Labour leader Chris Hipkins and National leader Christopher Luxon have faced off in a fast-paced but unspectacular debate in the Aotearoa New Zealand general election campaign with co-governance and gangs among the issues producing the liveliest exchanges.

It was the first time the two leaders had squared off against each other outside Parliament and at times the mood was tense during last night’s debate.

Luxon, in particular, appeared frustrated when Hipkins interjected, while the Labour leader appeared to be enjoying himself a bit more.

However, with Labour behind in the polls, Hipkins was unable to deliver anything telling enough to put Luxon off his stride.

He did manage some amusing lines, however, such as “We have a proven track record of reducing our emissions . . . it’s not just a bunch of slogans”, “building EV stations is like building petrol stations”, and when asked what was his worst quality he responded with a smile: “I need to delegate more”.

Afterwards both leaders professed themselves happy with how they performed, however, commentators on TV1 were less enthusiastic, with former MP Tau Henare saying there was no excitement and Hipkins had been “too mild”.

Former Labour leader David Cunliffe believed Hipkins had allowed Luxon too much of a free run and the National party leader made the most of it. Both declared the debate a tie.

Wide-ranging debate
The debate was wide-ranging, covering health, housing, crime and gangs, climate change and the economy. 1News political editor Jessica Mutch-McKay kept it moving at a fast clip and co-governance, especially in health, led to some intense debate.

The leaders were both asked if Māori and Pacific people should get priority when it came to the health waitlist. Luxon said need should come first ahead of ethnicity, while Hipkins said Māori and Pacific people having priority was a positive due to their poor health outcomes when compared to the rest of the population.

Hipkins said other parties were using the issue to “race-bait”, to which Luxon interjected “rubbish”.

Luxon said he felt the definition of co-governance had been expanded since the last time National was in government and the public had not been given adequate explanations of what it entailed.

Hipkins said co-governance meant shared decision-making over natural resources which had been successful. He believed Māori and government working together benefited New Zealand.

Luxon said he supported it for Treaty of Waitangi settlements but not for national public services and repeated his party’s intention of axing the Māori Health Authority.

“The Māori Health Authority isn’t having two separate systems,” Hipkins said.

Luxon challenged in Māori health
He challenged Luxon on why he would keep Māori health providers if he did not want two systems of health. Luxon said he wanted to “turbo-charge” community organisations but it would be as part of one health system.

Hipkins said the health system was dealing with systemic issues and it would take time to build capacity to fix them.

But Luxon said every single health indicator had worsened under Labour — although Hipkins countered that by saying falling smoking rates were one example of effective action.

He said he did not feel safe in downtown Auckland and believed many New Zealanders felt the same.

Under Labour the prison population had been reduced by 30 percent — which might have been acceptable if the crime rate had gone down by the same amount — but in fact it had risen sharply, Luxon said.

On gangs he claimed: “We have nine gang members for every 10 police officers in this country.

“We’re going to make sure we ban gang patches in public places, we give police dispersal and powers to break them up from planning criminal activity, we get tough on the illegal guns that they have and we make being a gang member an aggravating factor in sentencing.”

Consequences for young offenders
He also promised there would be consequences for serious young offenders.

Hipkins said the escalation in gang activity was unacceptable and acknowledged that more New Zealanders were feeling unsafe. However, he advocated working with young offenders to turn their lives around which would reduce crime.

On boot camps, told that an expert had said 83 percent of young people who went through them re-offend, Luxon said National would make them “more effective”.

“We need targeted interventions in these young people’s lives. I’m not prepared to write them off.”

When Hipkins tried to intervene and say how boot camps did not get results, Luxon hit back saying Labour had had six years to get it right.

Hipkins said Labour had changed the law so police could be tougher on gang convoys, such as the recent one that closed down parts of Ōpōtiki over a tangi.

Insults fly on housing
Luxon slammed Labour’s record on housing while Hipkins said National’s plan was to offer incentives to landlords whereas Labour was focused on getting people into homes.

Hipkins said there were more “mega landlords” these days and that was not right.

“Will you guarantee your tax breaks for landlords will get passed on to tenants?” Hipkins asked Luxon.

Luxon avoided a direct answer so the Labour leader answered on his behalf, saying “We’ll take that as a no.”

Both leaders stated they supported building more state houses — although Hipkins was critical of how state houses had been sold off the last time National was in government.

Hipkins admitted KiwiBuild had been an “unrealistic promise” but since then Labour had created momentum in house supply which needed to be continued.

Afterwards both leaders were relaxed. Hipkins was reluctant to score himself, saying the voters would decide, but when pressed again opted for an eight.

Luxon said he had enjoyed it and hoped viewers did also while also choosing an eight.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Political Roundup: Labour wants to be tough on crime – and tough on the causes of crime

The Labour Government has managed to get one major issue right this week, at least in an electoral sense. The Government has been under pressure to deal with escalating public concerns about crime and gang activity.

