Announcing ACT’s Three Strikes Rule For Burglary Election policy, Deputy ACT Leader Nicole McKee (pictured in sunglasses) stated last Wednesday;

“ Burglary is a recidivist crime, with the majority of people released from prison for burglary sent back to prison within two years. Nearly three-quarters are resentenced. Around one in four burglary victims have already been burgled before,”

She’s right ! 56% of men and 33% of women previous offenders are sent back to prison within two years .

What that tells Mckee, and her ACT party associates, is that we need to send more people back to prison for longer.

What those appalling recidivist stats tell me, is our prison system ain’t working !

If your car mechanic fixed only four out of every ten vehicles that came through their workshop, you’d find another mechanic and that business would go bust..

Yet when it comes to prisons, we continue to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a system that produces failure on an industrial scale—and politicians, like McKee are competing to promise more of it.

“Tough on crime” has become one of the most repeated and stupid slogans in politics.

It is also one of the least examined.

Let’s do the maths.

It now costs New Zealand taxpayers around $552 a day—more than $200,000 a year—to keep a sentenced prisoner behind bars.

That’s more than most of us earn in a year.

And what do we buy for that extraordinary investment?

A system in which around half of released male offenders and one third of female inmates are convicted again within two years

In other words, we are paying premium prices for repeat customers.

Norway reached a different conclusion decades ago.

Instead of asking, “How can we make prison harsher?” Norwegians asked a more intelligent question:

“How do we stop people coming back?”

Their answer wasn’t sentimentality.

It was economics.

It’s cheaper to create one law-abiding citizen than to finance a career criminal and by adopting the “principle of normality “ they have reduced their recidivism rate to 20% for male offenders and 13% for females.

The guiding principle is that the punishment is the loss of liberty itself. Everything else is designed to prepare prisoners to live successfully when they are released and so life inside prison should resemble life outside as much as security allows.

Even in high-security prisons such as Halden, most prisoners have their own room rather than a shared cell with a television. fridge and private toilet.

Groups of 10–12 inmates share a communal kitchen and lounge where they cook, eat and socialise together and are expected to spend the day productively rather than simply remaining locked in their cells.They are expected to work or study and education ranges from basic literacy to university courses - the idea being that prisoners should leave with better employment prospects than when they entered prison and indeed outside jobs and employment is arranged for most inmates before they are released.

Norwegian prison officers receive around two years of specialised college education plus practical training, with strong emphasis on psychology, communication and conflict resolution. Their role is to maintain safety while helping prisoners prepare for life after release.

Maintaining family relationships is considered extremely important.

Inmates may receive regular visits , telephone calls and video calls in some cases and many prisons have family apartments where prisoners can spend extended visits with partners and children in a home-like setting, subject to eligibility and security rules.

Considerable emphasis is placed on psychological counselling, drug treatment, anger management and addiction programmes

Norway also operates “open prisons” such as Bastøy Prison for low risk prisoners who live in small houses on an island rather than in traditional cell blocks.

The philosophy is summed up in a sentence often quoted by the Norwegian Correctional Service:

“People go to prison as punishment, not for punishment.”

Critics dismiss this as “hug a thug.”

The numbers tell a different story.

Their recidivism rate that is roughly 2/3rds that of our prisons for both men and women.

The goal is not to make prison pleasant.

The goal is to make prison the last time someone offends.

That distinction matters.

Policies promising longer sentences, more prison beds and tougher punishment are designed to satisfy public anger.

But where is the evidence that this approach solves the problem?

Every repeat offender represents a policy failure.

Every victim created by someone who has already been through the corrections system represents evidence that the system failed at its primary job.

Every person cycling repeatedly through prison is another expensive invoice sent to taxpayers.

If prison simply warehouses people until release, while addiction, illiteracy, untreated trauma, gang connections and unemployment remain untouched, we should not be surprised when many return exactly as they arrived—except older, angrier and less employable.

This isn’t an argument for being soft on violent offenders.

Dangerous people should remain incarcerated until society is protected.

Norway still imprisons murderers, rapists and serious violent offenders. It simply spends far more effort ensuring that when prisoners are eventually released, they are less likely to create another victim.

