spinofflive
police-car-two minute stopwatch

PoliticsOctober 5, 2020

Election 2020: The crime and justice policies in two minutes

police-car-two minute stopwatch

Voting is under way in the New Zealand general election. Explore the main parties’ pledges at Policy.nz, but here’s a whistlestop tour of what’s on offer when it comes to crime, justice and policing.

Read more two-minute policy wraps here

There are few policy areas where the gap between the parties is more stark than crime and justice. For those on the right, addressing crime often (but by no means always) means more enforcement and tougher penalties; for the left, the same problems are best solved through social services, rehabilitation and in some cases even decriminalisation. Is that the case in 2020? Here’s where the parties stand.

Criminal justice

Law and order has long been a National Party bedrock, and it’s again a focus in 2020. Many of its policies target gangs, including higher sentences for gang members and the establishment of a specialist gang unit within the police. It’s also calling for a “social investment” approach to criminal justice policy, which boils down to setting rigorous targets and using data to decide where resources should be focused.

Act wants burglary added to the three strikes regime (currently limited to violent, sexual and drugs offences), meaning someone convicted of a third burglary offence would get the maximum sentence of three years in prison. On the other hand, it wants prisoners who complete literacy programmes – and even driving licence tests – to be rewarded with reduced sentences.

The Greens win the award for most ambitious criminal justice policy proposal: over time, they want to end mass incarceration as we know it, by replacing most prisons with community-based rehabilitation programmes. Other policies include a move to “by-Māori, for-Māori” criminal justice processes and giving all incarcerated people the right to vote. It also wants to repeal the controversial “three strikes” policy, a move The Opportunities Party also supports.

Labour’s criminal justice policy is low on specifics, but the party says it plans to continue to reduce the prison population while further increasing funding for crime prevention strategies.

Policing

The Greens were vocal in their opposition to the recent Armed Response Trials, and oppose any further use of armed police patrols. They also want police to undergo regular de-escalation training.

Along with the police gangs unit mentioned above, National would increase police numbers in rural areas and fund the expansion of mental health facilities in policing.

It’s worth highlighting NZ First’s target of 1000 new frontline police officers over three years because it’s not just a policy but an election pledge, a promise made to voters should it be returned to government. Like the Greens, NZ First is concerned about the “creeping militarisation” of the police and wants an independent review of the arming of police with military-grade assault rifles.

Labour has no policies on policing specifically, but its platform highlights the fact that the country now has the “largest and most diverse police force in New Zealand history”.

Family justice

As with much of its 2020 platform, Labour’s family justice policies point to first term achievements like the increase in funding for family violence services and enhanced legal protections in the workplace for people affected by domestic or family violence.

As part of its target-driven social investment approach, National would implement regular reporting and a clear reduction target for the number of children experiencing physical and sexual abuse, and a target that all sexual violence offences must be dealt with within 12 months. It also wants to make knowing about child abuse but failing to report it a criminal offence punishable by three years in prison, a policy also supported by Act.

The Green Party’s extensive family justice policy has a non-punitive focus. It wants increased funding for specialist support services for victims of intimate partner violence and sexual violence, as well as for violence prevention education and early intervention programmes. The Greens also want more emergency housing for men at acute risk of harming others, and would review emergency housing services for victims.

Firearms

Act has made firearms policy a cornerstone of its 2020 election campaign. It wants to repeal the Arms Legislation Act passed earlier this year – which includes the establishment of a nationwide gun register due to come into effect in 2023 – and replace it with legislation created in collaboration with interest groups including the firearms community. As part of the reversal, the planned gun register would be abolished. Like National, Act wants firearms legislation to be targeted at gangs, and would make it easier for gang assets to be seized where illegal firearms are involved.

While it doesn’t support overturning the Arms Legislation Act, National thinks it went too far and wants to amend it to include “commonsense” exemptions for law-abiding gun owners. National would ban gang members from holding firearms licences entirely, and wants police to have the right to conduct warrantless searches of certain high-risk gang members where police have reason to believe they are in possession of firearms.

Like both National and Act firearms policy? New Conservative might be the party for you: it supports both a ban on gang members owning guns, and overturning the Arms Legislation Act.