On Wednesday the newly appointed law and order duo of Chris Hipkins and Kiri Allan announced new measures to crack down on gangs. The package was perfectly pitched as a “sensible” middle-of-the-road approach between the liberals on the left and the conservatives on the right.

The measures included additional search and seizure powers for police, increased penalties for gun crime (especially drive-by shootings), and the banning of “significant” cash payments for luxury items such as boats, watches and cars.

Electorally, this announcement will probably work well for Labour, neutralising a challenging issue for the Government. And it’s important to grasp how much difficulty the Labour Government has found itself in with the current law and order concerns. They have needed to respond in a way that doesn’t alienate either side of the liberal-conservative spectrum too much, but also finds some buy-in from both camps.

Answering the demands for action on law and order

For most of this year, the Government has been strangely inactive on law and order issues. But doing nothing was no longer an option. Opposition politicians and media figures had pushed the issue of gang criminality to the top of the public agenda, and Labour looked very weak. So feeble, in fact, that Ardern was forced to sack the Police Minister and bring in a more effective Justice Minister.

This weakness wasn’t just a result of tubthumping from National and Act politicians, but also due to a very real increase in gang activity and some increases in crime, especially in parts of Auckland. Gang membership numbers have apparently increased by 2000 since 2017, to 7722 members according to officials – especially because of deportations of gang members from Australia.

But there are also other factors. Crime has generally been on the increase in many countries around the world, especially after countries have come out of covid lockdowns and are facing all sorts of social dislocation. One expert, police negotiator Lance Burdett, is reported as saying there’s been “a 30 to 35 per cent escalation in violence globally.”

It was therefore untenable for Labour not to respond to the heightened concerns about crime. And not just to do so to satisfy law and order populists on the right, but also to satisfy those living in working class communities suffering the impacts of crime. Labour could not neglect the concerns of a voter base so crucial to their re-election next year.

After all, a recent opinion survey by Ipsos showed that the public now views National as the party most capable of managing the crime/law issue. This poll also showed that law and order was ranked as the fifth-most important issue facing New Zealand, after many years of lower concern.

Satisfying liberal views on law and order

Liberals, especially on the political left, are much less enamoured by politicians taking a tough approach on law and order, and especially towards gangs. There’s a view that hard-line policing and judicial orientations to crime is just populist opportunism. The argument is also made that tough policies often don’t actually work in reducing crime.

In contrast, liberal voices want governments to acknowledge that tackling gangs requires a sophisticated approach. In particular, it means taking a preventative approach to crime, with the argument that the sources of crime are usually based in social dysfunction which therefore needs addressing. Governments need to reduce economic inequality and poverty, and make sure the various needs of citizens such as housing, healthcare, and education are sufficiently met.

Many from within and around gangs also make some similar arguments. This week, Denis O’Reilly of Black Power argued that gangs “are symptoms of much deeper problems, many of which stem from our history as a country” and that they “arise from colonialism, neoliberalism, and socioeconomic inequality”. He therefore argues in favour of “depoliticising” the issue and having more “korero” on the issues.

Similarly, the Mongrel Mob’s Harry Tam came out this week to say that the answer to the gang problem was for the Government to give more support to gang mediation efforts.

Tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime

The Labour Government therefore has faced a quandary over the need to show that they are taking gangs seriously without entirely abandoning their liberal credentials. If the Government had merely adopted National’s policy prescriptions on gangs, it would have led to severe criticisms from liberals and party activists.

Facing a similar problem in the 1990s, the British Labour Party leader Tony Blair simply adopted the campaigning slogan that his party would be “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. Once elected, it turned out that the focus was more on the former part of the equation. But the gimmick largely worked – it sent a message that law and order liberals and conservatives could both embrace.

This week, the law and order ministerial duo effectively did the same thing. Their announcement on Wednesday started with an emphasis on the crackdown, and then followed up with details aimed at a liberal constituency to indicate the Government hadn’t turned populist and reactionary.

Police Minister Chris Hipkins stated firmly that “We want to hit gangs where it hurts”. And Justice Minister Kiri Allan followed this line, pledging they would be “Hitting them where it hurts. We’re going after guns, vehicles and cash.”

Then with the soundbites out of the way, Hipkins argued that the growth of gangs was “complex” and the Government was determined to get “underneath it”. He said: “We need to engage young people in constructive activities. If we give young people something useful to do, it can keep them out of trouble.”

Allan also added that although they were empowering the police to take on the gangs, “we also are acutely aware that the best tool we have is prevention” and promised a focus on early intervention, rehabilitation and reintegration as “the most effective route to sustained and long-term prevention”.

