SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR ON THE
SENTENCING (REINSTATING THREE STRIKES) AMENDMENT BILL TO THE JUSTICE SELECT COMMITTEE

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission. 

The overall Bill

2. I submit that the bill should not proceed, unless significantly strengthened, as it has been so watered down to be ineffective, may actually lead to shorter sentences and will provide false reassurance to the public regarding serious violent and sexual offenders.

The former three strikes law

3. I regarded the former three strikes law as generally being a good and effective law. Data released by the Ministry of Justice comparing the five years before and after the Three Strikes law showed that the number of second strike offences before the law was 103 and after the law was 68 – a 34% reduction
4. I thought it was very unhelpful that the Ministry has refused to release data to do a more up to date comparison of 10 years before and 10 years after the three strikes law. I would recommend the bill be amended to require the Ministry to publish such comparative data at least annually.

Not carrying current strikes over

5. I was stunned when I learnt that this bill would not carry over all the strikes from offenders under the previous three strikes law. The decision not to do so will greatly reduce any effectiveness as a deterrent, and make New Zealanders far less safe by effectively resetting all serious recividst offenders to zero strikes.
6. The Government seems to have been captured by officials who seemingly labeled any continuation of the former strikes as retrospective legislation. This is a weak and incorrect assertion that is obvious to anyone who has read S12 of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines.
7. Legislation is retrospective if it applies to an event or action that has already taken place. Carrying the strikes over would have no impact on an individual for their past actions, unless they commit a crime in future. The punishment will apply to their decision to commit a crime, in the knowledge of what the law now provides.
8. The guidelines state if a penalty is increased between commission and conviction, the lesser penalty should apply. Carrying the strikes over would be consistent with this, as they would only apply to crimes committed after this bill is passed into law.
9. I would note that every person who has a first, second, third or fourth strike under the old law was told by the relevant judge that they had gained a strike, and what the consequences of further offending would be.
10. The argument that differences between the old and the new law made it too difficult to carry over strikes is also fallacious. 

The new threshold for strike offences

11. The former law meant that anyone who commits a crime designated as serious violent or sexual offending (generally crimes with a maximum sentence of seven years or more) would automatically get a strike. This new law proposes that only if a judge sentences the person to two years or more in prison, will a strike be obtained.
12. This is a terrible idea. It removes the idea of certainty of consequence (a strike) and will reduce the number of serious violent and sexual offenders who get strikes by over a third. Considering the only impact of a first strike is a judicial warning about future offending, why would you want to massively reduce the number of serious offenders who get warnings? Many heinous crimes get a sentence of under two years, and the whole idea is to discourage further offending, and punish it if they continue.
13. There is a case for a two-year threshold for third strikes, which I will deal with later. But having a threshold for first and second strikes weakens the law so much, it turns it into a Claytons law.
14. As noted by Labour MP Dr Webb, this law could well lead to criminals getting shorter sentences for their first strikes. It is no secret that most judges don’t like a law that reduces their discretion, and hence will be incentivized to impose sentences of under two years to avoid triggering a regime they disapprove of. 

