DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2008 A.2 Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2008 Parliamentary Service Commission Te Komihana O Te Whare Premata Presented to the House of Representatives pursuant to Schedule 2, Clause 11 of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Report of the Parliamentary Service Commission About the Parliamentary Service Commission The Parliamentary Service Commission is constituted under the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. The Commission has the following functions: • to advise the Speaker on matters such as the nature and objectives of services to be provided to the House of Representatives and members of Parliament; • recommend criteria governing funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes; • recommend persons who are suitable to be members of a review committee; and • consider and comment on draft reports prepared by review committees. The Commission may also require the Speaker or General Manager of the Parliamentary Service to report on matters relating to the administration or the exercise of any function, duty, or power under the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. Membership, Subcommittees and Committees The membership of the Commission is governed under sections 15-18 of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. Members of the Commission are: • the Speaker, who also chairs the Commission; • the Leader of the House, or a member of Parliament nominated by the Leader of the House; • the Leader of the Opposition, or a member of Parliament nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; • one member for each recognised party that is represented in the House by one or more members; and • an additional member for each recognised party that is represented in the House by 30 or more members (but does not include among its members the Speaker, the Leader of the House, or the Leader of the Opposition). Ministers of the Crown or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries may not be appointed to the Commission under this provision. The Commission may form subcommittees. Membership of subcommittees is made up of Commission members. The Commission may form committees to assist the Commission on any matter within the scope of its functions. Committee members do not have to be members of the Commission. The membership of the Parliamentary Service Commission from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 was: Hon Margaret Wilson, MP (Chairperson) Tim Barnett, MP (representing the Labour Party) Peter Brown, MP (representing the NZ First Party) Hon Darren Hughes, MP (representing the Leader of the House) John Carter, MP (representing the Leader of the Opposition) Nathan Guy, MP (representing the National Party) from February 2008 Rodney Hide, MP (representing the ACT New Zealand Party) Keith Locke, MP (representing the Green Party) Anne Tolley, MP (representing the National Party) until February 2008 3 Hon Tariana Turia, MP (representing the Mori Party) Judy Turner, MP (representing the United Future New Zealand Party) The Commission met 11 times during the year. Subcommittees During the 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 year, the Commission formed two subcommittees: • the Policy Subcommittee to consider the guidelines and policies relating to members’ publicity; and • a subcommittee to consider the recommendation made in the 2007 Parliamentary Appropriations Review Committee report regarding additional support for Mori and larger electorates. Policy Subcommittee Hon Margaret Wilson, MP (Chair) Any member of the Parliamentary Service Commission can attend Policy Subcommittee meetings. Subcommittee (Mori and Larger Electorates) Tim Barnett, MP Anne Tolley, MP Te Ururoa Flavell, MP (deputising for Hon Tariana Turia, MP) Committees Artworks Committee The Artworks Committee concerns itself with the parliamentary art collections and considers artwork purchases. Its membership from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 was: Hon Steve Chadwick, MP (Chair) Hon David Benson-Pope, MP Chris Finlayson, MP House Committee The House Committee provides policy approval and direction for the Bellamys catering operations. Its membership from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 was: Hon Clem Simich, MP (Chair) Hon Darren Hughes, MP Sue Kedgley, MP Pita Paraone, MP Pansy Wong, MP Security Committee The Security Committee’s role is to maintain a watching brief over developments that impact on the security of members and staff at Parliament and in their out-of- Parliament offices throughout the country. Its membership from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 was: John Carter, MP (Chair) Hon George Hawkins, MP (to February 2008) 4 Hon Steve Maharey, MP (from February 2008) Ron Mark, MP Heather Roy, MP Parliamentary Corporation Tim Barnett, MP (from November 2007), Hon Mark Burton, MP (until November 2007) and John Carter, MP were the Parliamentary Service Commission appointees to the Parliamentary Corporation pursuant to section 29(1)(c) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. Speaker’s Directions and Determination A major review of the Speaker’s Directions began in the previous 2006/2007 year and continued throughout 2007. The Commission considered the content for the new, more comprehensive version. The completed Directions and Specifications for Services and Funding Entitlements for the House of Representatives, its Members, and Former Members was published in October 2007, and came into force 1 December 2007 under the Parliamentary Travel, Accommodation, Attendance, and Communications Services Determination 2007 (SR 2007/318). The provisions cover: • Travel, accommodation, attendance, and communications services available to members; • Entitlements to funding