According to one news report, “Allan said people did not become gang members overnight and it was due to a range of socio-economic factors, family ties and a desire for a place of belonging.” She promised that she would make future announcements in the youth justice sector.

Sociologist and gangs researcher Jarrod Gilbert gave credit to this focus by the Government: “Both the ministers of justice and police who launched these proposed new laws talked about the need to see the gangs in a broader context and seek preventative approaches.”

Gilbert has praised the ministers for not going too hard-line, saying on Breakfast TV that Hipkins and Allan “have actually managed to stay fairly true to themselves in the sense that they haven’t responded with deeply political measures… rather than effective policy or legislation.” He also credited them with showing a “willingness to look at the drivers of gang membership.”

Criticism from National and the Greens

Labour has mostly been receiving good press from their announcement. But there’s also been condemnation from political rivals.

From a liberal perspective, the Greens’ Justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman has condemned the new measures: “It’s a knee-jerk reaction not based on evidence. They will not address the underlying causes of offending”. She says the empowering of police will lead to racist outcomes: “Māori and Pasifika, who are already inappropriately targeted by police, will be harassed and will have police coming into their homes.”

From a conservative perspective, the National Party has welcomed the tougher elements of the package, but overall said that the Government hasn’t gone far enough. Leader Christopher Luxon has claimed “Nothing in this proposal will be scaring gangs at all.”

None of these criticisms will bother Labour much. Quite the opposite, perhaps – if anything, the criticisms from the left and right will help to bolster Labour’s preferred narrative that they have taken a sensible middle path, avoiding the extremes. Therefore, this might finally be a case where Labour’s centrist strategy is actually working this year. They might not be able to entirely win the debate over law and order, but they have effectively neutralised what was becoming their biggest electoral vulnerability.

Further reading on law and order

Jarrod Gilbert (Herald): Government’s law change a political response – but the right one (paywalled)
James Halpin and Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Gang policy also puts street racers in the crosshairs. Who else could be caught up?
Craig McCulloch (RNZ): Gang crackdown: National, Greens unimpressed, expert approves ‘measured’ approach
John MacDonald (Herald): Gang crackdown more likely to be a let-down
Damien Venuto (Herald): Will the Government’s law changes make a difference in the fight on gangs?
Denis O’Reilly (Herald): ‘Wicked problems’ with gangs can’t be solved by proposed omnibus Amendment Bill
Cira Olivier (Herald): Bay of Plenty Mongrel Mob members say new laws targeting gangs won’t effect change
Luke Kirkness (Herald): The new legislation to tackle gangs and intimidating behaviour misses the mark (paywalled)
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Lifetime Black Power member Denis O’Reilly ‘disappointed’ at Government’s ‘shallow’ gang package, but Police Association supportive
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Government’s gang package: National, ACT want more action, Greens concerned new police powers ‘attack’ on rights
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Mongrel Mob spokesperson sees Government crackdown on gangs as ‘PR stunt’
James Halpin, Glenn McConnell and Melanie Earley (Stuff): Government plans to expand search warrants in crackdown on gang violence
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Government’s gang crackdown: New seizure powers to police, new offence to tackle drive-by shootings
Aaron Hendry (1News): Why being tough on crime won’t help
Richard Prebble (Herald): Gangs and crime – ‘gesture politics’ and what the Government is getting wrong on law and order (paywalled)
1News: Govt’s anti-gang proposals well targeted – expert
Brad Lewis (Today FM): Police Minister Chris Hipkins standing by decision not to ban gang patches
Vita Molyneux (Herald): Gang lifestyle no longer ‘Once Were Warriors’ says Justice Minister Kiri Allan
Anna Whyte (1News): Gangs crackdown: Suite of new rules released by government
Herald: Bid to crackdown on gangs: Chris Hipkins and Kiri Allan announce new laws
Jarrod Gilbert (Herald): New Zealand faces a significant crime issue, and it’s not gangs (paywalled)
Adam Hollingworth (Newshub): National accuses Labour of letting criminals operate with impunity as assaults on police rise
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Judicial conduct: The curious case of the disappearing judge
1News: New drug testing tool to be rolled out for frontline police
Joanne Naish (Stuff): Unlawful $3.41m Pike River payout came from an insurance company

