Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is dismissing any claims that cracks are beginning to form in the Coalition Government.
But she is suggesting Justice Minister Andrew Little should not have announced the Government was planning to repeal the three-strikes law until it had been agreed by Cabinet.
On Monday morning, Little said his promise to repeal the policy would not come before Cabinet because of opposition from NZ First.
He said this is how coalition governments work.
Speaking at her weekly post-Cabinet press conference, Ardern echoed those comments.
“I do want to highlight that within a coalition government, there are always going to be issues that [members] might take different positions on.”
She says the fact that the only public disagreements between NZ First and Labour in the last eight months have been regarding the 90-day trial periods and the repealing of the three strikes law “speaks to the strength of the Coalition Government.”
Little had announced to Newshub he would be taking the plan to repeal the law to Cabinet on June 11.
Ardern says it would have been better for him to wait until Cabinet had decided its course of action, before he announced anything.
“It’s always much tidier to wait until Cabinet,” she says.
EARLIER:
Justice Minister Andrew Little has been forced to back down from a promised repeal of the three-strikes policy because New Zealand First won’t play ball.
The Opposition says this is evidence of “underlined cracks in the Government” starting to form.
In a statement on Monday morning, Little said the repealing of the policy, made law by the previous Government in 2010, would not come before Cabinet because of reservations from its Coalition partners.
Speaking to media, Little admitted it was a backdown but justified it by saying “this is coalition government.”
“When you have genuine coalition government of a variety of parties with a span of views, you take on board all those views and that’s what we’re doing.”
Little announced late last month that the three strikes law was going before Cabinet to receive an endorsement to be repealed.
But he, and the Prime Minister, decided on Friday it would be better for this stand-alone repeal to be taken off the table.
“We got to a point at the end of last week where it was clear we weren’t going to get the support and there wasn’t any point in going ahead.”
The repeal was just one part of a wider crime reform policy, but Labour wanted this part to be axed before the wider bill went before the House.
Evidently, this did not play well with NZ First.
Little says the party would rather see a full, well-rounded package of changes rather than a “piecemeal approach” to reforms.
When asked if he had consulted the party on the three strikes repeal, Little said: “Nothing gets before cabinet without getting through a variety of hoops beforehand. But the reason why you have a variety of hoops is that people take time to pause and reflect and that happens.”
So, did NZ First renege on any undertakings it had given Little on regarding the repeal?
“This is coalition government,” Little said, not directly answering the question.
“The parties have their ways of operating, in the end, what’s important is you maintain the confidence of the parties.”
Asked if he was embarrassed about the backdown, he said no.
“I’ve backed down from things before.”
Cracks starting to form
National Leader Simon Bridges says the backdown shows “just how little thought is going into decisions which directly affect the lives of New Zealanders.”
“Just days after defiantly promising to repeal the Three Strikes law, Justice Minister Andrew Little has been hauled into line and revealed to have been making promises he simply hadn’t done the work to be able to keep.”
He says Monday’s backdown reveals the original announcement was “policy on the hoof,” and shows the Governing parties are “not even talking to each other.”
115 Comments
This is good use of a coalition. A big media win for NZF, no real loss for Labour, the only loser was National.
I think as the coalition gets more experience we will see more of this - NZF keeping the “looney left” in check. It makes the coalition more acceptable to right leaning voters, they can vote for labour to lower house prices and increase living conditions without the leftist threat.
Does anyone still really believe that Labour can lower house prices ?? It was a BS dream sold to the Labour voters, rather than me rave on I would encourage anyone and everyone to read this column from the BNZ and if that does not make sense then the world is passing you by. The NZF are as looney as the other 2 parties !!
http://tonyalexander.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/WO-May-24-2018.pdf
http://tonyalexander.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/WO-May-31-2018.pdf
And yes it is Tony Alexander, if you're not familiar with him his column's going back more than a decade can be accessed to validate his opinions and how accurate they are or not.
Oh rubbish Brock, just because it doesn't suit your sick agenda !! No one can have 100% prediction all the time ...