That is not softness.

That’s competance

Some argue New Zealand cannot compare itself with Norway because our prison population contains a particularly high proportion of violent and sexual offenders. That point has merit, but that very fact strengthens rather than weakens the argument for better rehabilitation.

If your prison population is more difficult, shouldn’t your rehabilitation efforts be stronger rather than weaker?

Politicians love prisons because voters can see them.

They cannot as easily see the victim who never exists because someone successfully rebuilt their life.

Prevention has no ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Rehabilitation has no photo opportunity.

A new prison wing does.

Let’s stop trying to fight tomorrow’s crime with yesterday’s slogans.

We should be learning from Norway - to be “tough on crime” is to be soft on reason.

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism and sometimes make posts like this one free to read.

Please consider chipping in $10 a month to help out. You will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Share

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

I note from an article on RNZ’s web page that Jared Novelly, the new United States ambassador to New Zealand (pictured) “ would like the opportunity to work on the country’s nuclear policy. and that “he would love to see nuclear ships in New Zealand waters ” and that, “You need to see these things and realise that it’s not some sort of boogeyman that you have to worry about.”

1. The ships themselves are not the problem. Making ourselves a first strike target in a nuclear conflict is the problem.

2. Strengthening our relationship with the USA is the problem.

Being part of of the “5 Eyes” nations is bad enough as we are already spying on the world as lackies to American foreign policy.

3. Trump is the “boogeyman “ we have to worry about. A power crazed narcissist with demonstrably low morals, who has no respect for his own country’s domestic laws never mind international law, who is in command of the most powerful military capacity in the world, who changed the name of the US Defence Department to The Department of War, and who starts conflicts such as the one against Iran and screws up the world economy ..is the problem

I do, however, welcome US Ambassador Novelly’s comment about his desire to see his country’s nuclear powered and capable ships in our harbours, as raises the issue of our own foreign policy in our election year.

We need clearly need to call on all candidates to declare where they stand on our anti- nuclear ships policy.

I would also like to see us challenge candidates on the issue of whether or not it is time for Aotearoa New Zealand to continue with our post WW2 alliances, or become a neutral nation in the South Pacific and use our proven negotiating abilities (in trade) to to help broker peace in the world.

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism and sometimes make posts like this one free to read.

Please consider chipping in $10 a month to help out. You will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

When we talk about “the war in Ukraine”, what we mean is people, just like you and me,, being attacked by missiles and drones .

As many of you know I was in Ukraine earlier this year filming a documentary which will be released soon, and yesterday a WhatsApp message from a friend of mine in Kyiv again brought home to me not only the resilence of the Ukrainian people, but the physical and pyschological impact Putin’s war is having on their children

Last Thursday night Russia hit the Ukraine’s capital with the biggest attack since Moscow launched its full scale illegal invasion. Loud explosions rocked the city for hours and hundreds of thousands of residents took cover in metro stations and other shelters

In the midst of the bombardment my friend’s young daughter, lying next to her mother, asked,

“What if we die tonight?”

Her Mum comforted her and replied.

“ We have other plans for tonight.”

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism and sometimes make posts like this one free to read.

Please consider chipping in $10 a month to help out. You will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

The inability of the current coalition government to look past social symptoms to deal with causes is at best blinkered, at worst cruel.

At their conference yesterday ACT leader David Seymour said the number of health and disability beneficiaries had nearly doubled in the past 10 years to 96,852 and RNZ quotes him as saying “hundreds of thousands of people were using welfare to sleep their life away, while their neighbour went to work.”

In other words – if you are ill, especially if you are mentally ill, it’s your own fault.

Meanwhile Prime Minister Luxon is reported as admitting he did not know that there is no night shelter in Auckland for people sleeping rough . This followed revelations that Ministry of Social Development staff have performance targets to reduce emergency housing numbers.

In other words – if you don’t have a roof over your head it’s your own fault.

The latest Stats NZ Child Poverty Statistics estimate 180,000 of our children are living in homes with incomes below the poverty line with the majority of those kids living in material hardship.

In other words – it’s their parent’s fault for not working hard enough.