Other items of interest and importance this week

HEALTH
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): ‘Our crisis is now and our Prime Minister is too proud to admit it’
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): Nurses’ organisation asks health minister to focus on health crisis instead of putdowns
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Andrew Little slammed for ‘just not helpful’ comments accusing NZ Nurses Organisation of ‘sitting in Wellington’
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Andrew Little explains why he’s refusing to say health system in ‘crisis’ in tense AM interview
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Andrew Little is burying his head in sand over refusal to acknowledge health sector
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): One in three New Zealanders borrow money to pay medical bills, survey finds
Rachel Smalley (NBR): Simple but clever plan ignored by Health ministry (paywalled)
Tina Morrison (Stuff): Private healthcare benefits when public falls short
Jayden Holmes (Today FM): Health NZ Chair – ‘There is no use just running around shoving sticking plasters on things’
Chris Hobson (Stuff): Who the hell would want to work in healthcare?
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Andrew Little refuses to call buckling health system ‘crisis’ as figures reveal big jump in reports of understaffing causing safety risks
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): GPs say govt funding model broken as primary healthcare struggles under the strain
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): ‘It will break many’: doctors’ survey paints clear picture of workforce crisis
Morgane Solignac (Stuff): ‘It’s as hard to hire a doctor than [it is] a manufacturer,’ says labour group
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Andrew Little’s bad week
Jennifer Eder (Stuff): Surgery waiting list delays mean people waiting since last September only being seen now
Waatea News: Doctors feel broken as system reaches crisis point
Waatea News: Pressure on hospitals unprecedented

COVID
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Let’s not do lockdown again
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Bring back the Alert Level system
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Covid ‘advice’ should not be fear-mongering
Adam Pearse (Herald): Govt’s mask and test push face uphill battle
Jamie Morton (Herald): Q&A: What Omicron wave means for NZ’s Long Covid risk
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Is our current mask approach still the correct one
Craig McCulloch (RNZ): Masks need to be mandated in most indoor settings to prevent really grim winter – Baker
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Government reveals three new COVID-19 strategies, but Michael Bakers wants masks mandated more indoors

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: PACIFIC AND CHINA
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): I hope Jacinda Ardern’s having a good time in Fiji
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Pacific strategy set as questions linger
Michael Neilson (Herald): Why US power play in the Pacific could ‘backfire’ and hurt NZ (paywalled)
ODT: Editorial – Upping the ante in the Pacific
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Seeds of strategic conflict sprouting in Pacific
Sharon Brettkelly (RNZ): Superpowers cast big shadow on Pacific forum
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): Withdrawal from the Pacific Islands Forum is least of Kiribati’s problems
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Pacific Islands Forum a chance for New Zealand to reset strategy, says academic
Aupito William Sio (Herald): Why NZ’s role in Pacific is vital for nation and planet
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): Mahuta says 2050 Strategy will keep Pacific connected, free and safe
Waatea News: Māori vulnerable to Pacific China fall-out

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: GENERAL
Matthew Hooton (Herald): PM Jacinda Ardern’s foreign policy lacks coherent message (paywalled)
Brigitte Morten (NBR): Trans-Tasman trip offers hope of cross-country accord (paywalled)
Robert G Patman (Herald): New Zealand and the Post-Johnson era in the UK (paywalled)
Serena Kelly (The Conversation): A trade deal with the EU makes sense for NZ, but what’s in it for Europe? Symbolically, a lot

LABOUR SHORTAGES AND MIGRATION
Damien Venuto (Herald): ‘$90k the new $70k’: NZ workers have 20,000 incentives to quit (paywalled)
William Hewett (Stuff): Cost of Living: MYOB poll shows more than 1 million Kiwis actively considering leaving NZ
Tess McClure (The Guardian): 100% pure rip-off? New Zealand voted second-worst place to move to
Siobhan Downes (Stuff): New Zealand ranked second-worst place in the world for expats, according to survey
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Australia and NZ are both touting a residency ‘fast track’ – but how fast are we talking? (paywalled)
Richard Harman: The big migration has begun; NZers leave for Australia (paywalled)

ECONOMY
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): We may not have recession this year, but it will feel like it, Infometrics warns
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): ‘Hold on for six to 12 months’: Things will be looking better this time next year, economist says
Matthew Martin (Stuff): Cost of living ‘ripping the social fabric out of towns like Tokoroa’
Andy Fyers (BusinessDesk): Five charts that hint at a recession in NZ (paywalled)
Richard Harman: Only tourists coming back will avoid recession (paywalled)
Tony Alexander (One Roof): Businesses are going to fail – but who’s to blame?
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Households will pay for 9% structural increase in electricity prices (paywalled)
Anne Gibson (Herald): Inside Kiwi billionaire Graeme Hart’s expanding empire (paywalled)
George Block (Herald): Royalty, rich-listers and private jets, inside the resurgent NZ luxury tourism market (paywalled)
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): The iwi in the thick of the property game