He is a reputable economist who has more than 30 years of experience and a sought after speaker all around the place ...
There is no vested interest, the Banks will sell mortgages and lend regardless of one man's opinion -- so get real!
Well said Bobster. This quoted from Tony Alexander's article "The questions people have are invariably centred around very specific things which have capacity to have some influence on the market. They ask about the changing brightline test, or the planned ban on foreign buying, or availability of bank finance. They are right at the coalface in the sector and their questions are quite specific. Rightly so"
Now here's Tony's encore performance;
"But that is not where I live my job. As an economist my job in every forum is to take people briefly away from their immediate concerns and try and show them the big long-term picture"
Brock Landers you are wrong (U is verkeerd ) there is no way in hell Labour will bring house prices down, they way they are carrying on
Here's why :-
Immigration is UP ! and those immigrants are not bringing houses with them to live in
Not a single new additional affordable house has been built under this Government
Its actually worse , not a single additional house has been consented
Its even worse than that , not a single subdivision has been opened or a single section created
And even worse than all of this was that the Budget did not allocate anywhere near enough funding to even start building the first house.
So quite simply , unless the fairy Godmother dies and leaves a whole lot of money to FHB's , or even better leaves her house to them , then they are on a hiding to nothing.
Agree Brock, Mr Alexander's prints are all over the murder weapon..... He has a portfolio of his own, his bank have been somewhat reckless in their lending multiples, he speaks at NZPIF seminars where idiots (that failed Year 8 maths) are actively encouraged to do stupid things with mortgage debt and he spruiks the market every week in the Property Press... A balanced commentator? No someone whose view is incredibly tainted because of exposure to the property market..
Justice without mercy is wrong in my opinion. Anybody else remember the news story about the man, whom I believe pinched a prison guards behind? It was his 3 strike and as such he was sentenced to many additional years in prison. The Judge's hands were tied and he wasn't happy about it.
Cases like this needlessly cost the NZ tax payer millions and illustrates a two teared justice system as the legal profession and other industries are rife with sexual harassment. Also consider many an incarcerated citizen has mental illness.
Be careful what you applaud, for what you applaud you encourage. Too many people in NZ are stiff necked, with their noses in their air. Pride comes before a fall.
That is cherry picking. So then you could be suggesting it is not relevant for a family to state that their loved one would be still alive today if the killer had been subjected to the third strike? The unfortunate, sad part is that there are extremes at at each end of the stick but I would wager that put to a vote the NZ majority would say retain the legislation. Now psychologists and such might well and truly disagree, but this is how a democracy works, more or less, ie the politicians are meant to listen to the electorate.
There has been a series of articles on 2nd strikers on kiwiblog over last week. 9 in total. Read them. They are all thugs with long histories of violent recidivism - not hard done by unlucky 'good boys'. They have hurt a huge number of people directly and indirectly, a lot of them are murderers, rapists, sociopaths and even psychopaths with poor impulse control and little to no respect for others.
Tell me these are people that you want to have released to live next door to you. Because if you are not ready for that then your generosity is worth shit - you have no skin in the game. It is the poor living in the low socioeconomic suburbs where these guys will be living if released who will have to pay the true cost for your warm fuzzy aspirations. Rehabilitation is not always possible.
Agreed. I voted Labour but if this repeal had passed I would have gone running back to National next election. It always amazes me how the left seem to be concerned with criminals having a great life and care nothing for the victims, their families or the public.
They need to think outside the box like legalizing all drugs and having a Government monopoly on sales so almost all of the profits go to policing (including jails), education and rehab. Better than handing the money to drug dealers and then using taxpayers' money to imprison the the few that we catch.
This to and fro "lock them up... let them all lose... lock them up" is dumb policy by both sides.
