Labour Party has been quick to criticise John Key of being in a conflict of interest situation. John Key has admitted making a mistake, but denied using his parliamentary position for personal profit.
It is interesting that Labour claims to take conflicts of interest seriously.
Several conflicts of interest that harm families legitimate interests were notified to Labour, in the form of my submissions to Parliamentary Sub Committees:
Given that Labour and National have taken no action towards managing these conflicts of interest, to protect the public from these legal workers, then I question Labour’s sincerity in criticising John Key over a relatively minor issue, when they have failed to act on issues leading to serious damage of our children and also resulting in serious wastage of taxpayer funds for no advantage to society.
Submission to Justice Law and Order on Family Court Matters Bill
Submission to Social Services Committee on Child Support Act
Submission to Justice Department about DV Act
While legal worker/Parliamentarians take part in decisions about the regulation of legal workers (conflict of interest!), then public protection will not be advanced.
Change will only occur when the public say strongly “enough is enough, we want the situation managed competently”.
The following is extracted from my submission to Justice Department on DV Act. It gives a paragraph or three on each type of conflict of interest. (The rest of this submission gives recommendations for changes that would provide management of these conflicts of interest, to protect the public from these abuses.)
To manage these conflicts of interest would cost under $1 million per year and would deliver benefits to society of well over $100 million per year. (If you are interested to read these recommendations, please EMAIL to me and I will send the submission to you.)
More detailed descriptions of some of these conflicts of interest are given on this website and there are references to these at the foot of this article.
Managing Conflicts of Interest so they are not a barrier to Courts delivering Good Quality Cost Effective Service
When a conflict of interest is NOT managed appropriately, then actors have (possibly hidden) incentives to serve people other than their ostensible customer. When actors act on their conflicted interest, they fail to deliver the proper quality and level of service to their customer. Later, as customers become aware of the conflict of interest, they are likely to become severely aggrieved and if there is no proper redress – eg trying to sue a legal worker – then they will be strongly tempted to sort the situation out in the real world, by broken bones, crushed skulls and spilt blood.
It is far better to make sure that conflicts of interests are competently managed, so that these problems never arise. This is not being competently done, by the present chiefs of court judges. They are simply trading by publicly claiming their integrity and skills. This smoke and mirrors approach does not address the real issues and complaints from the public are simply being ignored, as long as they can get away with this type of behaviour.
The following conflicts of interest need to be managed:
Parliamentarians who have worked as lawyers, taking part in debate and votes.
While they have some specialised knowledge, their personal conflict of interest is hazardous to Parliament protecting the interests of family consumers and protecting the taxpayer’s interest. When non-lawyer Parliamentarians stand back from taking a vigorous part in these debates, they are abrogating their duty to citizens and especially to all of our children. Non-lawyer Parliamentarians must look carefully at how well they are protecting citizens, from closed-shop lawyers.
Good quality legislation is clear and straightforward, so that people may arrange their lives within it, without “needing” recourse to the courts. Lack of clarity in legislation creates disputes, which generates far more income for legal workers than clear legislation (conflict of interest).
For citizens to understand legislation, it needs to be efficiently accessible to them. At present, legislation and rules are now efficiently accessible to citizens, but judgements are generally not easily or cheaply or efficiently accessible to citizens. The NZ Government has run “Citizens access to justice” investigations several times through the last 30 years, but more has been spent on talking than doing — as it cuts into commercial interests of legal workers (conflict of interest).
If the parties have poor knowledge of the likely outcome in court, then the negotiations can only be inefficient and fraught with problems. This only increases the potential income of legal workers involved in the negotiations (conflict of interest).
Hearing of Complaints about Legal Workers
The legal system from end to end, has always shown stellar arrogance, as it knew that it ran the complaints processes, with oversight by only wastefully expensive and profitable judicial review. Arrange that judges and lawyers are managed and supervised by people drawn from outside of legal profession and who are not subject to the conflicts of interest that the judges are exposed to.
Today, all of the productive professions have oversight by people outside the profession.
Supervision by a group of people providing at least some oversight from people outside the profession is given to limit the conflict of interest on the part of people within the profession on the supervisory panel.
Principal Family Caught Judge Management of Frivolous Litigation
At present, the Principal Family Court Judge has a personal financial conflict of interest, in that his pecuniary advantage lies in building the empire of Family Court and of legal workers in general. This conflict of interest should be clearly monitored by Parliament, or better still the management of family court judges should be by a manager not subject to this conflict of interest. This issue is the single issue offering the largest financial savings for Government and citizens.
Principal Family Caught Judge Management of Research
The judges who manage the judiciary fail to protect honest respondents and Government Legal Aid ie the public purse, from unnecessary and frivolous legal actions brought by legal workers. This serious conflict of interest costs the Government several $100 millions per year and seriously financially damages families. Although they speak publicly about putting the interests of children first, they put their personal and legal worker’s interests first. Justice would be better served by managing unnecessary “legal actions” paid for from the public purse. This would then allow the Family Court to meet its commitments within its existing budget, possibly even reducing the cost of this court.