If Charles Dickens were alive today he would have much to write about, because it is as if the 20^th century Social Welfare revolution had never happened as Seymour and Luxon are promoting the very attitudes of the Victorian ME society that caused the miseries he raged about.

The generous part of me says “Look , both these men grew up in a neoliberal world. Luxon was 14 and Seymour was 1 year old when Roger Douglas introduced it to New Zealand . They don’t know any other world. They didn’t grow up in the WE society that gave me free health care and university education. I shouldn’t be surprised they blinkered to the misery of others because the have grown up in the era of the economics and politics of selfishness.”

The less generous part of me says “ These men are the lackies of the rich who have captured our democracy by buying political influence to maintain a coalition government that will not only keep the laws in place that makes their capital wealth possible. In essence hired these men to do everything they can to reduce taxes and increase their wealth.”

Whatever the reason, as a society we have lost the plot.

Back in December of 1948 our then Prime Minister Peter Fraser signed the The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

Article 25 of which states

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,

clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Yes it is old language, but for me it is the foundation statement of the WE Society that said , in effect that we should look after each other because that’s what builds a fairer and stronger society.

Mental illness in our society is increasing for many reasons, not the least which is that the politics and economics of selfishness has made life tougher for the great majority of us.

Finding a place to call home is tougher than it was since the government abdicated its mortgage and housing responsibilities to the private banks.

And 3 out of every 5 kids in our country are living in material hardship not because their parents are lazy but for the same kind of reason the current right wing coalition has given for lowering the Child Poverty Reduction targets ie. “ Because of high inflation and cost-of-living pressures following recent economic conditions.”

Let me again translate that last statement – it’s because of the way we are running our economy to the benefit of the wealthy few and to the detriment of the many .

At the last election Luxon declared he would get us “Back On Track.”

Well, he’s been true to his word. With the support of Seymour stoking the engine and Peters along for the ride, his coalition government are railroading us back to the Dickensian world of the ME society.

Dear reader, I urge you to declare at upcoming election this year that we are on the WRONG track by voting strategically to oust the current hard- line neoliberal government with its austerity budgets, to bring in one determined to restore the WE society.

I will be suggesting how to do that as we get nearer to the election, and who is standing where becomes clearer.

(PS photo show Luxon and Seymour embracing at Seymour’s induction as Prime Minister)

Subscribe now

Share

Give a gift subscription

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism and sometimes make posts like this one free to read.

Please consider chipping in $10 a month to help out. You will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Transport Minister Chris Bishop’s decision not to cave into the trucking lobby’s desire to allow heavier trucks of on the roads is a good one, and one that of course did not go down well with them at last week’s Transporting New Zealand’s Conference.

The lobby group has been pushing to lift the load restrictions for a long time and have recently used the current fuel crisis to push for trucks to be able to carry heavier loads.

But RNZ reports Bishop telling the conference that “ allowing trucks to carry more weight would cause $150 million in infrastructure damage over six months and only save 1.5 days’ worth of diesel.”

However he also left the door open on allowing heavier trucks on our roads “if the fuel crises required moving to phase four,” which reveals the narrow view Bishop has of options on how to reduce transportation costs and ensure supply of essential goods around our country even in times of fuel shortages.

He is not, for example, looking to trucking alternatives such as building coastal shipping.

We once had 35 coastal freighters servicing our ports.Now we are down to one purpose built coastal ship - the MV Moana Chief- that can carry 1000 containers between Auckland and Christchurch.

That’s a 1000 long haul trucks off our roads every week and a substantial reduction in deisel consumption – so lower cost and kinder to our planet.

And what of rail?

In 1983 the long-standing legal protection that required many goods traveling long distances to be carried by rail was ended.

The requirement came from the Transport Licensing Act 1931, which was introduced after concerns that road transport was taking business away from the government-owned railways.

Under the Act:

• In 1936, road carriers were prohibited from carrying most freight beyond 30 miles (48 km) unless they obtained a special licence. This effectively gave rail a monopoly on long-distance freight.

• In 1962, the protected distance was increased to 40 miles (64 km).

• In 1977, it was increased again to 150 km, meaning most freight travelling more than 150 km had to go by rail unless an exemption applied.