Judicial discretion

15. The original law had a provision for some judicial discretion for second and third strikes if the outcome would be manifestly unjust. The use of this provision morphed from previously being extremely rare to so common that a majority of third strikers were exempted from the normal third strike consequence
16. Even worse, the Supreme Court in an unprecedented decision effectively overrode the three strikes law and declared in the Fitzgerald case that a maximum sentence no longer need be given for a third strike (the parole provision is what was subject to manifestly unjust) if doing so would “shock the national conscience”
17. I happily concede the Fitzgerald case was one with an unjust initial outcome as his offending was relatively minor. However that can be dealt with in other ways, as I will explain later.
18. The problem this Supreme Court precedent set is that judges then lowered dramatically what they considered would shock the national conscience. In the case of Zacquirin Tikena-Stuchbery, the High Court ruled that a 14 year sentence for his prolonged violent and brutal beating of a woman (his third strike) would shock the national conscience and instead gave him a five year sentence with parole eligibility in 2.5 years.
19. This decision so outraged me that I decide to test whether the sentence set in statute would really have shocked the national conscience. So in an omnibus poll I described the offending to respondents and asked to choose between three sentence options, being:
    a) 14 years with no parole (the full third strike)
    b) 14 years with parole eligibility in five years (a third strike reduced by being deemed manifestly unjust)
    c) 5 years with parole eligibility in 2,5 years (the sentence ignori9ng three strikes law)
20. A plurality of 43% chose (a) and a further 38% chose (b) so 81% of NZers (including 76% of Labour voters, 81% of Green voters and 75% of TPM voters) were comfortable with a sentence that the Judge had deemed would shock the national conscience. This illustrated how totally out of touch with ordinary NZers many judges are. For those interested only 10% of respondents chose (c)
21. I recommend that if this law is strengthened and proceeds, that language be inserted to make clear that use of manifestly unjust provisions should be exceptional and rare, and that no other Act invalidates the provisions of this Act.
22. While outside the remit of this committee, I would also advocate that the Minister of Justice in his third reading speech (if it proceeds) explicitly state that any Judge who feels that imposing a sentence under this law would shock the national conscience, resign their warrant as the appropriate form of protest, rather than ignore the clear intent of Parliament.

A threshold for third strikes

23. While I oppose having a sentence threshold for first and second strikes, I do believe that there is a principled case to have one for third strikes – the strike where you actually get a longer term of imprisonment.
24. A two year threshold for third strikes (as in the Judge finds under norming sentencing guidelines the offence would not have resulted in a jail term of over two years) will prevent cases such as Fitzgerald.
25. It would also eliminate the need for manifestly unjust provisions for the third strike.  

Other changes from the old law

26. The change in the second strike penalty for murder from life without parole to life with a 15 year non-parole period seems sensible.
27. A 20% reduction in third strike offences for guilty pleas also seems sensible to avoid needless trials
28. A minimum 10 year term for third strike manslaughter and life with non-parole for 20 years for third strike murder also seem sensible and better than the old law.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would like to make an oral submission in support, and look forward to appearing.
David Farrar

Newsroom reports:

In a Cabinet paper about the critical minerals list and broader strategy, publicly released last week, Jones said the development of a critical minerals list was an important part of work to “secure access to essential minerals needed for our economic functions”.

“The clean energy transition is driving a global demand for minerals production, and countries are developing their resources on the back of this demand. Projections by the International Energy Agency suggest the demand for each of the five most important critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and neodymium) will likely increase between 1.5 and 7 times by 2030,” Jones’ Cabinet paper said.

This is more vital than people realise. If we want clean energy, we need more mining of minerals that are used in solar panels, electric cars, batteries etc.

The work has been a long time coming: in 2019, the Labour-led government committed to a list of critical minerals as part of a 10-year strategy, although a spokesperson in 2021 said the work was still “in its conceptual stages”.

LOL – another Labour delivery triumph. Conceptual stages is code for we forgot about it.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union’s new Critical Raw Materials Act has set a range of targets, with the ultimate goal of ensuring the bloc is not dependent on any single non-EU country for more than 65 percent of its strategic raw materials.

This is sensible, and should be applied in any area of critically important imports. If you are totally reliant on just one country, then you reduce your ability to independently disagree with them on issues.

George POMEE is a Third Striker.  He is a recidivist aggravated robber.

Aged in his late 20s, he already has over 10 criminal convictions as an adult.  He is a gang associate.

For his third strike, he was convicted on 2 counts of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. He is a menace to law abiding society.

Under the Government’s proposed re-introduction of Three Strikes 2.0, he will be on a clean slate.  His prior strike offences count for nothing, and he is a zero striker.

Just as bad, under the Government’s proposed Three Strikes 2.0, Mr Thomson would not qualify as a Third Striker if he did it all again!

Submissions on the law close at midnight tonight!

You can sign up for campaign updates to toughen the law and support the campaign at https://www.stop3strikessellout.nz.

You can make a submission at https://www.stop3strikessellout.nz/submission

This QR code will also take you to the site.