and services to support parties’ and members’ parliamentary operations; • Directions for administering payment of funding entitlements; and, • Benefits and privileges available to former members. Together with the Parliamentary Service’s Financial and Administrative Policies and Processes, members will have more certainty in making their expenditure decisions. The revamped Speaker’s Directions has been a major project for the Commission and provides an important milestone in clarifying the extent and administration of entitlements available to members of Parliament. The Directions will be reviewed on an annual basis. Consideration of bulk funding for Parliamentary appropriations Bulk funding has been of interest to members and parties for some time. Reports as early as 19981 have considered the issue and bulk funding has been discussed to some extent by all of the three Parliamentary Appropriations Reviews (2002, 2004 and 2007). However, there has been no definitive recommendation that bulk funding be adopted as the prime means of providing support funding to members of Parliament. A recommendation from the 2007 Parliamentary Appropriations Review was “That an external organisation with financial management expertise and analytical skills be employed to determine the detail of the mechanisms and support systems that would be required, along with the associated costs, to introduce bulk funding as a primary 1 Funding support services for members of Parliament / The Treasury, January 1998 (prepared for the Parliamentary Service). 5 tool for supporting all political parties and members thereof.”2 It was further recommended that the work be completed well before the advent of the Fourth Triennial Review. On advice from Commission members in October 2007, the Speaker requested that an issues paper on bulk funding be prepared. A paper was produced and some preliminary consideration of the paper took place. However, the Commission resolved to revisit the matter after the General Election. Bowen Integrated Campus Proposal The Bowen Integrated Campus proposal, a comprehensive redevelopment of the Charles Fergusson and Bowen State buildings, was first mooted by Capital Properties Ltd in 2005. A formal resource consent application was lodged with the Wellington City Council in early 2007. The Commission has been following this proposal closely because of the possible implications for the parliamentary precincts, which borders the development. These include limitations that would be placed on future expansion and the size of the development, which would overlook Parliament. The Commission, as well as the Parliamentary Service, opposed the granting of resource consent for the project, but the project was granted resource consent by the Council in December 2007. After further consideration, the Commission advised the Speaker to appeal the granting of the consent to the High Court. A process of mediation, by a judge of the Environment Court, has been agreed to see if some of the difficulties between the parties could be resolved before the formal hearing process begins. The matter is ongoing. Conclusion This has been a busy year for the Commission and I thank members for their work and advice. I wish also to acknowledge the work done by non-Commission members on the various committees of the Commission. Their work has also added to enhancing the role of the Parliamentary Service Commission in guiding me, as Speaker, in my decision-making. HON MARGARET WILSON, MP Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Chairperson of the Parliamentary Service Commission 2 Parliamentary appropriations : report of the Committee on the Third Triennial Review, AJHR A.14, 2007. 6.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unsettling Recovery: Natural Disaster Response and the Politics of Contemporary Settler Colonialism
    UNSETTLING RECOVERY: NATURAL DISASTER RESPONSE AND THE POLITICS OF CONTEMPORARY SETTLER COLONIALISM A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY STEVEN ANDREW KENSINGER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DR. DAVID LIPSET, ADVISER JULY 2019 Steven Andrew Kensinger, 2019 © Acknowledgements The fieldwork on which this dissertation is based was funded by a Doctoral Dissertation Fieldwork Grant No. 8955 awarded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. I also want to thank Dr. Robert Berdahl and the Berdahl family for endowing the Daphne Berdahl Memorial Fellowship which provided funds for two preliminary fieldtrips to New Zealand in preparation for the longer fieldwork period. I also received funding while in the field from the University of Minnesota Graduate School through a Thesis Research Travel Grant. I want to thank my advisor, Dr. David Lipset, and the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Hoon Song, Dr. David Valentine, and Dr. Margaret Werry for their help and guidance in preparing the dissertation. In the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Dr. William Beeman, Dr. Karen Ho, and Dr. Karen-Sue Taussig offered personal and professional support. I am grateful to Dr. Kieran McNulty for offering me a much-needed funding opportunity in the final stages of dissertation writing. A special thanks to my colleagues Dr. Meryl Puetz-Lauer and Dr. Timothy Gitzen for their support and encouragement. Dr. Carol Lauer graciously offered to read and comment on several of the chapters. My fellow graduate students and writing-accountability partners Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • What the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Aimed to Do, Why It Did Not Succeed and How It Can Be Repaired