HOUSING
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): Building more houses, faster – the Government project to drastically shorten the amount of time it takes to build a house
Vic Crockford (Newsroom): To solve our housing crisis, let’s learn from what’s already working
Brigitte Morten (Stuff): Why is the Government talking up its spectacular failure on housing?
Steven Joyce (Herald): Motel generation deserves better — fast (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Government faces 60-year debt blowout after building costs explode
Emma Bernard (Herald): Homelessness for older people now a ‘critical issue’ in Whanganui
Brent Edwards (NBR): No definitive date for when State house waiting list will fall (paywalled)
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): Kāinga Ora faces 60 years of unmanageable debt, Megan Woods warned (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Megan Woods not ruling out cuts to funding for housing for disabled people
Stephen Forbes (Newstalk): Auckland trust struggling to provide homes for families after Govt funding cuts
Esther Taunton (Stuff): Half of Kāinga Ora homes still not up to healthy homes standard
Felix Desmarais (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua needs emergency housing for at least five more years, says council boss in ‘stark reality check’
Michael Neilson (Herald): Housing Minister hits back at criticism over ‘slow’ building programme
RNZ: House prices nationally drop 3.4% in June quarter, QV data shows
Tina Law (Stuff): ‘Unfair’ two-tiered social rental scheme sees Christchurch tenants paying different rents
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Health NZ facing unique challenges over Wellington Hospital works
Ben van Bruggen (Stuff): Finding a way through our urban housing dilemma
Damien Venuto (Herald): Villa wars explained – Will intensification cause Auckland to lose its ‘special character’?

GOVERNMENT
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): Performative caring
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): Will #resignjacinda prove to be true?
Andrea Vance (Stuff): In a labour crisis, the Government has no trouble staffing the bloated Wellington bureaucracy
Peter Dunne: Our winter of Discontent
Bill Ralston (Listener/Herald): The Labour Government’s dead wood is dragging it down (paywalled)
Jo Moir (Newsroom): The minister for all things rural
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): PM Jacinda Ardern asked what it’s like to be ‘more popular’ overseas than in NZ during tense interview
Anna Whyte (1News): Recent ‘minor’ Cabinet reshuffle triggers change for 29 staff
Duncan Garner (NBR): Steve is desperate, Prime Minister – can you help? (paywalled)
The Standard: How Can Labour Win in 2023?
Mike Hosking (Newstalk): Govt is more and more out of touch from the real world
Steve Braunias (Herald): The secret diary of The Anti-Ardernists (paywalled)

POLITICAL DONATIONS
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Who are New Zealand’s biggest political donors?
Max Rashbrooke and Lisa Marriott (The Conversation): ‘They’re nice to me, I’m nice to them’: new research sheds light on what motivates political party donors in New Zealand
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Donors have ‘greater access to politicians than the rest of us would enjoy,’ researcher says
Sam Hurley (Herald): NZ First Foundation case: Accused argues elections at risk if named as courtroom suppression battle continues
RNZ: NZ First Foundation case: Pair lose bid for continuing name suppression
Bob Jones: Funding political parties

PARLIAMENT AND ELECTIONS
Thomas Manch (Stuff): ACT Party leader David Seymour wants apology over Māori Party joke
William Hewett (Newshub): ACT Leader David Seymour slams Te Pāti Māori for ‘threatening violence’ in jokes about him
Claire Trevett (Herald): Act leader David Seymour says Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi’s joke a step too far
David Farrar: Roy Morgan poll June 2022
Azaria Howell (Salient): Members of Green Party youth wing set to hold vote of no-confidence in co-leader James Shaw
Steven Cowan: If James Shaw is shown the door, then why isn’t Marama Davidson?
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Seymour’s swipe at Luxon’s National Party
Jane Clifton (Listener/Herald): Christopher Luxon was wrong to muzzle Simon O’Connor over abortion stance (paywalled)
1News: Luxon defends comments calling NZ businesses ‘soft’

CULTURE WARS
Chris Trotter: Rumours of [Civil] War
Simon Wilson (Herald): David Seymour stoking the fires of a culture war (paywalled)
David Seymour (Herald): Debating one-person-one-vote is not being a racist (paywalled)
Morgan Godfery (Stuff): The Māori Health Authority isn’t separatist. It’s necessary
Chris Trotter: Defending Dame Lynley

EXTREMISM CENTRE
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): The Strange case of the de-selected professor
David Fisher (Herald): PM’s terrorism, extremism expert Prof Richard Jackson hired then dropped (paywalled)
Karl du Fresne: The intriguing circumstances in which Joanna Kidman was appointed to show us the way against hatred and extremism

VOTING AGE
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Two Sides: Should 16-year-olds have the right to vote?
Christina Huang (1News): Voting age case to be heard by Supreme Court
Brent Edwards (NBR): Political parties keep keen eye on Supreme Court voting age case (paywalled)
Stuff: Supreme Court hearing minimum voting age case
Herald: Make it 16 campaign hearing begins in Supreme Court today
Jonathan Mitchell (NBR): Supreme Court hears Make It 16 arguments (paywalled)
Catherine Hubbard (Stuff): Leading environmental researcher calls for votes for youth