Greg McGee has a fascinating article on Newsroom about writing a female character under a female pseudonym. He states:

I’m really not interested in whether the writer is a biological male writing characters who are biological females, or any non-binary variation of those, or biological Europeans writing biological Māori or biological old writing biological young, or tall writing short, or fat writing thin, nor any of the vice versas. It’s easy to reduce that old writing maxim – write what you know – to its logical absurdity: my writing world would be limited to tall, white, red-headed males with big noses, 70 or younger, who would only have lived and experienced exactly where and what I have.

Believe the words on the page or don’t. Find them authentic or not. We should trust that the author’s engagement with the world depicted and the characters who people it will determine its authenticity. Often one page is enough. We shouldn’t need an authorial biography or biology to authenticate them: the words work in their mystical way, or they don’t.

That should be the great ongoing strength of the novel. Television scripts and screenplays are necessarily bogged in bureaucracy. If you want funding from the NZ Film Commission or NZ On Air, you can’t help but play the biological qualification game, and prove that the fingers that hit the keyboard have some relationship to the gender and ethnicity of the principal characters on the page. 

Nice to see McGee defend writing and authencity as being more than biology. Sadly this is becoming a minority view.

Henry Olsen writes:

I’ve known Vance for more than a decade and can attest to his smarts, his seriousness and his undying devotion to America and its working class.

He is an ideal pick for Trump and one that presages the transformation of the Republican Party into a true, multi-ethnic working-class coalition.

I met JD at a political seminar in 2015. We quickly bonded over our shared interest in using public policy to help the country’s struggling working-class voters. In this pre-Trump age, that was not a popular position within the GOP.

But that didn’t matter to him. JD was interested in helping people, not currying favor with an insider elite.

His breakout bestselling book, “Hillbilly Elegy,” was further proof of that sincere, deeply held desire.

A clear message ran through the vivid personal story and shocking anecdotes: America’s elite class has betrayed the workers who make America great.

The pick of Vance is fascinating. He is a rare conservative intellectual. I disagree with his stances on tariffs and Ukraine, but he has a genuine passion for improving the lives of working class Americans.

But any vice president works to serve his or her boss while carving out a separate identity. Vance’s identity will be uniquely thoughtful and uniquely appealing.

Assuming Trump wins this year, Vance is the likely frontrunner for the presidency in 2028.

Stuff reports:

The owners of a private island in Northland have been told to put a barrier around a swimming pool beside the sea, which they say posed “a similar or arguably greater risk to children”.

This is crazy. Not only is it a private island with no children living there, but the pool is next to a rather larger pool called the ocean.

Eames also acknowledged that the owners didn’t have children aged under five, and that the island received few visitors, but “children are likely to frequent any household at some time in the life of the building”.

This just shows how crazy and inflexible some regulations are, or those who administer them. Maybe they should be forced to fence off the ocean also!

Shane Reti announced:

In response to serious concerns around oversight, overspend and a significant deterioration in financial outlook, the Board of Health New Zealand will be replaced with a Commissioner, Health Minister Dr Shane Reti announced today. 

“The previous government’s botched health reforms have created significant financial challenges at Health NZ that, without urgent action, will lead to an estimated deficit of $1.4 billion by the end of 2024/25 – despite this Government’s record investment in health of $16.68 billion in this year’s Budget,” Dr Reti says.

“Health NZ first reported a deteriorating financial position to me in March 2024, despite earlier repeated assurances by the organisation that it was on target to make savings in 2023/24. 

“In the months since, the situation has worsened. Health NZ is currently overspending at the rate of approximately $130 million a month. 

“That’s why today I am announcing the appointment of Professor Lester Levy, the recently appointed Chair of Health NZ, as Commissioner for a 12-month term. This is the strongest ministerial intervention available under the Pae Ora Act and not a decision I have taken lightly, however the magnitude of the issue requires such action.

“The issues at Health NZ stem from the previous government’s mismanaged health reforms, which resulted in an overly centralised operating model, limited oversight of financial and non-financial performance, and fragmented administrative data systems which were unable to identify risks until it was too late.

This decision is no surprise, and the reasons why are multiple.

The merger was not what was recommended

The Heather Simpson review did not recommend merging all 20 DHBs into one monoithic entity. She recommended moving to 8 to 12 DHBs.