The major change occurred during the neoliberal economic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government.

Land freight transport was deregulated. The distance restrictions were abolished, allowing trucking companies to compete directly with rail over any distance.

The impact was dramatic:

• In 1972, trucks carried about 50% of New Zealand’s land freight.

• By 1993, trucks carried about 81%, with rail’s share falling sharply.

At the time the Labour Government argued that :

• transport competition would reduce costs;

• businesses should be free to choose the most efficient mode of transport;

• protecting rail from competition was economically inefficient.

What we have seen are:

• much heavier use of highways by large trucks;

• increased road maintenance costs;

• higher greenhouse gas emissions;

• a long-term decline in the rail network and coastal shipping.

Returning to a situation where more freight was required to move by rail and sea would be met with fierce opposition from the trucking lobby- given the huge capital investment road transport companies now have in their fleets.

But the lesson of the current fuel crisis cannot be ignored. We are an island nation that has to import all its petroleum needs. (Even the small amount of crude oil produced in our country is now shipped overseas to be refined since Marsden Point stopped operating.) We are therefore vulnerable. Just imagine if food and other essentials suddenly cannot be transported around our country because there is not enough diesel to keep the trucks rolling !

That private trucking firms now have a strangle hold on transporting essential freight around our country is proof, if proof be needed, of what a disaster neoliberal economics has been for our nation. The idea that deregulating the transport industry would result in increased competition and therefore reduce the cost of living was, and remains, bullshit.

On the brighter side , the fact that today’s Labour Party is once again beginning to realise the markeplace makes money for shareholders and that governments need to intervene in it for the good of its citizens , is a hopeful sign Labour may, at long last, be willing to address some of the damage its neoliberal policies have done.

Labour’s proposed $20-a-week public transport cap is a very good example.

If elected in November a Labour government would, from 1 July 2027, make the maximum public transport cost $20 a week in Auckland ,Wellington and Christchurch

Everywhere else in New Zealand the weekly cap would be $10, after which additional eligible trips woukd be free for the rest of the week.

Passengers would continue to tag on and off using their normal Bee Card, AT HOP, Snapper or National Ticketing Solution card. The fare cap would be applied automatically.

The proposal would apply to most:

• buses

• urban trains

• many commuter ferries.

It would not apply to:

• InterCity buses

• Te Huia

• Capital Connection

• Mainlander rail services

• Waiheke ferries

• cash-only services such as those in Marlborough.

  Not only would this proposal reduce the number of cars on our roads and thereby reduce congestion, reduce petrol and deisel consumption (which would be better for our planet) it would prove governments CAN interene in the marketplace when it is in the public interest to do so.

• Share

  Give a gift subscription

  It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism and sometimes make posts like this one free to read.

  Please consider chipping in $10 a month to help out. You will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

  Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Commentary

The sudden resignation of Keir Starmer as British Prime Minister and Labour leader, less than two years after winning a landslide election victory, is a reminder of how volatile politics has become across the English-speaking world. His downfall was driven by a collapse in public confidence, poor local election results, internal party unrest, and the growing threat posed by Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK.

For New Zealand, there are striking parallels.

Christopher Luxon faces many of the same problems that undermined Starmer. Both leaders presented themselves as competent managers rather than ideological crusaders. Yet voters are growing increasingly impatient with managerial politics when living costs remain high, public services struggle, and economic growth disappoints. The lesson from Britain is that simply promoting yourself as the nation’s CEO is no longer enough. Voters want visible improvements in their daily lives.

New Zealand Labour faces a different but related challenge. Hipkins remains tied to a broadly centrist political model (as Starmer was ) at a time when many voters appear hungry for stronger and clearer alternatives. Could it be that the left leaning Andy Burnham, the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, who has emerged as the overwhelming favourite to replace Starmer, and the rise of Socialist New York Mayor Zorhran Mamdami is signalling that voters are finally seeing that neoliberal economics is the cause of much of their misery . Oh I do hope so!

The rise in popularity of Reform UK is perhaps the most significant and worrying development. Reform has transformed from a protest movement into a serious electoral force in the UK , exploiting public frustration over immigration, living standards, crime and political elites.