ACT PARTY
Chris Trotter (Interest): David Seymour enlists history in ACT’s struggle for power
Audrey Young (Herald): Act Party’s 25 years in Parliament – the best and worst (paywalled)
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): ACT must remember it won’t be the star of the show
Brent Edwards (NBR): The problems Act poses for National Party (paywalled)
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): David Seymour’s 100-day gauntlet and the return of devil-beast politics
Claire Trevett (Herald): Act leader David Seymour switches tactics as National’s Christopher Luxon hits his polling (paywalled)
Claire Trevett (Herald): Act’s first 100 days plan: David Seymour on what he’d want in a National-Act government
RNZ: David Seymour promises ‘full investigation’ into Labour’s handling of Covid-19 if ACT forms next Government
Giles Dexter (RNZ): ‘Prepare like we’re going to win’ – Inside ACT’s annual conference
RNZ: Inside ACT’s annual conference: ‘Laundry list’ of reversals, digs at National, Covid response investigation
1News: Seymour criticises National, releases plan to reverse Labour policies

TE PATI MĀORI
Sandra Conchie (Herald): Māori Party president likens inequality among Māori as being ‘enslaved’
Kelvin McDonald (Whakaata Māori): Te Pāti Māori focuses on ‘decolonising and reindiginising’ Aotearoa at Rotorua conference
1News: ‘Dawn of a new era’ theme of Te Pati Māori conference
Waatea News: Younger interest in Pāti Māori AGM

CHILDCARE PROTECTION AND ORANGA TAMARIKI
Fleur Te Aho (Herald): The promise of a Māori-led transformation of Oranga Tamariki is lacking in new bill
Claire Breen (The Conversation): Changes to the way Oranga Tamariki is monitored risk weakening children’s rights and protections – what should be done?
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Kelvin Davis on the hunt for government departments failing vulnerable children
Ryan McLean (Stuff): Objective independent oversight of Oranga Tamariki, children’s agencies overdue
ODT: Editorial – Oranga Tamariki Bill delay needed
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Carmel Sepiloni’s Q&A interview on gagging Children’s Commissioner’s Oranga Tamariki Oversight isn’t good enough
Newshub: Oranga Tamariki oversight: Carmel Sepuloni defends controversial move in AM interview

EDUCATION
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Questions over whether mega-polytech will be ready
Mike Mather (Stuff): Damning report reveals financial meltdown at new mega polytech Te Pūkenga
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Polytech merger mess ‘just gets messier’, National’s Penny Simmonds (paywalled)
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Why the mega-polytech mess is so politically dangerous for Labour (paywalled)

The New Zealand government is considering more action to crack down on violent gang behaviour but has dismissed the idea of a ban on wearing gang patches in public.

There have been a number of shootings and arson attacks in Auckland and Northland in recent weeks linked to escalating tensions between the Killer Beez and Tribesmen.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told Morning Report the government had asked police what other tools they wanted.

She said she expected to receive further advice soon.

She said changes had been made to widen the criteria for asset seizures and firearm prevention orders legislation was currently before select committee.

It was clear that the current outbreak of violence centred on escalating tensions between two gangs and the clear advice from experts was about the need “to come down hard on that behaviour”.

The police had taken such action with multiple arrests, multiple search warrants executed and 600 rounds of ammunition seized.

‘More tools needed?’
“We’ve asked them [police] to tell us in that environment are there more tools that you need,” she said.

The government had met them again last week and she was expecting more advice from them soon.

“We are moving as fast as we can where the police identify issues we can support them on.”

New policy would not go before cabinet later today — changes did not happen in a day or a week but the government was seeking to have the work expedited.

Asked if it would include increased stop and search powers and banning gang patches in public as suggested by opposition National Party leader Christopher Luxon on Saturday, she said the police were in the best position to identify what would work best.

“This idea of gang patch bans — it’s been tried in other countries. It’s often a reactionary response you can see from politicians and when they’ve gone back and looked at whether it’s made a difference, review after review in different parts, for instance in Australia, has proved it hasn’t.

“Why don’t we put our energy into things that are going to make a difference.”

She invited National to bring forward other ideas on what would help solve violence from gangs.

“We will be engaging in the ones that the police tell us will make the biggest difference.”

Asked about changes affecting Māori in particular, she said any proposed legislation always went through a Bill of Rights process.

“But what we also always factor in are New Zealanders’ rights and their sense of safety and at present we see an escalation in tensions between gangs. Their behaviour includes examples of blatant lawlessness and that needs to be addressed.”

Reception from new Australian government pleasing
Ardern has hailed her visit to Sydney as a “reset” of a trans-Tasman relationship which had soured in recent years — primarily over Australia’s intransigent stance on its “501” deportation policy.

Following talks with new Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, after which he said he had “listened” to New Zealand’s concern, Ardern said it was a significant improvement on any feedback she had received from Canberra previously.