This should have been well and truly sorted before Little jumped into the spotlight with it. NZF is probably more conversant with public sentiment on issues such as this than any other party. Personally I believe most NZ’rs have great concerns about their safety in their homes and on the street and part of that, a very large part of that in fact, is the number of criminals at large, who shouldn’t be at large. Now Mr Little may have what he thinks are very valid reasons to counter those fears but he is only one person and on this one he has put the cart before the horse. I voted for NZF for the first time because I saw the possibility and potential of this coalition and thought NZF would be at least a handbrake of some sort, and in this case here, I now feel some vindication. This government has got the stumbles. You don’t announce you are repealing anything until you have the numbers in the bag. A third former would know that one.
It's a contrived stitch up of the NZ public.
The CoL stumbling from one crisis of incompetence to another, NZF free falling to oblivion, enter Let Them Out Little with a proposal he knows full well won't fly with middle NZ but will position the invisible Peters as white knight.
Meanwhile Little quietly carries on with his main agenda of a review committee stacked with fellow travellers intent on allowing thousands of violent ferals to escape imprisonment.
I feel like I may be in something of a minority to have liked the proposal to get rid of 3 strikes, and reducing the prison population in general. I'd much rather see money spent on improving people's lives and fixing the problems that lead them to offend (often mental health or drug addiction) rather than stuffing them into prisons, but there seems to be a real thirst for punishing people in this country.
We'd be well rid of three strikes. It's expensive and counterproductive, but fulfilled a propaganda agenda, so looks like we're stuck with it whilst the NZ public prefers to base their opinions on spite rather than evidence. Note. I've been in law enforcement for 20+ years, so nobody bother attacking me for my woolly woofter naivety based on some shit they read on TradeMe forums.
Have seen so many basically OK young dudes (more scatterbrained and impulsive and easily led than bad or sadistic) go inside for relatively minor stuff, and come out gang members and hardened career criminals who are a danger to the public. On the outside, most of them grow out of that stage, given a chance, and they're much more likely to grow out of it if there's something better to go to, like jobs with wages you can live and raise a family on. There's a ton of crime goes on in prison too, of course, and it still counts.
Three strikes was just a vanity project copied from failed programmes overseas. We can do better than that. It's too arbitrary and expensive, and does nothing to target crime effectively, because there's no real risk assessment attached. Get rid of it, and people will still be convicted and sentenced, but in a way that's proportional and tailored to the individual crime.
Yes I agree, I think it’s poor policy and poor law. It appeals to the loony muldoonist rump of the national party (or NZF, as they are now called). But I don’t think that will do much for prison populations, the increase there is to do with changes to changes in the remand scheme.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-ha…
there is one example, showing the exact opposite, harsher penalties do not appear to work well as a deterrant. Another would be Indonesia and drug traffficking. Its a death sentence, everybody knows it, yet it keeps happening.
Serious crime rates are falling across the entire western world, and rates are generally lower in more liberal states, with higher taxes, more wealth redistribution to the poor. I wish it wasn't true, but that is what reality seems to show. Apparently threatening to put someone in jail that has not much to lose in the first place doesn't work so well.
Report is about the effect of the death penalty on murder rates. It's erroneous to infer from this study that the (mostly) non murder serious crime rates in a very different society (NZ) that we are discussing, must be similarly delinked from punitive consequences.
There are numerous other studies that show the same thing. Juvenile offenders don't suddenly stop offending when they turn 18, even though the penalties go up steeply.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/report-says-long-sentences-dont-dete…?
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
There only appears to have been one in the 2017 calendar year and none so far this year. If I am reading the tables correctly (see link below). If so it is hardly the money pit most on this site are bleating about. This is even before the discussion on whether it is money well spent.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/research-data/justice…
If we actually want fewer criminals on the streets then let's look at the root causes. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By the time a criminal has committed a single strike it's too late. The damage is done.
In light of 50% of the prison population being a certain minority, and this same minority having very high rate of unemployment wouldn't it make sense to:
1) Stop the welfare dependence and get these people trained and into the workforce. A hand up not a hand out. 2) Not exacerbate the unemployment problem by bringing in third world workers willing work for nothing.