Labour ignored this and decided to do in health what they did to the polytechnic sector, and try and centralise everything.

The timing was awful

Deciding to try and do the largest possible reform of the health system during a global pandemic was nuts. Even if the decision was correct in principle (and it wasn’t), it should have not been implemented during a period where the health system was struggling just to cope.

Top level governance and management was needed

A world class CE would be needed to pull off a merger of 20 DHBs and 80,000 staff. The CE appointed had merely been CE of a DHB for three years. I have no reason to think they were not a good DHB CE, but what Health NZ needed was someone with massive experience in change management and leadership.

There were some good people on the Health NZ board, but a board can only act collectively through formal meetings. This is partially why they changed Lester Levy from a Board Chair to a Commissioner. Effectively Levy is now the Executive Chair, and the CEO is more akin to a COO.

The merger added many layers of bureaucracy

Rather than reduce management jobs, the merger has increased them. For example each DHB used to have a CIO. I’d almost guarantee you they are all still there (maybe different titles) but now they will have above them a Regional CIO, then a Deputy CIO and a NZ CIO.

The PM has said in some areas there are 14 layers between the patient and the CE. Decisions that used to be made locally quickly now go up to Wellington and wind their way through multiple layers. They have both regional and national bureaucracies on top of what was in each DHB,

Costs can exceed savings for many many years

In theory one HR/payroll system is better than having 20. But when you already have 20 operating then, you need to build what may be an entirely new system with bespoke design that can cope with the requirements of all 20 former DHBs. This will cost a huge amount, and at the same time you need to maintain all the existing systems, and then work out a transition plan which can also be highly costly and disruptive.

Health spending is increasing not decreasing

The problems with HealthNZ are not due to National not increasing funding.

In 2019 real health spending per capita was $3,610 (on 2017$). In 2023/24 it was $4,270 and in 2024/25 it will be $4,330.

As a percentage of GDP health spending was 5.74% in 2019, 6.82% in 2023/24 and projected to be 6.90% in 2024.25.

1 News reports:

Facts more important than feelings – Swarbrick on Tana interview …

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has hit back at ex-Green MP Darleen Tana’s claims she was unfairly treated, saying “feelings are one thing … but facts are another”.

Swarbrick is quite right that facts are more important than feelings. But it is unusual to hear her use a phrase made famous by Ben Shapiro.

The Economist writes:

Policymakers should focus on the fundamentals. They must defend rigorous testing, suppress grade inflation and make room for schools, such as charters, that offer parents choice. They should pay competitive wages to hire the best teachers and defy unions to sack underperformers. This need not bust budgets, since small classes matter less than parents imagine. Fewer, better teachers can produce stronger results than lots of mediocre ones. Japanese pupils thrash their American peers in tests, even though their average secondary classroom contains an extra ten desks.

Fascinating about Japan.

Another task is to gather and share more information about what kinds of lessons work best—a task many governments neglect. Unions may prefer it when good teaching is seen as too mysterious to measure, but children suffer. World-class school systems, such as Singapore’s, experiment endlessly, fail quickly and move on. Others keep on doing what does not work.

There is no shame in changing things, if the status quo doesn’t work.

News.com.au reports:

The South Australian branch of one of Australia’s most powerful unions has been placed into administration.

It comes after the news the Victorian Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) was referred to the state’s corruption watchdog following allegations of bullying, intimidation and criminal links.

This is a large union with assets of A$310m and 400 staff.

Allegations include:

• underworld figures had infiltrated the state’s union within the construction industry.
• bikie gang members had infiltrated the state’s union within the construction industry.
• officials from CFMEU had threatened violence.
• officials from CFMEU illegally banned firms from major construction projects.

I remind people that NZ Labour tried to introduce laws like they have in Australia that would make unions far more powerful and able to negotiate industry wide agreements with a minuscule proportion of members.

Mark Pincus writes:

I maxed out my giving in the last four presidential elections to the Democratic candidate: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Biden again, this cycle. 

Perhaps that makes me sound partisan, but I don’t align with either party. Like many of my peers in Silicon Valley, my views can be described as libertarian. I’m skeptical of big government, and both parties have recklessly printed money and spent the U.S. into a deep, dark debt hole. 