She agreed Australia has stated its clear intention to continue to deport people which was exactly the same as New Zealand’s approach.

It was those “at the extreme end” of the spectrum who were in effect Australians with no connections to Aotearoa that the government was most concerned about being sent here, she said.

It had secured from Albanese a commitment to look at that aspect.

“We’ve not received a reception like that to these issues for a number of years.”

With a ministerial meeting due to be held in three weeks Ardern said she will be looking for signs of progress but it was too soon to expect a timeframe for action.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A thorn in the side of National, former MP Chester Borrows punctured his party’s “law and order week” before it even started, by framing its new crime and punishment stances as ignorant and dangerous. Appearing in the media early in the week, he painted National’s discussion document as populist, opportunist, and a knee-jerk response where a more sophisticated one is desperately needed.

On Monday Borrows published a must-read opinion piece, lamenting that “Kiwis are addicted to punishment” and suggesting politicians keep feeding this by trying to outbid each other on nonsensical crackdowns on crime – see: ‘Tough on crime’ rhetoric is cheap, easy and terrifyingly effective.

Borrows, who is a former Minister of Corrections, is advocating that political parties take an evidence-based approach to law and order solutions. Of course, he’s the head of the Government’s Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group. He says his invitation to the launch of National’s new discussion document must have been lost in the post: “Funnily enough, even though I am a card-carrying member of that organisation, and my subscription has been banked, I have not received my flyer or invitation for this event.”

He suggests National’s stances on law and order issues, such as opposing the Government giving some prisoners the right to vote, are based on an electoral strategy of sinking NZ First: “National Party leader Simon Bridges has vowed to reverse the law. Not based on evidence, of course, other than the evidence that these policies buy votes and probably votes National already holds. But they will also buy votes from New Zealand First and those votes are gold.”

Bridges has responded to the former Minister of Corrections, saying “We’re not as far away from your prescription as you might think” – see: A response to my old mate, Chester Borrows, on crime and justice.

Here’s Bridges key point: “I hope Chester takes the opportunity to read the law and order policy document I released today because he might just be pleasantly surprised. Chester listed nine things he wanted to see. We have five of them in our document. Five more than Labour has plausibly come up with, despite being in government.”

Borrows also went on TV1 Breakfast to talk about the issues on the morning before the release of National’s discussion document, arguing that instead of getting “tougher on crime”, “we should get smarter on crime” – see: National’s former courts minister defies party’s tough-on-crime rhetoric – ‘It hasn’t worked’.

Borrows said: “We need to take a sensible approach to this. The tough on crime stuff hasn’t worked… We need to ask ourselves the question whether we want to have policy that’s evidence-based or policy that just tickles the ears of those who might vote for us.”

When asked if National was dog-whistling on these problems, Borrows said: “it’s sad to see the go back to the rhetoric because I think in Government there was a bit more understanding about that… We have to be less reactive and far more innovative and concentrate on what we know works instead of being so afraid of our own shadow that we’re going to stop ourselves from doing anything that looks like innovative or looks like it could be successful.”

The National Party document contained 43 proposals the party is considering adopting as policy for the next election – you can read these here: National is the Party of law and order. This explains the various policies including banning gang patches in public, making prison work compulsory, refusing parole for murderers who don’t give the location of a body and, most controversially, creating an elite police unit to crack down hard on gangs.

Reactions from commentators have been quite scathing. Richard Harman claimed the party was making a major shift to the right: “National Leader Simon Bridges yesterday broke with years of liberal traditions in his Party and swung it sharply to the right with a new hardline law and order policy. This follows on an increasing shift to the right under Bridges with policies like his promise to pull New Zealand out of the UN Compact on Migration” see: Simon: That’s not what English, Joyce and even Collins said.

He pointed out that previous senior National figures had been noticeably less gung-ho about policies that would lead to higher incarceration rates, citing examples such as Bill English’s statement that prisons were “a moral and fiscal failure”. And he pointed out that “National has not provided an estimate of how much their crackdown would increase the prison population by, nor the cost of building new facilities.”

Barry Soper also sees the new proposals as fairly cynical, saying “We’ve heard it all before – smash the gangs, dismantle their fortresses, ban the patches – and we’ll no doubt hear it all again in three years’ time as we enter another election year” – see: Simon Bridges takes ‘tough on crime’ to a new level.

He points to some of the potential civil liberties issues with the suggested clampdown on gangs: “This country has a Bill of Rights – and that means no matter how unpopular the organisation you belong to might be, or even if you have broken the law, everyone is entitled to be treated the same under the law. You are innocent until you are proven guilty.”

Soper suggests a different target: “Consider this: more than half a billion dollars a year is generated by organised crime in this country – and many of those who generate it prefer a Pierre Cardin suit to a patch. It might not be as electorally popular, but perhaps it’s time to cast the law-and-order net wider.”

