I’m sure Grant Robertson never intended to inflict collateral damage on Wellington’s Mary Potter Hospice when he wrote the anti John Key song squawked  by “Moana and the  Ministers’. But the Hospice took the ricochet.

Ms Clark told reporters that the Ministers were rehearsing the song (which Grant, until recently H3 in her office, admitted to writing) for last Monday’s Mary Potter Fundraiser at the Beehive. The NZ Herald report is on the Hospice’s website.

I’m told the Hospice then got calls from regular contributors saying they would stop donating. As the Hospice needs to raise over $3M a year from the public Mary Potter had to go into damage control.  They apparently told the organiser of the event they would not attend if the song was to be sung. Thankfully it was pulled.

I’m sure any damage will be short lived. Contributors big-hearted enough to help keep the Hospice operating will not let the incident disgust them for long.

But I’m not surprised that Grant is blogging piously on events in Dunedin and the China Free Trade agreement at the moment.

 (click on the photo to see the background)

This is not just a picture of two hard-working fellows –  my husband, Stephen Franks and Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. The background is what is important.  On that noticeboard are the poignant stories of the young people and elderly parents murdered in New Zealand  by other New Zealanders.  Most of the offenders had been given another chance by the State – they were out on parole or bail. 

The clippings and photos were put there by their families who attended this weekend’s Sensible Sentencing Conference in Wellington.  I sat in on a number of sessions and felt privileged to see their courage, tears and yes, laughter.  To see how they supported each other.  And to see how frustrated they are with the New Zealand Criminal Justice system which gives lots of help to the offenders, and very little to the families of their innocent victims.  The stories of these murders are appalling, beyond our imagination or belief.  And yet what happens afterwards, in the Coroner’s hearing, Court hearings and Parole hearings is also beyond normal belief.  The system is failing badly and it impacts on all of us. 

You cannot feel sorry for the murderers.  Most of these particular criminals made a conscious choice that day to murder or kill.  Their chance of rehabilitation is almost zero.  Yet they are let out again and again by our soft Justice System to threaten your children and elderly parents, and mine. 

You may say these criminals have often had harsh backgrounds.  Others have those backgrounds and they do not murder.  You may say they are born psychopaths and cannot help themselves.  Others are psychopaths and yet they content themselves preying on the innocent for money without conscience. They do not murder. 

People complain that Sensible Sentencing is too harsh.  If you had spent a harrowing and emotional weekend with these families, you might reconsider that.  John Key was there listening and obviously moved by what he was told.  Let’s hope a Government led by him can look at this situation with realism and compassion, not just failing idealism. 

Catharine Franks   

This weekend is given over to a Sensible Sentencing Trust Conference here in Wellington. This select (invitation only) group of about 200 yesterday had hours of close attention from John Key and Chester Burrows for National, Minister Peter Dunne for United Future, ACT Deputy Leader Heather Roy, NZ First’s Ron Mark, and Labour’s newest hope, Louisa Wall.

Though it is truly inspiring to be there, you ‘d never want to qualify for an insider’s invitation to this annual gathering. One or more of of your family must first be criminally killed.

As Garth McVicar went through the introductions the outsiders lost any habitual bounce.

In that conference hall was suffering concentrated to a degree that is literally unimaginable. I guess if asked most of us could recall half a dozen notorious murder cases at any one time. Yesterday’s hall was full of familiar names – scores of them, and they were only a third of those who wanted to come. As each individual or family group responded to the roll call, their names brought back the headlines, the days of suspense, the Court reports of enraging evidence painfully extracted.  

But the conference shows what Garth has built. Ida Hawkin’s conference speech encapsulated it – after 17 years of suffering she read that Sam Te Hei was in line to get compensation for breach of his human rights in prison. He and another Mongrel had snatched her daughter from the street then kicked her to death before driving over her repeatedly to make her body unrecognisable. Ida described Garth’s entry to her life as “the appearance of an angel”. He gave her the confidence to fight back, and eventually to drive Parliament into the (hasty) Prisoners and Victims Compensation Act.

Victims are transformed when they find a way to stand up, to have influence, to get out of the helpless hurt into action.