New Zealand’s equivalent is not one party but a combination of New Zealand First and ACT.

Like Reform, New Zealand First thrives on cultural grievances, scepticism toward elites, and concerns about national identity. Winston Peters understands the political value of appearing to speak for voters who feel ignored by Wellington. ACT, meanwhile, channels a different form of populism—one rooted in frustration with bureaucracy, regulation and government inefficiency. Together they occupy much of the political territory that Reform has consolidated under Farage in Britain.

There are of course important differences between the politiocsa of Westminster and Wellington. New Zealand’s MMP system allows dissatisfaction to be distributed among several smaller parties rather than concentrated in a single insurgent movement. But the underlying forces are similar: declining trust in institutions, frustration with establishment parties, and a growing willingness among voters to abandon traditional loyalties.

The broader warning for both Luxon and Hipkins is that the political centre is becoming a dangerous place to stand if it cannot produce tangible results. The era when voters rewarded moderation for its own sake may be ending. Britain’s experience suggests that electorates are increasingly willing to turn toward figures who offer a stronger sense of purpose, whether that comes from Burnham on the centre-left or Farage on the populist right.

New Zealand is not Britain. But the forces reshaping British politics—economic anxiety, distrust of elites, and impatience with cautious centrism—are clearly visible here as well. Starmer’s fall may prove to be less an isolated British drama than an early warning for politicians across the democratic world.

Subscribe now

Share

Give a gift subscription

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism and sometimes make posts like this one free to read.

Please consider chipping in $10 a month to help out. You will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

I

This is former Hamilton doctor Dr William James Reeder aged 79 who was recently sentenced to four and a half years prison having pleaded guilty to 15 charges of sexual assaulting three girls . His offending started in 1980 and went on until 2024

Reeder’s youngest victim, whom he abused from childhood through to her late teens, told the court that the effect on her had been horrific. She said she now didn’t know who she was and constantly lived in survival mode

It took courage for her and other of Reeder’s victims to come forward to the police because a lot of sexual abuse is not reported.

The 2019 New Zealand Family Violence Study found that more than one in four females, 26%, and about one in nine males, 11%, reported experiencing sexual abuse before the age of 15.

Oranga Tamariki’s harm-to-children analysis also found that female children and young people made up about 86 % of reported victims of sexual assault and related offences among people under 20.

The New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey also shows why police data alone is incomplete. It contends that only about a quarter of crime in New Zealand is reported to police. Sexual violence is especially likely to be underreported because victims may fear disbelief, shame, family consequences, retaliation, or the stress of the court process.

In short, child sexual abuse is not rare or marginal in our country, it is a major public-health and justice issue we really need to tackle.

It’s not that haven’t recognised we have a problem.

The Children’s Act 2014 which established legal requirements for child protection, including safety checks for adults working with children and policies schools must follow. It works alongside the Education and Training Act 2020 to set child protection standards in schools.

It requires government agencies and many organisations working with children to have formal child protection policies, conduct safety checks on workers, restrict people with serious sexual or violent convictions from certain child-facing roles, and create clear reporting procedures for suspected abuse.

The aim is to reduce opportunities for offenders to gain access to children through employment or volunteering.

So how could William Reeder be a medical practitioner and offend for over four decades without being stopped?

One reason is that as a medical doctor Reeder was in a position of trust and it was simply assumed he was one of the good guys whose duty it was to report abuse- not commit it.

NZME reports Medical Council Dr Kenneth Clark as stating the Council would step in to raise concerns where it could, but if individual cases are reported “Privacy considerations can limit what council can say about any individual notifications. “

The council and police can share information and when the council becomes aware of a criminal investigation it liaises with police because “at times we may not be able to take any action whilst police investigation is underway in order not to prejudice this,” however the council would monitor any situation that posed a risk and “take regulatory action where necessary to address risk to public safety.”

The need for primary prevention

What Reeder’s double betrayal of his profession and the children he abused demonstrates is that we have a system of secondary prevention (detecting abuse early and limiting opportunities for offenders) rather than primary prevention(stopping people from offending in the first place).