3) For the people who are unable or unwilling to be trained the government should not give them incentives to have large (often dysfunctional) families.
Your choice Labour. Create dysfunctional resentful criminals or satisfied fulfilled workers.
If only politicians could look past the next election.
The non gang affiliated prison population has remained virtually static. Gang affiliates account for almost all of the surge in prisoners over recent years, during which period non violent offences have steadily fallen. Most of these gang prisoners are dedicated to a life of crime. Some success in turning them round can be achieved with targeted programs but the majority are hard core recidivists for whom the appropriate place is behind bars.
Yes they should be behind bars but that's a last resort. Where do these gangs recruit members from? I don't know but I'd guess they'd take in young men from dysfunctional (fatherless) families.
Why pay a years salary to lock these guys up when the problem doesn't need to exist in the first place.
Comments that may be relevant to this debate:
John Key - 2008 " We are breeding an underclass "
Well over half the prison population is illiterate - How did these people get past an entrenched union teaching profession with no individual accountability or performance pay like the rest of the real world to age 16 without these skills.
Their solution is to shut down the charter schools offering real solutions to these very difficult children who for a variety of reasons - usually driven by a home life environment - can't cope with ordinary schools.
Mike Williams is doing a really great job against almost insurmountable forces in this area.
As he has pointed out - Can't read - No drivers licence - Repeated offending - Jail - Gangs - Jail and their future die has been cast.
Whilst a very difficult and longer term fix - when we allow student to leave school without the ability to read and write - we are almost always condemning them to a life of crime and eventuality prison.
Charter schools were addressing this - but were closed without so much as a visit from the COL.
Charter schools were merely the excuse to not raise the bar across all schools.
Public schools are the best oppurtunity to break down barriers.
Imagine a society where catholics go to one school, muslims another, maoris another, gays another, line dancers another, left handers another, Chinese yet another and on it goes. Far better the kids are all in together so they realise from a very young age that their parents hang-up are not their own.
You do have a point in that kids need to learn that the world is made up of many different view-points.
Your example to terrible thought, like really bad. Seriously... so bad. What if someone is left handed and half Asian? Such a bad example.
One thing you didn't touch on is that this would benefit the "troubled" kid at the detriment of the other kids. You effectively sacrifice the few for the many if you make everyone take the same classes. You might be thinking, well just have different classes. In that case the kids segregate themselves. We did.
So taking money off the poor will make them less likely to commit crime?
Unfortunately anyone born into poverty these days is pretty much screwed. Things that we take for granted like buying a house to live in are almost impossible unless you are well educated. The poverty trap gets worse every year. I can see why people give up and turn to drugs and crime.
Course there is, it's well documented. But to claim a life of crime is an almost inevitable outcome of deprivation is demonstrably wrong. There is a clear correlation but it's simplistic and I think dishonest for social progressives to claim criminals are hapless victims of their circumstances.
I didn’t say they have to resort to crime, I just said they are screwed. Whether they turn to crime or not depends on many other factors.
But I do know that the bigger the wealth divide becomes, the more crime we will have. Cutting benefits will not eliminate criminals.
Depends on the crime and the person. In crime for money, poverty is a major driver in things like shoplifting, but go up the social scale a little, and out-of-control greed is also a major driver. People like the head of Hanover Finance, or certain accountants, or major drug dealers who can never have enough, no matter how much they've already stashed.
> born into poverty
That's the point you're missing entirely. Birth control is very cheap. Responsible people don't breed for welfare.
> buying a house
I agree houses are too expensive. That's a huge problem that Labour are merely pretending to address. Kiwibuild is a joke.
Yep, i definitely support forcing anyone relying on the dole or DPB to make ends meet being forced to take contraception. They obviously aren't in a position to support the kids they already have (if any), and certainly can't afford more if they can't get by without a govt handout.
I see it numerous ways.
1. Could the lovely young lady's family/whanau not step in and help (or even the aholes family), i.e. she wouldn't need the benefit.