Law Commission and Justice Department sponsored “research” consists mainly of talking to legal workers, with minor input from “specially selected” customers. By avoiding professional quality sampling (and the comments of the broad range of customers), the resulting research may be manipulated, by the employers of the researchers (conflict of interest). The Justice Dept research lacks professional credibility, it is based mainly on the viewpoints of legal workers. This submission is focussed on the viewpoint of giving families an effective disputes resolution service where value exceeds the cost, at a cost within the sensible budget of hard working families.
The primary problem in Family Court relates to the tolerance and fostering of perjury. (This eats way at the integrity and productivity of all NZ courts, but the problems caused persist much longer when they impact on family relationships in Family Court. Perjury generates more “legal work” and this profits all legal workers. Instead of honouring their ethical “responsibility” to the court, many legal workers encourage perjury. This is a pernicious conflict of interest and it will only be honoured when the legal workers complaints hearings are supervised from outside of their profession, similarly to all of the productive professions.)
Thus, it is more efficient for the child, to impose high standards for behaviour, accountability and responsibility onto both parents. To do so, would generate less adversarial spirit and thus less income for legal workers (this being another conflict of interest against the child’s best interests).
Further examples on the MENZ.ORG website, covered in more detail:
Lawyer with integrity not taking advantage of a conflict of interest
Inviting media to report on cases at #12
No picnic for fathers at #21
I compliment a lady lawyer, who gave me honest advice about the familycaught, that saved me probably over $10,000, this being at her own cost. This lady served her customer (me), even though this action cost her the same amount that it saved me. I admire her integrity.
Her integrity was more important to her, than taking my money.
Complaints about legal workers heard by their own union
To whom it may concern at #22
I discuss legal workers complaints being heard by their own union, the Law Society. This is a clear and obvious conflict of interest, that has been complained about for several hundred years, with no action being taken to rectify the malpractice that results. By comparison, complaints against real professionals are heard by bodies independant from the unions or advocacy bodies of these professionals.
I discuss that if the laws against child abduction were competently and efficiently prosecuted, then the legal workers (lawyers and judges) would collectively lose well over $50 million per year. By refusing to prosecute according to the laws of NZ, these workers are putting their personal financial interests ahead of the safe upbringing of NZ children.
Finally but can I win at #7
I discuss that the family legislation in NZ is setup not to protect children, but to make it easy for legal workers to threaten and extort parents directly of through Legal [Workers] Aid, to maximise their personal take from the parents. Although I didn’t use the words “conflict of interest”, this is exactly what is being discussed.
Lets prosecute child abductors at #7
I discuss the 40% care factor in NZ Child [and Spousal] Support legislation as an unmanaged conflict of interest. The Australian child support system has now reduced this figure to 15%, to treat this situation more fairly. It is astonishing how NZ men have been so slow to put pressure onto politicians, to get NZ to follow the Australian changes.
Lets prosecute child abductors at #47
Legal workers make more money by refraining from prosecuting women child abductors and springing out any women taken to caught by the police.
On 26th of October 2005 I, Murray Bacon, sat at the back of a caughtroon at Manukau District Court, with judge adams and legal workers gray cameron and simon jefferson discussing whether to send a Declaration to Sweden, saying that a boy aged 5 and a girl aged 11 had been illegally removed from NZ.
I expected 5 or maybe 10 minutes of discussion, as the issues at a family level were simple, clear, unambiguous and obvious.
Over 2 and a half hours went by, as these people discussed the removal from NZ, which preceded the passing of the Care of Children 2004 Act, the possibility that the Swedish Government and Courts might not act on this letter and therefore possibly it should not be sent.
How could this discussion go on for so long? The issues were being discussed as if this was the first ever Hague application to leave NZ. I knew that this was not true, as NZ has averaged about 50 applications per year, so through several years there had been several hundred similar applications.
It felt to me that the issue was being stretched out, to justify larger bills. I’m told this hearing cost the NZ and Swedish Governments close to $20,000, apparently only for disadvantage to these children.
As a citizen, I cannot be silent, about what looked to me to be featherbedding to provide financial support to legal workers, at serious cost to the quality of care for children.
Familycaught judges decry child abduction in public, but under cover of secrecy, their actual behaviour is largely one of encouragement, enabling and support. Parents and grandparents must defend their children, despite the familycaught.
The Conflicts Of Interest that occur in the “legal” process are not being managed by the present “Chief Justice” and the present “Principal familycaught judge”, thus the management of these conflicts of interest must be performed from outside of the legal workers community, by people with the skill and integrity to do this. This is not difficult to do and is essential, if we want the familycaught to ACT!!! against child abduction. Concepts of quality control and performance auditing, have been used successfully in competitive industries for half a century .
If we want acceptable performance from caughts, then these management tools must be used in the management of the caughts. Although there is some knowledge of these techniques among legal workers, management of the caughts have been careful to never apply them for the advantage of the NZ citizens or the protection of the most vulnerable of NZ’s citizens. Our caughts will only move forward under their own initiative, when access to judges is by well informed customer choice, influenced by cost, on a competitive basis.
Talk about these issues with your local MP, well before the election!!!!!