My view is that we could well learn from Germany’s pre-offence treatment model Project Dunkelfeld (”Dunkelfeld” means dark field—crime that remains hidden from authorities) is one of the few large-scale programmes in the world specifically designed to prevent child sexual abuse before any offence occurs.

The project began in 2005 at Berlin’s Charité University Hospital and has since expanded across Germany. Its core message is:

“You are not guilty because of your sexual feelings, but you are responsible for your sexual behaviour.”

How the Dunkerfield programme works

1. Public advertising encourages self-referral

The programme uses national advertising campaigns directed at people who are sexually attracted to children or who are worried about losing control of their behaviour.

Campaign messages include statements such as:

• “Do you feel sexually attracted to children?”

• “There is help.”

• “You are not alone.”

The aim is to reach people who have never offended as well as those who have offended but are not in the criminal justice system.

2. Confidential access

Participants contact the programme voluntarily.

A key feature is that treatment is confidential and free of charge. German medical confidentiality rules mean that therapists generally do not report a patient merely for admitting attraction to children, provided there is no immediate threat to a specific child.

This confidentiality is regarded as crucial because many individuals would never seek help if they believed disclosure would automatically trigger police involvement.

3. Comprehensive assessment

Patients undergo psychological and psychiatric assessment covering:

• Sexual interests.

• Risk factors for offending.

• Mental health.

• Social functioning.

• Use of pornography.

• Previous offending history.

Clinicians distinguish between attraction and offending risk.

4. Cognitive-behavioural treatment

The main intervention is specialised cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

Treatment focuses on:

• Recognising risk situations.

• Managing sexual impulses.

• Challenging cognitive distortions.

• Developing empathy for children.

• Building healthy adult relationships.

• Strengthening self-control strategies.

Patients learn practical techniques for avoiding situations that increase risk.

5. Medical treatment where appropriate

Some participants choose medication to reduce sexual drive.

This may include:

• Anti-androgen medications.

• Hormone-suppressing treatments.

• Other psychiatric medications when indicated.

Medication is voluntary and usually combined with psychotherapy.

6. Long-term follow-up

Many participants remain involved for extended periods.

The objective is not simply to stop an immediate risk but to create sustainable lifelong strategies for avoiding offending.

Our system tends to click in after an offence has occurred:

1. Abuse happens.

2. Police investigate.

3. Courts prosecute.

4. Offenders receive treatment.

Dunkelfeld reverses the sequence:

1. Attraction is recognised.

2. Help is sought voluntarily.

3. Risk is managed.

4. Offending is prevented.

Has it worked?

The programme has reported that thousands of individuals have sought treatment since its inception, including many who had never previously disclosed their attraction to anyone. Research has found improvements in self-reported risk factors, offence-supportive attitudes, emotional regulation, and self-control among participants.

In short, our approach to the crime of child sexual abuse reflects follows our seemingly entrenched system of addressing criminal offending after it has happened rather than tackling the root causes – be they psychological or social- before they result in criminal offending.

In the meantime if you need help, or know someonewho may need help, here are some organisations that may be able to assist.

• HELP (Auckland): 09 623 1700, (Wellington): 04 801 6655.

• Safe to talk: 0800 044 334.

• NZ Police.

• Victim Support 0800 842 846.

• Rape Crisis: 0800 88 33 00.

• Tautoko Tāne Male Survivors Aotearoa.https://tautokotane.nz/contact/

• Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) 022 344 0496.

  Subscribe now

  It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism and sometimes make posts like this one free to read.

  Please consider chipping in $10 a month to help out. You will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

  Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

  Give a gift subscription

I think one of the issues that occurs with some politicians -especially Cabinet Ministers- is they develop a sense of entitlement borne of inflated self -importance.. We’ve seen it in Luxon, and more recently Minister for Social Development Louise Upston, by claiming the full $52,000 accommodatian inflated on allowance on properties they own.

ACT Party Children’s Minister Karen Chhour has just joined her self-serving Cabinet colleagues with the revelation by The Press that she spent nearly $17,000 on parking at Auckland Airport between February 2024 and February 2026, with her vehicle parked there for a combined eight-and-a-half months.