I reminisced with Kelly Piggott (mother of Teresa Cormack) about her first visit to Parliament  very soon after she’d contacted Garth. Bedraggled, she felt so defeated she could not look in the eye anyone on the Select Committee. Months later, she was back, almost unrecognisable as the same person. She glowed as she sang with Rowena Marsh the song that became Sensible Sentencing’s theme music for their election advertising.

John Key and Chester Borrows gave the conference the courtesy of time. Politicians commonly whisk in to speak, and are then off. John was there most of the morning. In the true sense of the word he ‘graced’ the gathering with his attention to the people who wanted to talk to him. Chester stayed the whole day, as did Ron Mark, and Heather Roy was there nearly as long.

Justice Minister Annette King earned credit for courage in attending. All there knew that she had an uphill battle given her government’s hypocrisy on criminal justice matters. Still, the victims know that politicians of all stripes are responsible for New Zealanders being the second most likely in the Western world to be victims of crime each year.

Annette swept in just for her speech. That set her up to give one of the most miscued performances I’ve ever seen.  A typical self-congratulatory adversarial recital of policies with no relevance to murder just does not cut it among a roomful of people who’ve actually experienced the difference between the cant and promise of the justice system, and the disgraceful reality.

Many victims walked out. As one explained later over lunch – “it hurt so much to listen to that political bullshit I had to go”. Another said “if I had not left I might have done something embarrassing”.

Louisa Wall compounded the disaster for Labour. I’m sure she could be engaging. She looked striking. With a coat consciously designed to evoke a 19th century blanket and a bone ornament in her hair she was a glorious Goldie come to life. Her fatal mistake was  to over-egg the rangatira act.

This audience is serious. They can and do laugh, but their experiences mean they want to get to substance very quickly. So Louisa’s longish mihi in Te Reo was delivered essentially to herself and clearly for herself. She did not bother to translate.

Though of course there were plenty of Maori in the room, this was not the place for ‘in your face’ exhibitions of identity politics.  

The only outsiders were Catharine and me (as the just retired “legal spokesman” for the Trust), Keith Jeffries (long time instructing solicitor on Trust litigation) and Nikki Pender (who acted superbly for Karl Keukenbecher’s family at the Coroner’s inquiry into Graeme Burton’s uses of his parole privilege)’ and the dedicated Trust personnel.  

In accordance with Trust policy of political non-alignment, on selection as a National candidate I stood down from the Trust “spokesmanship”. The Trust had made the appointment to relieve the media burden on Garth McVicar, especially on technical legal matters. Not surprisingly the media still wanted Garth’s pithy words and my role did not much change. I help with legal and policy advice when asked, but often first saw the Trust’s positions in the media along with everyone else.

The Trust launched with the politicians yesterday a “three strikes” policy. I personally favour more mandatory sentencing but for me an automatic 25 years for a third offence (the same as California) is excessive.

The Trust has more policy to come, and they’re determined to exercise their democratic rights in this election.

The dedication of the people at this meeting is intense. If Labour think they have trouble with the Electoral Finance Act now, wait till nearer the election when the Police are forced to try to stop these victims from telling their fellow New Zealanders who they want elected, and who they don’t.

[Postscript – this morning’s MSM reporting of Annette’s policy announcements remind me of the artificiality of our news. I doubt that anyone at the conference, me included, realised that policy was being announced. It was buried in words long after anyone there had stopped concentrating.]

The news this morning, and the pathetic Morning Report performance of the head of the Maritime Safety Authority, reminded me of my experience with the marine surveyors.

Cathy and I with another couple commissioned a 30 ft sailboat for a charter business out of Nelson. It had to be built “under survey”. Survey requirements irrelevant to a fibreglass boat increased the cost. Some were so incredible the surveyors did not even try to defend them, and sensibly let the builders (internationally reputable Marten Marine) ‘overlook’ them.

One requirement we satisfied the day Karakoram was launched, and then breached for all the years she was in charter.

Karakoram was required to have a large galvanised iron bucket, painted red, and prominently marked FIRE, to be filled with sand. This was in addition to the normal extinguishers we installed in any event. I think we were supposed to have with the bucket a “hatchet” marked FIRE, but from recollection the surveyors let us pass without painting the hatchet.