And unlike a lot of President Biden’s donors, I don’t think everything Donald Trump says or does is awful. I’ve been encouraged by the unwavering support for Israel he’s shown at the RNC this week. And looking back, I like that Trump was tough on China and Iran, and that he pushed European countries to contribute their fair share to NATO. 

I am also very scared of the extreme left, who seem to hate capitalism—a force I see as the engine of our exceptional country.

So why did I throw my support behind Biden?

Because throughout this campaign I have thought that a second Trump presidency is risky. In the past he has supported right-wing policies on abortion and climate. He’s also been oddly positive about dictators like Vladimir Putin. 

At this week’s RNC, the party of Trump sounds more mainstream. Who knows which Trump we will get? It’s a gamble. 

In December I attended a small lunch conversation with Biden. He was engaging and thoughtful. Our interactions gave me confidence that he still had enough drive to beat Trump a second time and be a reliable leader.

Seven months later, I have a radically different perspective. Biden looks even riskier than Trump. His debate performance made his age and competency the central issue in the 2024 election. And Biden and the Democratic Party seem to be moving further left by the day. 

Many of us are left wondering who is currently running the country. How else to explain the insane proposal he just put forward to put caps on grocery prices and rent increases?

Biden campaigned on being the moderate candidate. But in office he has been pushing a policy agenda Bernie Sanders would love – rent controls, price controls and student debt write-offs.

Only one strategy has a chance for the party and the country: an open convention. There’s nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Turning the convention into an open forum would be dramatic and exciting, and offer the best chance to produce a leader with a positive, mainstream agenda for our country. Someone we could trust more than Trump, but with a platform that is also about economic growth, secure borders, support for allies like Israel, and climate and civil liberties protection. Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, and Cory Booker are strong contenders. There are also black swan outsiders who could energize this race.

I think Biden will go soon, but I think they will avoid an open convention by having him endorse Harris.

UPDATE: This was written before Biden announced he will step down as candidate, and he has endorsed Harris. I’ve left it on the schedule as I think the points made about Biden implementing such bizarre policies from the hard left.

Wiremu Allen is a Third Striker.  He has more than 60 criminal convictions, including for aggravated robbery.

He has been a member of both the Mongrel Mob and the King Cobras gangs.

For his first strike, he strangled his partner. Fortunately she survived.

For his second strike, he committed a robbery.

For his third strike, with an associate, he committed a home invasion armed with pistols. He bashed the victim and his associate shot the victim in the knee, before robbing him and fleeing the scene. He was sentenced to the maximum term of 7 years imprisonment for the Third Strike conviction for wounding with reckless disregard.

But under the Government’s proposed re-introduction of Three Strikes 2.0, he will be on a clean slate.  His prior strike offences count for nothing, and he is a zero striker.

Just as bad, under the Government’s proposed Three Strikes 2.0, Mr Allen would not qualify as a Third Striker if he did it all again!

This is because it is proposed that a person would only be a striker if they had been sentenced to more than 24 months imprisonment for all strike offences.

For Mr Allen’s first strike offence – injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – he was only sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.  For his second strike offence – robbery – he was sentenced to just 13 and a half months imprisonment.

Neither meet the Government’s threshold to be considered a striker AT ALL!

Now this is where it gets interesting: 

Two years ago, a: prominent politician opined:

“It is unimaginable that offenders such as Wiremu Allen, who was convicted of a third strike offence which entailed breaking into a house, demanding money from the victim and then shooting him, would not receive the maximum mandatory sentence today.

“Labour’s soft on crime approach has made New Zealand a less safe country.

“Victim advocate groups submitted strongly against the repeal, noting more victims will be created by the Bill. Repealing Three Strikes means that offenders will be back in the community earlier, creating the conditions for more offending.

“National will reinstate Three Strikes. This legislation is necessary to ensure repeat offenders are sentenced in line with the expectations of the communities they want to live in.”

Who was that politician?  Well, it was none other than the National Party’s Justice Spokesman, Paul Goldsmith, who is now the Justice Minister!!! Three Strikes repeal makes New Zealand less safe (national.org.nz)

Two years after making the above statement, Paul Goldsmith of 2024 should listen to Paul Goldsmith of 2022, not Ministry of Justice officials who hate three strikes.