    169 WHAT THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT AIMED TO DO, WHY IT DID NOT SUCCEED AND HOW IT CAN BE REPAIRED Sir Geoffrey Palmer* This article, by the person who was the Minister responsible for the introduction and passage of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, reviews 25 years of experience New Zealand has had with the legislation. The NZ Bill of Rights Act does not constitute higher law or occupy any preferred position over any other statute. As the article discusses, the status of the NZ Bill of Rights Act has meant that while the Bill of Rights has had positive achievements, it has not resulted in the transformational change that propelled the initial proposal for an entrenched, supreme law bill of rights in the 1980s. In the context of an evolving New Zealand society that is becoming ever more diverse, more reliable anchors are needed to ensure that human rights are protected, the article argues. The article discusses the occasions upon which the NZ Bill of Rights has been overridden and the recent case where for the first time a declaration of inconsistency was made by the High Court in relation to a prisoner’s voting rights. In particular, a softening of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as it applies in the particular conditions of New Zealand’s small unicameral legislature, is called for. There is no adequate justification for maintaining the unrealistic legal fiction that no limits can be placed on the manner in which the New Zealand Parliament exercises its legislative power.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation in New Zealand Statute Law
    WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT NEW ZEALAND LAW AND THE NEW ZEALAND WAY OF DOING LAW - INNOVATION IN NEW ZEALAND STATUTE LAW Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer President, Law Commission Paper delivered to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Law Commission, Legislative Council Chamber, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, 25 August 2006 What is this paper about? 1 The threshold question is to define what this paper is about.1 Tests as to what is innovative tend to be subjective. What is meant by “innovative” in the first place? The Oxford English Dictionary makes it plain that innovation is the action of innovating; the introduction of novelties; the alteration of what is established by the introduction of new elements or forms. In one sense, every statute is an innovation. The term is also susceptible to a distinction between those statutes that are innovative as to form and those that are innovative as to policy. Some statutes are known for the novelty and boldness of their policy. Others for the use of intricate and novel legislative techniques, for example the claw back provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988.2 Some lawyers may admire particular legislative techniques that have no great impact except to implement faithfully the policy of the Act. And that policy may be of no great significance. On the other hand, statutes that are simple in drafting terms may raise enormous controversy leading to a difficult and long parliamentary passage. 2 Contemplating the difficulty of selection, I informally surveyed the Law Commission lawyers as to what they considered to be the three top innovative pieces of legislation in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Complaint Re S & F Bill V13a Incl HR Director
    OCR scan of letter received Te Tari Whakatau Take Tika Tangata The Office of Human Rights Proceedings 12 October 2005 Level 10 Tower Con tre Cnr Queen & Customs 515 PC Box 6751 Wellesley Street Auckland Telephone: (09) 375-8623 Facsimile: (09) 375-8641 Email: [email protected]. nz Dear Mr Goldsbury RE: YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FORESHORE AND SEABED ACT 2004 Thank you for your letter dated 15 September responding to my letter dated 19 August 2005 which set out my decision relating to your application for legal representation to take proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal in respect of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. You have asked me not to close your application but to suspend it so that it can be used to support any other similar application by directly affected persons which may be made in the future. If I receive a similar application in the future and if I agree to provide legal representation for proceedings in respect of that application, I will certainly convey to that applicant your willingness to support them with their case. If this occurs and they are agreeable to you being involved I will write to you and advise you of this. I cannot however suspend your application. I have made a decision in your case and in accordance with my usual procedure I will now close your file. Robert Hesketh Director of Human Rights Proceedings Tumuaki Whakatau Take Tika Tangata Human Rights Complaint re S & F Bill v13a Incl HR Director reply 12 Oct Sep05 - Peter Goldsbury 1 15 Sept 2005 Mr Robert Hesketh, The Director of Human Rights Proceedings, 10th Floor, Tower Centre, Corner Queen and Custom Streets PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street, Auckland.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 9 8.5 8.5 8 9 8.5 8 8 7 Roll Call