2. Could it be that the lovely young lady is actually a responsible individual who just encountered some bad lack, so would be unlikely to have another 5 kids willy nilly anyway?
3. Could it be that the ahole gets actively held account to cover the costs of the child. Rather than the tax payer stepping in.
I see nothing wrong with a hard line on benefits. In my view welfare is there for people who are in dire financial strife with little/no other options. If they can't look after themselves, why on earth would anyone think adding a kid into the mix would make it better?
So.... she's on the "Benny" (as you put it) i.e. struggling to support herself and her child and you think more children is a good idea?
You haven't thought that through.
Also no one is saying to make it permanent. Your taking that to the extreme end of the argument.
Contraception, not sterilization.
So once she meets this nice young fella, and has a stable relationship where the pair of them are able to support themselves and their existing kids without putting their hand deeper into the public purse, then she comes off the contraception and can have another rugrat.
The main point would be to stop those like a young lady I know, who has four kids to four different fathers, the first three all out of wedlock and after AFAIK relationships that lasted no more than 2 years. (although things are looking up for her.. she's married the last one and so far it seems to be working out - touch wood)
You can't go around forcing people to take contraception. We have to rely on wealth or the lack of it to discipline people. This is why welfare should never be too generous.
I regularly tell my kids that money is one of the most important things in the world. Not necessarily too much but you need more than just enough if you want to be free. The more money you have the freer you will be. Choose your partners wisely.
Hmmm, the contraception would have to be administered via injection to ensure compliance if this plan was going to work. Get your injection, get your cheque. It would come across as forced contraception and an infringement of human rights. I can't see it flying. Easier to just be a bit mean with welfare.
I don't understand why grandparents can't help out with the grandkids a bit more. It's not my responsibility to look after your grandkids. Your flesh and blood. Not my fault you didn't teach your kids some practical "life skills"..
Not your fault, but your problem when they decide your shiny watch will get them $140 at cash converters. That is sort of the whole point of welfare, pay them enough that they don't decide that robbing people is a win win.. A successful robbery pays for a nights/weeks food etc, and getting caught gets them 3 squares and free accommodation for a couple of months, and free's them from raising the baby they didn't really want in the first place, and particularly when they relaised that the father wasn't going to hang around and support them.
And as for the grandparents paying.. there are only two of them around, typically the father runs for the hills when he finds out he's knocked the girl up and she expects him to settle down and provide, so that set of grandparents isn't on the scene. Then add in the fact that the girl may well be in this situation because she was herself raised in that sort of household, and her parent(s) (if still alive/healthy) probably aren't the best role models, and may not be in a postion to help her out financially. That is why its a poverty trap, poor role models, not much of a support network, and the cycle repeats.
It's pretty hard for some people to make their own way in the world without government support. I've joined a WINZ Advocacy and Advice Facebook page just out of curiosity. The amount of entitlement on there is unreal.
A solo mum of 1 posted a screenshot of her MSD Entitlements because she was having a moan about how her rent is automatically deducted. All up she receives $605 per week in the hand. Someone working 40 hours a week on $18 an hour receives $602.84 per week in the hand, and that's above minimum wage!!!
Emotive language is not an argument Jimbo. Your lovely lady is taking my money to spread her genetics.
She can have as many kids as she wants. There is no government issued chastity belt. Just don't expect me to pay for it. This is not interfering with the gene pool it's quite the opposite by getting the government to stop influencing the gene pool in a negative way.
Bobster, that was absolutely hilarious!
You could be on stage,
Truth is that “The Man” speaks the truth and yet you have to come out with an ignaramus statement
Why on earth would the Labour Party want to have that law reversed.
They also have stated that they are miracle workers by cutting the jail population by 30% or something to that effect!
That is just BS and if we will not put up,with weak handed criminal decisions.
Time to get tough and if we have bad people on the streets doing crime, come down hard on them as many are not able to be improved.
THE MAN 2, cutting the prison population by 30% is entirely possible. Under any Government most, if not all proposed methods would be a red rag to some critic from some corner of the population, including the prisoners themselves! One such example is to dispatch and release 30% into Christchurch.