Similarly, Heather du Plessis-Allan argues a more sophisticated approach is necessary to combat the real reasons people are joining gangs: “The only way you stop kids from wanting to join up is if you give them an alternative. A chance to be good at sport, a job to earn cash, anything other than this nonsense” – see: National’s gang plan is welcome, but will it work?

Nonetheless, in lieu of such progressive policies, she considers National’s proposals “a welcome idea”. Also, “it’ll play well with voters”.

The idea of creating an elite anti-gang policing unit modelled on an Australia version has received the most criticism. For the most comprehensive critique, see Laura Walters’ Strike Force Raptor unit won’t stop organised crime. According to this, “an Australian gang expert says a lot of resources go into the unit’s work, with little reward”.

An even harsher evaluation came from an Australia academic who previously worked as an undercover detective dealing with the gangs. Mike Kennedy calls the Australian experience a “disaster” and says Bridges “needs to pull his head out of whatever it’s stuck in because … [gangs] exist. They’re always going to exist. They just go underground” – see Craig McCulloch’s Australian ex-cop blasts National’s ‘Strike Force Raptor’ plan.

Perhaps the most even-handed evaluation came from the Herald’s Derek Cheng who points to the mix of liberal and conservative policy in the document, but concludes: “the overwhelming impression is one of an election-year document that seems to make no apology for populism” – see: Populism alive and well in National’s law and order proposals (paywalled).

Cheng points to some of the more liberal or evidence-based policies in the new document: “These include having mental health nurses at police watch houses and attending incidents alongside police and paramedics. Social Investment attempts to use data to find those most at risk from an early age and intervene accordingly. More and earlier treatment for remand prisoners and more education, training and work to help keep prisoners from re-offending seems to be one area where National and Labour can agree. Such proposals show National’s document attempting to appeal to the evidence as well as the voter.”

Similarly, John Weekes also points to the criticisms and limitations of National’s proposals but says overall its not as reactionary as it’s being painted – see: National’s crime gurus must heed lessons from abroad to break cycle of repeat offending.

Here’s his key point: “The discussion document, running across thousands of words and dozens of pages, is not as repulsive as some commentators describe. Despite pandering to ‘tough on crime’ platitudes, references to law and order being in ‘National’s DNA’, and occasional unself-conscious bluster, the party has published some nuanced proposals. These include concessions a ‘social investment’ approach is needed to save at-risk youth and help first-time offenders. The ‘no body no parole’ idea will thankfully not affect many people, but is hard to oppose.”

But there certainly are some strong negative reactions. Collette Devlin pointed to some of these in her article, Experts: National’s law and order proposals sound good but have no substance.

The most notable of these was from University of Auckland Criminologist Ron Kramer, who labelled them “transparently pathetic” and “overblown propaganda”. On the Strike Force Raptor proposal, he said: “It’s just rhetoric. It’s completely empty… it’s a completely erroneous way of thinking about the problem… In fact, it’s probably going to make life more miserable for a lot of people. This kind of criminalisation just stigmatises and creates a permanently excluded group of individuals from society.”

On the gang patch ban, Kramer stated: “It’s not evidence based. It’s not about what actually works. It’s just pure political rhetoric and the public should demand better… I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I think all this law and order discourse is just all about political posturing to win votes… It’s all just stupid policies to appease popular anger and resentment… I’m surprised people aren’t so sick and tired of this political bulls…”.

Simon Bridges responded to the article on Twitter, saying “So who are the ‘experts’ plural who know so much about criminology in this piece? Some sweary bear Ron Kramer, gang apologist Denis O’Rielly, Chester Borrows & Mob Pres Sonny Fatupaito. Really?”

Kramer’s university hit back on Twitter: “for the record, the ‘Sweary Bear’ you refer to is Dr Ronald Kramer, a senior lecturer in criminology at the university. Dr Kramer has a PhD in sociology from Yale, has been published in the British Journal of Criminology and elsewhere and is a respected commentator. #expertbear” – see 1News’ Auckland University retaliates after Simon Bridges calls academic ‘sweary bear’.

Bridges also hit out at a tweet from Newsroom editor Tim Murphy, who wrote: “Is there anything more unimaginative in opposition policy-making than ‘work for the dole’ ‘get the gangs’ or ‘hard labour for prisoners’?” Bridges’ response was: “Is there anything more unimaginative than a middle-class journalist sneering predictably about a centre-right political party arguing for policies in line with its long-held principles?”

Finally, the one part of the document that has caused the biggest stir is the name of Australia’s elite anti-gang squad, with plenty of parody about this online – see Zane Small’s National’s ‘Strike Force Raptor’ idea sparks Twitter meme extravaganza.