You can sign up for campaign updates to toughen the law and support the campaign at https://www.stop3strikessellout.nz.

You can make a submission at https://www.stop3strikessellout.nz/submission

Joe Biden is out as the Democratic candidate. Has not endorsed Kamala Harris so looks like a contested convention which is very exciting.

UPDATE: He has now endorsed Harris. However this is not binding on his delegates. It may discourage other candidates though.

The Taxpayers’ Union has a useful summary of the average rates increase for every Council. They seem oblivious to the cost of living crisis many families face.

The seven largest hikes are:

1. Wellington Region 20.6%
2. West Coast Region 27.0%
3. Gore 21.4%
4. Central HB 20%
5. Napier 20%
6. Upper Hutt 19.9%
7. Wairoa 19.5%

Not all of them have disregard for ratepayers though. Shout out to:

1. Far North 4.5%
2. Chathams 6.7%
3. Auckland 6.8%
4. Ashburton 6.5%
5. Waikato Region 6.0%

Chris Bishop announced:

“In March this year Ministers said enough was enough. We formally instructed Kāinga Ora to end the Sustaining Tenancies Framework, and to strengthen their management of disruptive tenants.  

“Three months on, it is encouraging to see some green shoots of change beginning to emerge. For example, in the past three months 14 Kāinga Ora tenancies have been terminated due to disruptive behaviour or persistent rent arrears. Kāinga Ora also has an additional 25 applications to end tenancies for these reasons awaiting decisions by the Tenancy Tribunal. This is compared to only eight tenancies terminated for disruptive behaviour or rent arrears the whole of 2023. 

“We’ve also seen an increase in Section 55A formal warning notices issued to tenants for disruptive behaviour, with 80 issued in the past three months compared to 13 for the same period last year.”  

People behave better when there are consequences for bad behaviour. It isn’t rocket science.

Kingi RATIMA is a Third Striker.  He is a recidivist robber and a recidivist burglar.

Aged in his mid-30s, he has over 105! criminal convictions as an adult and an unknown number of youth court convictions.

Probation has assessed him at a very high risk of reoffending and poses a high risk of harm to others. Obviously.

For his third strike, he attacked a man unprovoked, throwing the victim to the ground and repeatedly stomping on the victim’s head.  The victim could easily have died or suffered life-altering injuries. Kingi Ratima was convicted on a charge of robbery.

He is a menace to law abiding society and a danger to those he comes in contact with.

Under the Government’s proposed re-introduction of Three Strikes 2.0, he will be on a clean slate.  His prior strike offences count for nothing, and he is a zero striker.

Just as bad, under the Government’s proposed Three Strikes 2.0, Kingi Ratima would not qualify as a Third Striker if he did it all again!

This is because it is proposed that a person would only be a striker if they had been sentenced to more than 24 months imprisonment for all strike offences.

For Kingi Ratima’s first strike offence – a robbery – he was only sentenced to 1 year imprisonment.  For his second strike offence – another robbery – he was sentenced to just 1 year and 4 months imprisonment.Neither meet the Government’s threshold to be considered a striker AT ALL!

Which MPs wife was overheard on a recent flight telling fellow passengers that she is the Olivia Pope of New Zealand.

She also went on to mention she is a gold elite passenger, her husband is a politician as is her cousin and she is a consultant.

A guest post from Sparticus Oblivious:

Those of us that still watch free to air TV have seen the ACC ad showing a guy who decides not to leap off the top of a waterfall, because he might hurt himself. That’s the government trying to keep us safe.

You will have seen those ads where you have to buy an expensive car, because otherwise you will die in a crash, That’s the government trying to keep us safe

We all suffered stay at home orders and mask mandates in 2020, that was the government trying to keep us safe….. from a fricken virus

Wellington Library was buzzing with people in February of 2019, In March it was too dangerous to enter, that’s councils trying to keep us safe

Sky rockets are banned, we slip slop and slap instead of putting on tanning lotion, Jungle gyms and Bull Rush are banned and lint in your drier is going to burn your house down.