The law was about stopping judges being able to use discretion when sentencing people. Do you really think you know more about crime and punishment than the Judges?
It is a bit sad, the level of conversation that this topic has raised from this community today IMO.
Returning to the wider context, it's clear to me that, at best, this Gubmint has a cat-herding issue. Too many loose cannons, mouthing off about all manner of subjects, then being reeled in for a little chat with the Keeping Noses Clean Party Committee (apologies to 'Animal Farm', where the Clean Tails League for cows, the Egg Production Committee for hens and the Whiter Wool Movement for sheep, were the precedents). Kelvin Wossname and Andrew Something being the latest.
And at worst? Presidential deals (oil/gas, anyone?) stitched up in a smoke-free but also sunshine-of-democracy-free back room. Even the RMA need an S32 assessment of effects, along social, environmental, economic and infrastructural axes. But this crew? Zip, zilch, nada. Take that, peasants. Taranaki, just go peacefully into that fossil-fuel-free long night.
Several of the Lesser Ministers are indeed proving themselves Lesser in all respects, and H1 is about to hand over the reins to our oldest, wiliest and Most Baubular personage.
They say a week is a long time in politics.
Try six.
Oh, and to return to Animal Farm. call me Benjamin....
Interesting. On the one hand we have a coalition where parties are actually able and willing to hold their own opinions. (Yet opponents are always happy to blast them for "group think" and not being fans of individual freedom).
On the other hand we have a major party where - on morning breakfast television a couple of weeks back - an MP was asked her opinion on a particular issue and said "Ahh...I'll have to check with Simon what we think on that issue", as if personal opinions are not allowed.
It be fair, I don't want a government that has lots of opinions. WE the voters are the ones that are suppose to have the opinions about what WE think is important and WE show them by voting on it. THEY are suppose put those into action as efficiently and effectively as possible.
The only reason we need them to share the same opinions as us, is so we can have some confidence they will fore fill the promises they made. Now look at them, I'm pretty sure they "believe" in building houses and public transport but we're still waiting for something/anything to happen.
We need to get rid of this Government ASAP, what an utter shambolic disaster it has turned out to be, bumbling from one crisis to the next and having achieved absolutely nothing at all in 6 months , other than reviews and enquiries, talkfests , idealistic gibberish sprouted by Ministers and expensive junkets all over the place .
Not to mention :-
Infighting
Squabbling like four-year-olds
Making outrageous statements one would expect from the opposition , seemingly forgetting they are now in power
Banning whole industries without consultation ( they heard their industry was banned on Social Media, Trumpesque indeed)
Drunken orgies at Labour camps
An unplanned pregnancy, out of wedlock by the leader of this ragtag bunch of losers ( an excellent example for our youth and family values )
Endless proposals for more taxes , most of which will hammer the poor
A stupid fuel tax which will also hammer lower income groups ( My Practice pays for my car and my fuel so it makes not one jot of difference to me for example )
An environment minister who is behaving like he has found the toys isle at Christmas
A looming dairy disease nightmare
Loosening bail laws that have taken 50 years to get into place
soft on crime
soft on beneficiaries ( John Minto wants the benefit to be the same as the minimum wage ) , which will really encourage people to seek work
A Tax Working Group which is going to be an attempted whitewash or shakedown of you and I ( Good luck to them )
.................. and not one single new additonal affordable home has even been consented ......... let alone built in this Kiwibuild, Kiwirent, Kiwi-buy , Kiwi-off-plan, Kiwi-wishful thinking, Kiwi nightmare so called "flagship " policy which is no flagship , more like a rubber duck with a leak .
And blaming every perceived injustice on what happened in the past 9 years , forgetting that the 9 years before that they set the foundations for immigration policy , housing policy and all manner of things that were badly handled by Helen Clark
All we have not yet seen is a major sex or drugs scandal to rock the administration .
Its an endless litany of disasters by this august body of idiots masquerading as an administration
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.