Chhour has defended the spending, telling Stuff she prefers to “self-drive” because it is “almost always cheaper” than using Crown cars or taxi services.

That’s bullshit.

I don’t know where she lives in Auckland but as someone who has taken a taxi from the airport to the North Shore in recent months I can tell you it would have saved a lot of tax payer dollars if she had lowered herself into one of the many cabs available. By doing so she would have also contributed to the local economy by hiring taxi drivers.

As Minister for Children she might also have considered how that parking money could have been better spent.

Let’s say she saved $8000 of that $17,000. What could it have bought for kids living in homes below the poverty line.

Well..

229 kids raincoats at $35 each

2670 litres of milk

800 pairs of warm pyjamas at $10 each (see Middledmore Hospital’s Jammies For June Campaign (see https://www.jammiesforjune.org.nz )

This government keeps telling us that these are tough times and we all have to tighten our belts… this of course clearly does not apply Cabinet Ministers .

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism. As this post has now reached ove 80 ‘likes’ it is now free to read.

By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

Get more from Bryan Bruce in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Try to imagine what 33,000 New Zealand children looks like.

Now think of the reality of a recent report that every one of those children – our nation’s children- are homeless.

You can find that report here:

https://www.coalitiontoendwomenshomelessness.org/waka-huia/research-release-children-and-young-people-experiencing-homelessness

Once you have read it could you explain to me how, as a nation ,we are “back on track” as you touted at the last election.

I also need you to explain to me again how allowing our country’s richest people to get away with paying an effective tax rate of just 8.9% tax on their economic income is making the lives of the many who are living on Struggle Street so much better.

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ird-report-shows-wealthy-nzers-pay-much-lower-tax-rates-other-earners

Because, as I look around me, I see foodbanks struggling to meet an ever-growing demand while Trading Banks (largely overseas owned) announce record profits, and charities having to find shoes ,clothing and even warm pyjamas for kids .

I see foreign mining companies given permission to tunnel for gold under native forests and your coalition government changing the law rather than let the courts decide who, among us, is responsible for polluting our planet and bringing them to account.

This is not the New Zealand I want for our children and their children.

I want us to leave future generations a legacy not a liability.

We are on the wrong track Prime Minister.

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism.

By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription

I

Get more from Bryan Bruce in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Disability Support Bill before parliament really ought to be called the Disability UNSUPPORT Bill because:

1. It determines that families and whānau have the primary responsibility for the wellbeing of their disabled family member and DSS will supply a top-up contribution.

2. It clarifies that family members who are or are not paid to care for a disabled relative are not government employees. This prevents them from claiming minimum wage, holiday pay, or other employment benefits from the state.

3. It grants the Minister powers to establish ministerial programmes to tailor supports, trial approaches and making quick changes to funding settings via secondary legislation.

I am grateful to ACTION STATION for supplying the information for this post because whatever the government may claim about this Bill, the fact is It completely ignores the rights of disabled people to choose their carers and removes the rights of those carers to receive recognition for their skills and labour.

You can sign the petition here:

https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/stop-the-discriminatory-bill-removing-disabled-people-s-rights-ensure-fair-due-process?utm_source=actionstation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blast3951&source=actionstation&bucket=blast3951

It is another instance of the National ACT NZ First Coalition bypassing the Courts , because whānau caregivers recently won a supreme court case to have their skills, care and labour to be recognised by the government.

As a result, this government has decided that, instead of considering the needs of disabled individuals or providing support and acknowledgement for carers of disabled whānau, they would avoid their liability by creating this Disability Support Services Bill.

If this Bill is passed it will:

• make it harder to challenge unfair decisions about support through the Human Rights Commission and the Health and Disability Commissioner,

• let the Government change rules around entitlements without scrutiny; and,

• cancel existing court cases, shutting people out of justice and creating further exclusion.

So, what can we do?

1. Make a submission by 1 pm Friday the 12th (Less than 48hrs!)

https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCSSC_SCF_E6D8596D-C177-486B-CCF2-08DEB47E5457/disability-support-services-bill.