I was reminded of this when listening to the catalogue of regulatory failures held responsible for the drowning of 6  people in Foveaux Strait.

I wonder how many time inspection systems become corrupted because the rules are so numerous, inflexible and stupid that any enforcers with self respect simply have to get into the habit of allowing unofficial departures. No one with intelligence or integrity could bear to stay in a job that consisted of endlessly frustrating your fellow men for no good reason.

And so a culture grows, of turning a blind eye, which over time mutates into general cynicism and slackness.

I have no idea whether this is part of the explanation for today’s revelations. But to me it is one of the most powerful arguments against suffocating red tape, and for giving inspectors and regulators the genuine respect of discretion and authority to exercise judgement.

The law has probably prohibited political theatre during election year, but I’m sure the Electoral Commission will do its best to avoid telling the Police to close a theatre. It would too convincingly highlight the idiocy of the law.

For the sake of free speech I hope they’ll find some way to rationalise that the law does not mean what it says.

My letter I wrote to the Electoral Commission last week is set out below.  

Unintended theatre bans are the kinds of train smashes that happen when you’re stupid, ruthlessly indifferent to your opponents’ rights, and you want it to be illegal for ordinary citizens to take part in electoral debate (persuading their fellow citizens how they should vote), so you restrict  participation to:

a) sitting politicians, or

b) people with licences from a sitting politician; or

c) people with the resources to hire accountants, who register with the Commission and promise only to attack, not support another party.

If Labour and the Greens had not debauched the language of human rights, the Commission could have replied instantly to my letter with an official – “don’t be stupid”.

I hate to see theatre threatened, but Labour can remove the threat immediately, perhaps while the courts are asked how to interpret the section, by consenting under s.65.

The honourable thing for them would be to consent in the meantime if there is even minor risk to the innocent producers and players. Any consequent erosion of Labour’s election headroom by the amount of production costs would be a fair punishment for not exempting theatre in the first place.

Alternatively the producers could register as a third party.

“Dear Dr Catt

In budgeting for my campaign I have wondered how to treat expenses associated with public addresses. They can include loudspeaker hire, hall hire, security, compulsory use of venue ushers and other staff, equipment to serve the traditional cup of tea and biscuit, advertising the event etc.

…

 I am trying to decide whether public addresses and performance are caught at all. Speeches clearly involve “words or graphics” for the purposes of the offending “advertisement” definitions. Only mime would exclude speeches, drama or street theatre from the advertisement definition if it had the effect of persuading or encouraging people to vote, or not to vote in particular directions.

But there is a second question – whether direct presentation or performing to the public is “publishing” for the purposes of the Act? I fear that it might be caught by “publish” in the following paragraphs of the definition:

(b) “display to the public” 

(d) “delivering to the public by any means”;

(e) “broadcast” when amplifying equipment is used; or

(f) if clips go on You Tube (which may happen without the approval of the presenter or performer “include in a film or video displayed to the public”. As you know, the exemptions in section 5(2) benefit stuff editorially selected by written news media, radio, television and non-commercial blog sites.But there is no exemption for theatre or any other live presentations (or for film distributed of them other than thru the exempted main stream media).I can not imagine the Labour Party meant to end the long and noble tradition of street theatre (Red Mole?).

Audrey Young’s blog says voters will have a choice of Franks in Wellington Central.

“My old friend Don Franks was among [demonstrators at the weekend’s Labour Party conference] behind a Workers Party of New Zealand banner. Don is standing for Parliament for the first time in Wellington Central where Labour’s Marian Hobbs is retiring.He is up against Labour’s Grant Robertson, National’s Stephen Franks (Don is afraid that people will confuse names and that Stephen will take votes intended for him), Act’s Heather Roy and the Green Party’s Sue Kedgley.”

It seems the other Franks have not canvassed each other. When union historian and activist Peter Franks stopped to chat as I was collecting for the Karori Sanctuary he denied knowledge of plans by his brother Don to stand in the upcoming election.

Peter and I were at Victoria University at the same time, but we know of no family connection.

