, asking for leave and then tabling the s7 report.

    Next time, I expect the Greens will be asking pointy questions at any similar maneuvre, or simply refusing leave as a matter of principle. if the government want to get something done quickly, let them formally vote for urgency and make a case, rather than cutting a deal with everyone to do it quietly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. Anyone see the documentary about Pakistan on 7. The Taliban destroyed 187 schools in one province. They use terror to subdue the population. It is amazing what an organised united (in ideology) group can do and it made me think, somewhat, of the green party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. jh, equating the Greens with the Taleban is rather far-fetched, even for a wingnut. I always though the ENTIRE POINT of the bill of rights was that it covers everyone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. Comparing the Greens with the Taleban is as stupid as comparing the Nats with the KKK.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. “jh, equating the Greens with the Taleban is rather far-fetched, even for a wingnut.”

    I thinking of the way that an organised and motivated (and nutcase) group can out manoeuvre everyone else, the Taleban being the extreme example.

    “I always though the ENTIRE POINT of the bill of rights was that it covers everyone.”

    I would argue that there needs to be exceptions, sufficient to bring about compliance with societies basic rules.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. The human rights legislation creates a sort of them park environment for crims.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. Valis

    Apart from eluding to an amendment that National did not have the numbers to get passed I’m still puzzled why the Green’s support keeping the EFA. The EFA was passed under urgency and sure there was one round of public consultation but there were also hundreds of rushed amendments being passed under urgency.

    I still don’t understand why the Greens want to keep it, why they supported it being passed under urgency against the advice of the HRC yet they then stand all high and principled in the thread.

    Your response to big bro is a bit like a kid caught stealing chocolate pointing to his mate yelling “he did it to”. Discussing occasions where National has subverted due process in an unprincipled way is not diminishing the same thing by Labour and supported by the Greens. It’s either wrong or it is not, each case is judged on it’s own merit not judged relative to other instances by other self serving parties.

    So why? Why did the Green’s support the atrocious passage of the EFA and why do they want to keep it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. I agree, especially some thing as impactful and sensitive as this legislation. There is no need to rush this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. There seems to be a fair bit of disagreement as to whether treatments are effective?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. We absolutely don’t want to rush legislation on something like this, it’s a great way to botch up the process even more. It’s hard to think straight for such and emotional issue like sex offenders, I think the politicians are just reacting to look like they are on top of this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. jh, if one reads their history books then there’s a good argument that it is the criminals who need the BORA more than anyone else. Just look at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Abu Graib in Iraq and so forth.

    Oh, and did this post have to have this title? I keep on getting that damn Tom Jones song stuck in my head every time I visit!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. Why do our prisoners swagger and give the bird? That sort of thing doesn’t happen in Japan, Korea. There should be no prisoner on prisoner violence (or gratuitous violence by prison staff). Geoffrey Palmer decided that “prison shouldn’t be for punishment” we need a carrot and a stick. What works is best.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. Do prisoners swagger and “give the bird” though? Are prisons in Japan and Korea any harsher than those in New Zealand?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. Apart from eluding to an amendment that National did not have the numbers to get passed I’m still puzzled why the Green’s support keeping the EFA.

    National did have the numbers to get it passed. I think even Labour would have voted for it. Hard to say why they didn’t even try.

    The EFA was passed under urgency and sure there was one round of public consultation but there were also hundreds of rushed amendments being passed under urgency.

    It was not passed under urgency. That doesn’t mean I’m saying nothing was rushed, but we were talking about standard Parliamentary process and that was OK.

    I still don’t understand why the Greens want to keep it

    There are many changes we’d like to have seen, so its not at all just that we wanted to keep it as is. Also there was absolutely no hurry to change or repeal the Act as there is plenty of time before it would come into force again in 2011. We saw no reason to support the Nats on what was nothing more than a symbolic move.

    why they supported it being passed under urgency against the advice of the HRC yet they then stand all high and principled in the thread.

    The HRC gave two options, either reopening again for more submissions, which they preferred, or advising every submitter that the bill was reported back and what the main changes were. The second option was chosen.

    Your response to big bro is a bit like a kid caught stealing chocolate pointing to his mate yelling “he did it to”. Discussing occasions where National has subverted due process in an unprincipled way is not diminishing the same thing by Labour and supported by the Greens.

    Except that we never supported urgency.

    It’s either wrong or it is not, each case is judged on it’s own merit not judged relative to other instances by other self serving parties.

    Agree fully, but big bro won’t. I’ve seen hardly any outrage on this blog for what the Nats continue to do.

    So why? Why did the Green’s support the atrocious passage of the EFA and why do they want to keep it?

    Like I said, we didn’t want to keep it in its current form. We supported passage at the time because we thought it better than the status quo. My personal view is that if it were me and we had it to do over again, I’d do things differently in hindsight.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. “jh, if one reads their history books then there’s a good argument that it is the criminals who need the BORA more than anyone else. Just look at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Abu Graib in Iraq and so forth.”

    Jarbury, criminals deny people rights; they deny them the right to life, they deny them the right to safety and in the case of sex offenders, those criminals often ruin the lifes of their victims for many years afterward.

    IMHO, male sex offenders should be castrated – that should be enough of a deterrent.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. So it’s agreed that such legislation shouldn’t be rushed. Now there’s been time to read the amendment… Are you still happy not to support? If so why?
    John-ston, when talking about castration as a punishment you need to be careful what you say. I admire your honesty. How about, instead of male sex offenders, we say that ‘violent rapists should be castrated’?
    And even then, I’d be happy to qualify it with ‘not date rape, must be beyond beyond doubt of guilt’ and any other qualifiers that are needed as long as the man who, for example, breaks into the tourists campervan and bashes the male and … the female, gets the chop.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. # jarbury Says:
    April 5th, 2009 at 8:56 am

    Do prisoners swagger and “give the bird” though? Are prisons in Japan and Korea any harsher than those in New Zealand?
    ……………
    jarrbury, jarbury, jarbury…… (sigh)…..

    Google japanese prison system and you’ll find a link to a video clip. The boys are lifting teir little feet and enthusiastically swinging their arms in unison.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. Surprise, surprise Tony Ellis agrees with Keith Locke :

    “The report said ESOs, which monitor and restrict the movements of sex offenders, were inconsistent with the Bill of Rights due to issues of double jeopardy and unreasonable search and seizure.

    Two weeks ago, the Government sparked by possible lawsuits from high-risk sex offenders on ESOs rushed through a law change to patch a loophole in parole laws.

    The law was passed despite a report from the attorney-general that warned the law change could not be justified under the Bill of Rights.

    “These prisoners have already served their prison sentence, they have done their time and in some cases are then retrospectively sentenced again,” Ellis said.

    The report also took issue with the sentence of preventive detention, saying it amounted to arbitrary detention.

    It also condemned the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, which was passed to restrict prisoners gaining compensation for ill-treatment while behind bars unless the money was used as redress for victims.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2330632/NZ-found-wanting-on-human-rights

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>