If you need help knowing where to start, here is a Submission Template Lawyer Dr Huhana Hickey has created which you are free to use:

• Submission on the Disability Support Services Bill

• Tēnā koutou katoa.

  My name is __________________

  I do not support the Disability Support Services Bill in its current form.

• Why I am worried about this Bill

  Disabled people, tāngata whaikaha and whānau hauā are already struggling.

  Many things have changed recently, including:

  • cuts to disability supports,

  • changes to funding

  • Inadequate support for ppl having to navigate support services including income support.,.MSD

  • higher housing costs,

  • fewer accessible homes,

  • transport problems,

  • pressure on hospitals, health and wellbeing services ,

  • and welfare changes.

  Life is becoming harder for many disabled people and families.

  This Bill could make things worse.

  My Main Concerns

  1. The Bill treats support like a limited service instead of a right

  Disabled people need support to live safely, have independence, take part in community life, and have dignity.

  Support should not depend on how much money the Government wants to save, or how much unpaid care families can provide. New Zealand agreed to follow the:

  United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  This says disabled people should have equal rights and full participation in society. This Bill does not protect those rights strongly enough.

  2. Families and carers are already exhausted

  Many carers work long hours unpaid, give up jobs, lose income, and become stressed and tired.

  The Bill places more responsibility onto families and whānau. This is unfair.

  The Government should not expect families to carry the burden alone.

  3. The Bill gives too much power to future Governments

  The Bill allows future Governments to change funding rules more easily.

  This could mean less support, stricter rules, or fewer services later on.

  Disabled people need certainty and protection.

  There should be:

  • strong legal rights,

  • fair appeals,

  • and independent oversight.

  4. Disabled people should not be treated as a cost

  Some parts of the Bill focus on saving money and reducing Government risk. Disabled people are not a burden. Support helps people:

  • work,

  • study,

  • care for whānau,

  • volunteer,

  • and live independently.

  Good support benefits everyone.

  Human Rights Concerns

  This Bill may not meet New Zealand’s responsibilities under:

  • the Human Rights Act,

  • the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act,

  • Te Tiriti o Waitangi,

  • and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

  Disabled Māori, tāngata whaikaha and whānau hauā already face major inequalities.

  This Bill could make those inequalities worse.

  What I Want Parliament To Do

  I ask Parliament to:

  1. Stop this Bill in its current form.

  2. Remove parts that place too much responsibility onto families and whānau.

  3. Protect disabled people’s rights properly in law.

  4. Create fair appeals and independent oversight.

  5. Work closely with disabled people, tāngata whaikaha, whānau hauā, Deaf communities, carers, and disability organisations before making major changes

     Conclusion

  Disabled people deserve:

  • dignity,

  • safety,

  • fairness,

  • accessibility,

  • and proper support.

  This Bill risks moving disabled people and nz backwards

  Regards, ________________________

Subscribe now

Thank you to the 157 readers who took part in yesterday’s 24 hours straw poll that asked Are you comfortable with Minister Upston collecting $52,000 a year to live in her own apartment?

The results were:

97% said No

3% said she should take less.

Meanwhile in related news the same Minister is failing miserably to reduce Child Poverty in our country.

A new child poverty report shows the country isn’t on track to meet its 2028 targets.

50,000 more children are living in material hardship than 3 years ago so now 170,000 of our kids ( think the entire population Tauranga) are living without nutritious food, warm clothing and living in overcrowded homes.

Please take a few minutes to listen to Auckland University Emeritus Professor Dr Innes Asher is a retired paediatrician at Starship Hospital who was appointed to the Government’s Welfare Expert Advisory Group in 2018. Dr Innes Asher speaking to RNZ’s to John Campbell this week by clicking on the link below.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019037083/paediatrician-raises-concerns-over-child-poverty-progress

(Pictured PM Luxon and MP Upston)

Subscribe now

It’s thanks to my paid subscribers that I am able to continue my public interest journalism.

By chipping in $10 a month you will not only gain access to my documentaries and podcasts but you will be connected to a community of concerned and intelligent New Zealanders and discuss the issues with them if you wish. Thanks.

Please share and also restack posts you consider worthwhile as it all helps to build readership.

Give a gift subscription