    ROLL CALL – How Our MPs Performed In 2011 Trans Tasman’s Editors have once again run their rule over NZ’s MPs and rated their performance in 2011. Roll Call looks at how they’ve performed in Caucus, Cabinet, Committee, the House, their electorate and the influence they bring, or are likely, to bring to bear in their various forums. This year being election year, there are some MPs who are no longer with us, and a host of newcomers and some better known returnees, who are not rated, but on whom we have commented regarding what we know of them, and what to expect from them. As we are rating MPs for their 2011 performances, new Cabinet or shadow Cabinet roles are not included. Cabinet Ministers This 2010 Year’s Name Seat/list Responsibilities Comments Rating Rating Key, John Helensville Prime Minister, Minister of Tourism, As one of NZ’s most popular ever PMs, Key did Ministerial Services, Minister in Charge what was needed by his party and delivered of the NZ Security, Intelligence Service, National a second term based almost entirely Minister Responsible for the GCSB upon “Brand Key.” Some of the Teflon armour flaked off over the year and some of his strongest supporters wonder whether he has a plan beyond careful political management 9 9 and upsetting as few people as possible. In the House Key was comfortable most of the time, though once or twice he showed a mean streak. He took a bit of a battering during the campaign itself, but a win is a win is a win.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgressive Technologies?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Commons@Waikato Transgressive Technologies? Strategies of Discursive Containment in the Representation and Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand Dr Carolyn Michelle Convenor, Women’s and Gender Studies Programme Department of Societies and Cultures University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton Aotearoa/New Zealand Ph: +64 07 838 4847 Fax: +64 07 838 4654 Email: [email protected] Short Title: Transgressive Technologies? Acknowledgements: This project was funded by a grant from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Waikato, and carried out with the help of two research assistants, Jennifer Germon, and Natalie Cowley. 1 Transgressive Technologies? Strategies of Discursive Containment in the Representation and Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand Abstract: Drawing on a case study of the contemporary representation and regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand, this paper traces the cultural anxieties evident in public, political, and media discussion and debate around the provision and use of ART, with a specific focus on the use of donor insemination and IVF by single women and lesbian couples. It documents the operation of various narrative mechanisms, normative assumptions, and discursive strategies that work to identify the legitimate uses and users of such technologies whilst simultaneously affirming conventional understandings of “gender”, “motherhood”, and “the family”, and concludes that contemporary anxieties and ethical dilemmas provoked by women’s transgressive uses of ART have been addressed through legislative changes that target these women for official surveillance and control while also effectively limiting their reproductive options.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Scrutiny of Human Rights in New Zealand (Report)
    PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN NEW ZEALAND: GLASS HALF FULL? Prof. Judy McGregor and Prof. Margaret Wilson AUT UNIVERSITY | UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE NEW ZEALAND LAW FOUNDATION Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2 Recent Scholarship ..................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 22 Select committee controversy ................................................................................................. 28 Rights-infringing legislation. .................................................................................................... 32 Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. ... 45 Domestic Violence-Victims’ Protection Bill ............................................................................. 60 The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill ................................................................................ 75 Parliamentary scrutiny of human rights in New Zealand: Summary report. .......................... 89 1 Introduction This research is a focused project on one aspect of the parliamentary process. It provides a contextualised account of select committees and their scrutiny of human rights with a particular
    [Show full text]
  • Television Coverage of the House
    I.18A Television coverage of the House Report of the Standing Orders Committee Forty-eighth Parliament (Hon Margaret Wilson, Chairperson) June 2007 Presented to the House of Representatives 1 I.18A TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE Contents Recommendation 3 Introduction 3 Television broadcasting rules and conditions 3 Enforcement of rules and conditions 5 Appendix 1: Recommended amendments to Standing Orders 40, 44 and 400 6 Appendix 2: Draft Appendix D of the Standing Orders—Broadcasting of proceedings of the House—rules and conditions 7 Appendix 3: Committee membership 9 2 I.18A Television coverage of the House Recommendation The Standing Orders Committee recommends to the House amendments to Standing Orders 40, 44 and 400, and the proposed new Appendix D to the Standing Orders, as set out in this report, and recommends that they be embodied in a sessional order until the committee completes a full review of the Standing Orders. Introduction In 2003, the Standing Orders Committee recommended that an in-house facility for televising the House be developed.1 This facility is now almost operational, and from July 2007 remote-controlled television cameras will film all proceedings of the House of Representatives. In addition to web-casting, a broadcast-quality live feed of the images will be made available to television broadcasters, who will decide if they wish to use the material. The televising of Parliament is a significant milestone. The aim is to make parliamentary debate more accessible to the public and to improve public understanding of the democratic process. The current rules for television coverage of the House have been in operation since 1990, and they need some elaboration of detail as a guide to the director of the parliamentary broadcast.