Safe safe safe, who can argue against safe

Well umm, me

If we are turned towards safety, what are we turned away from? Adventure, Mission, excitement, Entrepreneurship a life well lived.

How about we populate our speech with words like; stoic, Heroic, Courageous, Resilient, Brave Characterful, self-reliant, rather than the contemporary and often psychological values like; Safe, Kind, Compassionate, Vulnerable, victim. The latter all have their place, but let’s not put them at the top of the values pyramid.

I have a mate who spent his whole life doing Health and Safety in a large organisation but get him on the ski field and he’s a demon for speed and probably unconsciously, the thrill of danger that goes with it. All the young ones on the ski field have their helmets on, not him, he’s the personification of a pre airbag car.

So going back to our mate deciding whether to jump off the top of the waterfall

Of course he should jump. Youth is about being foolhardy, It’s about bad decisions, it’s about doing things that are genuinely dangerous. 

If he went bravely to the top of the waterfall and leaped in, the women thereabouts would unconsciously know which of the parade of mediocrity in front of them they should mate with 

They would know the brave leaper to be exciting and forthright and likely consummate the gene splicing there and then.

To precis Thoreau, “we need to live deliberately… and let us not, when we come to die, discover that we have not lived”

Grahame RUTHERFORD is a Third Striker.  He is a recidivist offender who sexually assaults children, in particular, little girls.  He cannot keep his hands to himself.

Aged in his 60s, he has multiple criminal convictions as an adult and has been offending since at least 1993.

For his third strike, he once again targeted a defenceless little girl in a retail shop and sexually assaulted her. He was convicted on a charge of doing an indecent act on a child.  He is a danger to little girls and they deserve protection from him.

Under the Government’s proposed re-introduction of Three Strikes 2.0, he will be on a clean slate.  His prior strike offences count for nothing, and he is a zero striker.

You can sign up for campaign updates to toughen the law and support the campaign at https://www.stop3strikessellout.nz.

You can make a submission at https://www.stop3strikessellout.nz/submission

A guest post by Lucy Rogers:

I woke up this morning to initial elation at the news that Israel and Hamas are apparently close to a ceasefire deal. The proposal involves the return of 33 hostages and Hamas’ removal from power, in exchange for the release of several hundred Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, Israel’s withdrawal from eastern Gaza and a ceasefire in stages. 

But a bilateral ceasefire means among other things the release of the hostages. In my initial jubilation at the proposed deal I assumed as a matter of course that the remaining hostages would also be released in subsequent phases of the ceasefire. Not so. My illusions were shattered by further research, confirming that 33 hostages only will be released: https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-798797

I speak now directly to John Minto, Neil Scott and the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa: will you extend your admirable concern for human life to “the other side” and speak out now for the 90 desperate human beings held captive deep underground in Gaza, who face imminent abandonment by their own government? You have called for a ceasefire for months. Presumably you meant a bilateral ceasefire. Will you call for Hamas to free the hostages?

Will you hold a protest down Queen Street this weekend condemning Hamas? Will you wave Israeli flags, just as I wore a Palestinian flag several times to your protests in solidarity with the people of Gaza?

It is tika (right) for you to highlight the ongoing atrocities committed against civilians in Gaza. For example, no-one could question that the use of “dumb bombs” in which missile targets are selected by artificial intelligence which is subject to technological glitches which result in the deaths of innocents is abhorrent.

Yesterday in Khan Younis a kura (school) was bombed in order to eliminate a terrorist who was present there. In the process Israel killed children who were playing football. The shocking incident was captured live on camera: 

https://twitter.com/IhabHassane/status/1810802673769210239

Israel’s practice of administrative detention (see for example the case of Layan Nasir: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/13/shhh-or-ill-shoot-you-family-of-jailed-christian-woman-tell-of-israeli-raid) and extrajudicial killings in the West Bank is deplorable. Every human being has the right to a fair trial and a rōia (lawyer), and where hara (guilt) is established, the right to proportionate punishment. Palestinian tamariki (children) who have been imprisoned indefinitely for (say) throwing a stone should be released immediately. 

But will the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa also protest human rights abuses on the other side?