Explore the parties’ pledges in more depth at Policy. The essential campaign dates are hereFor all you need to know about the cannabis referendum click here. For the assisted dying referendum click here

Keep going!
The envelopes included both the official information and a ‘no vote’ flyer. Image: Tina Tiller / The Spinoff
The envelopes included both the official information and a ‘no vote’ flyer. Image: Tina Tiller / The Spinoff

PoliticsOctober 5, 2020

Complaint laid after assisted dying ‘vote no’ flyers found in official EasyVote packs

The envelopes included both the official information and a ‘no vote’ flyer. Image: Tina Tiller / The Spinoff
The envelopes included both the official information and a ‘no vote’ flyer. Image: Tina Tiller / The Spinoff

Four members of a Northland household opened their official election information packs to find promotional material from a group opposing the End of Life Choice Act, they have told The Spinoff. Alex Braae reports.

EasyVote packs have been sent out around the country ahead of the October 17 general election and referendums. But some of the orange-man emblazoned envelopes have contained more material than they should have, in the form of a flyer urging a no-vote in the referendum on the End of Life Choice Act, a member of a Northland household has told The Spinoff.

Amber Grant said four of the six adults in her home received in their packs a flyer from VoteSafe, a group that is urging the country to vote against the End of Life Choice Act. The flyer was inside their sealed EasyVote packs when they opened them, she said.

Only those in the household who had the surname Grant got the flyers in their packs. The other two did not. It is not yet clear how widespread the apparent error has been.

“Mine was definitely closed and then I opened it in my little house, down from the big house. And it was definitely in there,” said Grant, speaking about the VoteSafe flyer. “When I went up to the house my parents had theirs up there too. It definitely came from inside my envelope.”

The full EasyVote pack should include only an EasyVote card, candidates for the electorate the recipient is in, contact details from the returning officer, and official information on the referendums.

A spokesperson for the Electoral Commission confirmed that under no circumstances should material from campaign groups be among that information. She said the Commission was aware of the complaint, and is currently investigating.

“The EasyVote pack includes only Electoral Commission material, and the processes in place to produce and deliver the packs mean that it is highly unlikely any other material could be included. We have begun immediate investigations to get to the bottom of this,” she said.

The envelope Amber Grant’s EasyVote pack came in, along with the material that was included (Supplied)

The 3.3 million packs were compiled using an automated process at New Zealand Post sites in Auckland and Christchurch, said the spokesperson. “There is a robust quality assurance process in place and every thousandth pack is checked by Electoral Commission staff … New Zealand Post delivers the packs. They have specific instructions for staff including when the packs must be delivered by. Staff are told that any packs that appear damaged should be returned to the processing centre.”

The Commission had not received any similar complaints apart from the one household, she said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for NZ Post said the organisation “is proud of the part we are playing in this year’s General Election. We have a robust process in place, but are aware of the complaint, and are investigating. For more detail on this issue, please contact the Electoral Commission.”

VoteSafe campaign director Henoch Kloosterboer stressed that the organisation had no role in the apparent error. “The first I’ve heard about flyers supposedly being included in the Electoral Commission’s EasyVote packs was from The Spinoff. I had no prior knowledge and hadn’t been contacted about this by any member of the public,” he said.

“It seems to me that it’s either a deliberate attempt to cause confusion by someone who has opened these envelopes to put them in, or falsely claimed they were inside the envelopes. Or it could be human error at a large mailing and distribution house, where the flyers have incorrectly been inserted into the EasyVote packs,” said Kloosterboer.

“It’s a serious concern, and shows the potential for things to go wrong under human error. This is also in line with our concerns around the End of Life Choice Act which has potential for human error.”

Amber Grant said that she had been planning to vote yes in the referendum, but the flyer gave her pause for thought.

“When I first saw that paper, I was like, woah,” she said. “From reading the original [official] pamphlet I thought [the bill] was OK, specific things about terminal illness and stuff, it gave you clear facts about who can use that,” she said.

“But when I read that, I was kind of like – it just looked so proper, it looked totally like the government’s thing. And then I brought it to my sister and she said woah, woah, I don’t think that’s right.”

Under the law, it is possible that the incident could result in a challenge to the referendum result. Otago University electoral law expert professor Andrew Geddis said a petition could be filed against the result on the basis that “irregularities in the conduct of the referendum or of any person connected with it materially affected the result.”

However, he cautioned that it would be a high bar to clear. “Note that requirement of materially affected. So, you would need to show enough info packs were sent out with the VoteSafe material in them, and that this also might have skewed enough votes to turn a potential ‘yes’ vote into a ‘no’ vote.”

He said if it turns out that a very high number of EasyVote packs were compromised, the result was close, and therefore that the compromised packs might have swayed the outcome, then the High Court could declare the result void and require it to be run again.

Did you receive any extra material in your EasyVote pack? Email alexbraae@thespinoff.co.nz

But wait there's more!