Though experts have told me it can’t happen we’ve had emails clearly addressed to Peter’s paradise email address turn up in our paradise family inbox, including a set of amusing draft minutes of a Labour Party meeting in which Sue Piper was playing an active part.

Perhaps the experts who worked over Don Brash’s emails are working now on Peter Franks’.

The report is now available. This home page will take you to it.

John van Kesteren, one of the three leaders of the team that runs the survey, alerted me in a  blog comment, adding that  the delay was not due to any government conspiracy, and crime is falling all around the world.

Very good news.

I think I also saw somewhere that Pat Mayhew, one of the UK Home Office people who intiated the survey in 1987 is working with Justice in Wellington. Perhaps we will have a well informed debate on criminal justice trends this year.

Other things seem trivial at the moment.

Thousands of New Zealand families have connections with the centre, but for me and my firm last night’s news was especially hard.  I get flashes of the numbness that enveloped my family many years ago when my sixteen year old youngest brother was killed in a cave climbing accident (not at the Centre).

Catharine (my wife) flatted with the founder Graeme Dingle at the time when he and his colleagues were planning the Centre.  We spent time up there on working bees in its earliest days. My sisters, my children and I have done courses there and I’ve stayed there many times.

Chapman Tripp long had the Centre as a major sponsorship cause, and has done thousands of hours of free work for it. One of my partners was an instructor there and other partners have been on its Board.

Please now remember the good that it has done as the witch hunt starts.

I suspect that we may now be losing more young adults to drowning because they can’t swim (amateurs won’t risk teaching school kids to swim, and not every school can organise professionals) than we ever lost to less than perfect swim learning sessions by the local teacher in the local school pool.

Tidal generators appeal to the belief in fairy tales that lurks in most of us – the idea that gumption and a little cleverness can open a door to inexhaustible goodies, at no cost to anyone.

And what a target this time. Millions of horse power in a surge towed through Cook Strait by the sun and moon, then released to flow back to do it again 6 hours later. I hope the visionaries who have approval to trial a turbine get it well underway before the miserable objectors can think up the downsides. I’m sure no one can disprove the possibility that deep turbines might alarm great white sharks, or disturb the migratory patterns of crayfish.

I hope Bathurst and Beach of Neptune Power make millions, though experience says it is more likely that they will lose their money and the millions will be made by those who learn from the pioneers.

We need more Trade Me type success stories.

What a coup for the Herald, to have this story when the DompPost does not.

Today’s DomPost editorial bemuses me. Another recital of the blindingly obvious, that Mugabe is a goon, that Mbeki has propped him up for years, and that we won’t think Mbeki is very nice if he keeps it up.

But nothing to make this relevant to NZ. Not even a question whether there could be lessons for us in the in the “disapointment”. No exploration of New Zealand’s voting record at the UN on matters important to South Africa. No questioning of our craven failure to disturb Mbeki’s assumption that he can trade forever on self-loathing of our politicians and media elite, who show the same wilfulfully blind loyalty to their revolutionary “heroes of the struggle” as Mbeki is showing to Mugabe.

Margaret Wilson’s performance in Durban 4 years ago when New Zealand sided with those “heroes” against our traditional allies (the US and Britain) could have been mentioned.

I’ve never seen any MSM attempt to explore the NZ Labour Party’s knowledge of Mugabe’s early atrocities and their effective complicity in his subsequent destruction of his country. For Lange appointed a High Commissioner to Harare. It had no connection to New Zealand’s interests. It was to capitalise on Lange’s tribe’s delight in the defeat of Smith’s white farmers.

When the archives are opened, we should know whether the High Commissioner knew of and reported Mugabe’s early democratic practice.  After Smith’s defeat, while New Zealand was celebrating (our anti-colonialism has always been semi-hysterical) Mugabe was busy Africanizing democracy for Zimbabwe.

He accepted North Korea’s offer of military assistance. Death squads eliminated the Matabele elite (at least 10,000 murdered) to destroy any power base for Joshua Nkomo, the only other resistance leader with any prospect of challenging Mugabe atr the polls.

If our High Commissioner did not know, he would have been the only person in Harare who did not. I wonder whether the archives will record any faint perturbation in Wellington, as Lange set off around the world to lecture our allies about morality in foreign policy?