    [Show full text]
  • Activist #10, 2009
    Rail & Maritime Transport Union Volume ISSUE # 101010 Published Regularly - ISSN 1178-7392 (Print & Online) 1 May 2009 LATEST STATS – UNEMPLOYMENT SHAREHOLDERS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT COMPENSATION FROM TRANZ RAIL Latest statistics released shows that at the CASE end of March 2009, 37,000 working aged A list of the shareholders who are eligible for people (aged 18-64 years) were receiving compensation from the Tranz Rail insider is an Unemployment Benefit. Over the year available from the following Securities to March 2009, the number of recipients of Commission of NZ website link; an Unemployment Benefit increased by 18,000, or 95 percent. The link to the info http://www.seccom.govt.nz/tranz-rail-share- sheet is; refund.shtml#K http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/abou Shareholders on this list can contact Geoff t-msd-and-our- work/newsroom/factsheets/benefit/2009 Brown on (04) 471 8295 or email /fact-sheet-ub-09-mar-31.doc [email protected] for information about how to claim their compensation. MAY DAY Claimants will need to verify their identity and shareholding details. They should May Day is celebrated and recognized as contact the Commission no later than 24 July the International Workers’ day, chosen over 2009 so that compensation can be paid. 100 years ago to commemorate the struggles and gains of workers and the labour PORTS FORUM movement. Most notable An interesting and reasons to celebrate are challenging programme the 8-hour day, is in store for delegates Saturday as part of the attending the 2009 weekend, improved National Ports Forum in working conditions and Wellington on 5 & 6 child labor laws.
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand Hansard Precedent Manual
    IND 1 NEW ZEALAND HANSARD PRECEDENT MANUAL Precedent Manual: Index 16 July 2004 IND 2 ABOUT THIS MANUAL The Precedent Manual shows how procedural events in the House appear in the Hansard report. It does not include events in Committee of the whole House on bills; they are covered by the Committee Manual. This manual is concerned with structure and layout rather than text - see the Style File for information on that. NB: The ways in which the House chooses to deal with procedural matters are many and varied. The Precedent Manual might not contain an exact illustration of what you are looking for; you might have to scan several examples and take parts from each of them. The wording within examples may not always apply. The contents of each section and, if applicable, its subsections, are included in CONTENTS at the front of the manual. At the front of each section the CONTENTS lists the examples in that section. Most sections also include box(es) containing background information; these boxes are situated at the front of the section and/or at the front of subsections. The examples appear in a column format. The left-hand column is an illustration of how the event should appear in Hansard; the right-hand column contains a description of it, and further explanation if necessary. At the end is an index. Precedent Manual: Index 16 July 2004 IND 3 INDEX Absence of Minister see Minister not present Amendment/s to motion Abstention/s ..........................................................VOT3-4 Address in reply ....................................................OP12 Acting Minister answers question.........................
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand: Background and Bilateral Relations with the United States
    Order Code RL32876 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web New Zealand: Background and Bilateral Relations with the United States Updated June 16, 2005 Bruce Vaughn Analyst in Southeast and South Asian Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress New Zealand: Background and Bilateral Relations with the United States Summary New Zealand and the United States continue to have strong ties despite some differences. These close ties are based on shared cultural traditions and values. Differences between the United States and New Zealand emerged in the mid 1980s over New Zealand’s policy to ban nuclear armed and nuclear powered ships from its ports. This led to a defacto split between the United States and New Zealand within the context of the Australia-New Zealand-United States (ANZUS) alliance. Despite this issue, New Zealand is a regular contributor to international peace operations and has contributed troops to the war against terror in Afghanistan and to assist reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Helen Clark, who will likely seek a third term as prime minister in elections that must be held before September 2005, New Zealand is seeking a closer economic relationship with the United States through a free trade agreement (FTA). The United States is New Zealand’s second most important trading partner after Australia. While the overall volume of trade with new Zealand is relatively small, at U.S.$5 billion in 2004, progress on the FTA is viewed as politically significant. In February of 2005, Representatives Jim Kolbe and Ellen Tauscher launched the Friends of New Zealand Congressional Caucus.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Penal Populism?
    The Power of Penal Populism: Public Influences on Penal and Sentencing Policy from 1999 to 2008 By Tess Bartlett A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Criminology View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ResearchArchive at Victoria University of Wellington School of Social and Cultural Studies Victoria University of Wellington June 2009 Abstract This thesis explains the rise and power of penal populism in contemporary New Zealand society. It argues that the rise of penal populism can be attributed to social, economic and political changes that have taken place in New Zealand since the post­war years. These changes undermined the prevailing penal­welfare logic that had dominated policymaking in this area since 1945. It examines the way in which ‘the public’ became more involved in the administration of penal policy from 1999 to 2008. The credibility given to a law and order referendum in 1999, which drew attention to crime victims and ‘tough on crime’ discourse, exemplified their new role. In its aftermath, greater influence was given to the public and groups speaking on its behalf. The referendum also influenced political discourse in New Zealand, with politicians increasingly using ‘tough on crime’ policies in election campaigns as it was believed that this was what ‘the public’ wanted when it came to criminal justice issues. As part of these developments, the thesis examines the rise of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, a unique law and order pressure group that advocates for victims’ rights and the harsh treatment of offenders.
    [Show full text]