Another SFO referral

Christchurch Mayor and former Labour MP Lianne Dalziel has been referred to the Serious Fraud Office over her attempt to launder local election donations. So, three of the biggest scams used by parties to launder donations and hide who is influencing them - donation splitting, trusts, and auctions - are now actively under investigation. Which ought to send a message that continuing to use those scams is risky and potentially invites prosecution. The question is whether our institutionally corrupt political parties can stop themselves, or whether politicians will have to go to jail before they clean up their act. And given their reluctance to engage with the issue of reforming the system, I think its probably the latter.

Labour and Christchurch East

So the worse-kept secret in Christchurch is out, and Lianne Dalziel is officially running for mayor. Which means a by-election of she wins, which in turn requires a Labour candidate. So naturally, Labour are talking about parachuting Clayton Cosgrove - a man without a connection to the area, but with a very strong connection to David Shearer - into the seat, so they can in turn get Kelvin Davis - another man with a strong connection to David Shearer - in off the list.

This encapsulates everything that is wrong with the Labour Party: taking their voters for granted, treating their support like a gift from the leadership rather than something which must be won, and the infection of everything with their petty internal politics. And then they wonder why people treat them with contempt? We're only returning the favour...

But then, I'm not a member of Labour, and I don't live in Christchurch East, so I don't really have a stake in this except insofar as I'd like Labour to grow up and pull their weight rather than leaving everything to the Greens. For the views of people who do have a stake, I recommend Rebuilding Christchurch and Emma Hart. Needless to say, they're not impressed either.

More information thuggery

Today in Parliament, Labour MP Lianne Dalziel asked some questions about the fairness of the government's bailout for red zone property-owners. Gerry Brownlee's response? To dump the details of her earthquake claim into the Parliamentary record.

Again, this is an appalling act of information thuggery, involving deeply personal information. This is purely operational information, which should never have been in the Minister's hands. And yet, when its needed for a political smear, its available to him. This suggests misconduct on the party of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, as well as a gross abuse of power by the Minister.

This isn't the first time a Minister of this government has behaved like this. Paula Bennett is off to the Human Rights Review Tribunal for breaching the privacy of beneficiaries who had stuck their heads up and complained about their treatment, in a case which looks to cost the government tens of thousands of dollars. Sadly, Brownlee's comments are covered by Parliamentary Privilege, so there seems to be no scope for holding him to account. The government department which gave him the information, OTOH, could be in a different boat. There is no reason for Ministers to know the private information of individuals dealing with CERA, it was not collected for the purpose of enabling bullying, and so passing it on to him was a violation of privacy principles. CERA needs to be held to account for that. And in future, government departments faced with such requests from Ministers should not only refuse them - but publicise the fact that the request was made, so the public can hold abusive Ministers to account.

Time for a new Adoption Act

The Herald highlights a speech [PDF] yesterday by Acting Principal Family Court Judge Paul von Dadelszen in which he calls for a complete review of the Adoption Act 1955. The Judge points out that the Act was drafted in a different era, where "stranger" adoptions were the norm, adoption was seen as a "clean break" with no contact with birth parents, and only straight married couples were seen as suitable parents. But society has changed significantly since then, and none of these assumptions are true any more. Today, most adoptions are legal confirmations of existing family relationships (e.g. step-parent adoptions), open adoptions are common, and other forms of relationship are generally on an equal footing. The old Act hasn't just failed to keep pace with the times - it violates fundamental legal norms against discrimination, breaching the BORA, Human Rights Act and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in eleven different ways.

Von Dadelszen calls for the Families Commission to conduct a complete review of the Act to bring it into the new millennium, remove discrimination, and allow same-sex, de facto and wider whanau adoption. Somewhat predictably, the Herald focuses on the same-sex angle, ignoring the real issues raised in the rest of the speech (though they do also talk about Kevin Hague's Adoption (Equity) Amendment Bill which is currently in the ballot). But its a bigger issue than that, and Hague's bill, while necessary, would solve only part of the problem. Von Dadelszen is right that the law needs a complete review. But I'm not sure that the Families Commission, with its recent high-profile bigot appointments, is the best body to do it. Over on Red Alert, Lianne Dalziel argues that the job should go to the Law Commission, who have previously looked at law in this area (giving us the Care of Children Act 2004).In the long-term, I think that is the best way to go. In the short-term, however, the need to end discrimination is pressing. If Hague's bill is drawn from the ballot today, then it should be passed. The attitudes behind the Adoption Act are those of the 50's, and its time we moved into the modern era.

In the ballot XXIII: Ending provocation

Four years ago, David McNee was beaten to death in a brutal and vicious attack. His killer was subsequently acquitted of murder, but convicted of manslaughter, on the grounds that McNee had "provoked" him by making homosexual advances. This "provocation" defence, enshrined in s169 of the Crimes Act, was subsequently used to excuse at least one other anti-gay hate crime, as well as a case in which a man beat his wife to death with a cricket bat because she was going to leave him. Now, Labour MP Lianne Dalziel is fronting a bill to repeal it.

It's about time. The Law Commission recommended the repeal of provocation back in 2007, arguing that it was used as an excuse for murder. Contrary to claims that it protected battered women, the primary beneficiaries were misogynists and homophobes - people reacting to what are quite ordinary circumstances (relationship breakup, unwanted sexual advances) with mindless rage. And that's not the sort of thing we as a society should be rewarding. If there are actual mitigating circumstances, rather than just hatred and a lack of self-control, then judges now have the discretion to consider that at sentencing. But leaving the law as it is provides a ready-made tool for crimes against certain groups - and hence, the members of those groups themselves - to be devalued.

The sooner this infamy is erased, the better. But it won't be easy. As a member's bill, it is basically luck of the draw. But by bringing it, Dalziel will hopefully shame the government into acting themselves. Whichever way it happens, the important thing is the repeal - not who gets to claim credit for it.

Ahmed Zaoui: Blaming the victim

Liane Dalziel's latest excuse for Ahmed Zaoui's eleven-month imprisonment? It's all his lawyer's fault, for making so many court challanges.

This really is disgusting. A vigorous defence is not a crime - in fact, it's one of the foundations of our adversial justice system. It should be expected, and promoted, not condemened.

It speaks volumes about the government's case that they're reduced to blaming the victim. If they have evidence against Zaoui, then they should front up with it. Otherwise, they should release him, and let the RSAA decision stand.