MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Police Safety Orders

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Law & Courts — blamemenforall @ 1:46 am Sat 28th June 2008

Judge Paul von Dadelszen was interviewed on National Radio Nine to Noon on Wednesday 11 June 2008 in his role as Acting Principal Family Court Judge. His confident, resonant voice made him an ideal replacement for his slick ad-man boss in progressing dangerous abuse by the state as if it were beneficial.

I thought it worthwhile to report on the learned judge’s statements and to offer some comment. It’s a long post but worth the effort to see how the system is thinking. The judge’s actual statements are in italics while my descriptions and comments are not.

1. His Honour began by emphasizing that the initiative for the new legislation came from the police, but the Principal and other Family Court judges were well pleased with it.

The fact it was pushed by police gives a clue as to the intended use of the proposed “safety orders”. The orders will be used routinely by police attending domestic call-outs to ensure they are not bothered again at the same address as the domestic couple continues their argument. Who cares that it is men who suffer for this convenience? Men have always been the expendable gender.

2. “There does need to be an ability … for victims of violence to have ready access to justice.”

But the police orders will only be given when there is no evidence enabling police to arrest and charge someone, i.e. there is no evidence that there is any victim of violence. Also, throwing men out on the street at short notice when there is no evidence they have committed a crime can hardly be called “justice”. Judge Boshier was previously criticized for displaying his own bias by using gender-specific terms in discussing domestic violence as if it were only ever committed by men, so it seems in this interview Judge von Dadelszen was careful to use the terms “victims” and “victims of violence” where he may have wanted to say “women”.

3. His Honour then informed that Family Court judges thought 72 hours might be too short, because that would not give those ordered a chance to challenge the order in Court! However, he added that there was no indication this right would be accorded in the new law anyway.

Interesting that the judges’ main concern (and the only one mentioned) focused on the ability of people to become their customers as part of the process. Surely they did not think that extending the duration of the orders would somehow better protect the rights of those ordered? One might as well claim that it’s better to whip a slave 20 times rather than 10 because that gives the slave more opportunity to plead for mercy.

4. “It comes from Australia and it’s working well over there as I understand it.”

Perhaps the judge has not kept up with widespread corruption that has accompanied increases in powers given to Australian police. And according to whom is it working well? No doubt the domestic violence industry and man-hating feminist groups like it very much. But I bet if the victims of such departures from fair treatment and justice were interviewed, i.e. men’s and fathers’ representatives, the judge’s understanding might have to change significantly.

5. “…the police have always had the power to remove the perpetrator of violence from the household if there are sufficient grounds to arrest …It may be that this additional weapon in their armoury will give greater protection to victims; that is certainly the hope.”

Yes, there are ample powers to deal with violent people. And, as many men have discovered when they are assaulted by their partners, police already have ample powers to side with the female offender, arrest the male victim and to charge him with some offence or another regardless. The additional “weapon” being requested by police will most likely stimulate more desperate and violent behaviour.

The existing protection order regime has never been properly evaluated to see if it actually protects people; instead there are reasonable calculations that it actually increases risk for applicants and has led to hundreds of suicides in respondents. The judge’s pious hope will almost certainly be found to be a false hope, but such false hopes are usually encouraged by state forces seeking to seize more power over the people at every opportunity.

6. Hon von Dadelszen then agreed that police, without evidence to make an arrest in domestic call-outs, will under the proposed legislation have to make judgment calls about relationship conflicts.

Guess how much training the attending police will have had enabling them to make such judgment calls? And guess what judgment the police will make 99.9% of the time about who should be evicted from their home and family?

7. “What one has to do … is to balance the interests of justice against the rights of victims.”

Incredible. Firstly, if no violence has been committed there is no victim, only two disputants in a domestic argument. There is no particular reason to favour the rights of one over the other. The judge almost certainly meant “women” when he said “victims”. More importantly, the judge implied that somehow a more just outcome can come from abandoning basic principles of justice. This creeping process started with the establishment of the Family Court and subsequent law especially the Domestic Violence Act (DVA).

As discovered by Robert Mugabe and perpetrators of injustice all over the world, they have to become more and more unjust and immoral to maintain their failed approach. After this particular brilliant plan is seen to fail because enraged men resort to real violence in response to the blatant wrongs done to them, what will the next step be? Perhaps simply to imprison men immediately whenever women request it. We’re not far from that now.

8. “… we are always concerned about the rights of victims and sometimes in appropriate cases the interests of justice have to give way to the rights of victims and the children.”

More of the same argument on false premises, attempting to justify further abandonment of longstanding planks of justice. If there is no evidence of violence then there is no evidence of a victim, but the judge begs the question by simply calling whomsoever is favoured by the police a victim. Again, the judge appears to substitute the word “victims” for “women”, so the phrase “women and children” becomes “victims and the children”. “Sometimes in appropriate cases” is blatantly misleading, clearly meaning “whenever women demand it or it suits the police”.

And what are the rights of children? To have their father thrown out on the street, treated as a violent offender when by definition he is not? To lose loving care from their father at the mother’s say-so because she was not getting her way? To have their father’s business and therefore their own financial welfare damaged because he has been ordered to stay away from his home office, computer and other resources? To see their father develop depression and other stress-related diseases? To be thrown into a loyalty conflict where any expression of sympathy for their father’s unjust treatment risks losing their mother’s affection? The rights of children? Yeah right.

9. “I would hope that if a criminal court is going to make a protection order it’s an interim one only which is then transferred to the Family Court to determine whether or not it should become final.”

The judge wants to ensure that his part of the industry gets its market share from this new business opportunity. Why not fleece the desperate victims of these orders as much as possible by requiring them to deal with two lots of bullies?

10. “… it will be very important for the criminal court … to consider the interests of children because that is one of the complaints which is sometimes legitimately made that where a protection order is in place children suffer because they lose contact with the person against whom the order is made. In some cases of course that is justified but by no means all of those cases.”

His Honour here rather minimizes the situation. Rather than “sometimes”, the vast majority of protection orders will damage father-child relationships unnecessarily with no reasonable evidence of any risk towards the children. Current feminist-based definitions of violence sees children as abused when they see or overhear their parents arguing; this is extrapolated from flimsy research findings that show children are perturbed by conflict between their parents but do not tell us whether in the long term that experience is to the detriment or benefit of their development.

I have seen cases where a psychologist has extended this to include cases where children don’t see or hear anything but “sense” that their mother has been upset by the father. And the father will routinely be seen as the abuser even though both parents contributed in good measure. Also, it’s unclear why the “criminal court” would be involved in these police-issued orders at all. Perhaps His Honour knows something we don’t about what this new legislation has in store. Surely, if there is any behaviour of interest to the criminal court then the police would arrest and prosecute rather than issuing an order that is designed for cases where there is not the evidence of any significant offending.

11. His Honour agreed that the criminal court and the police will now be able to bypass completely the longstanding right of the accused to face his accuser.

“Yes, that is right. It’s very difficult it seems to me for those of us on the outside of these situations to look into the minds of the victims and really understand how they feel about domestic violence, the kind of power and control issues that there are in those situations, and I have every sympathy for victims who, sometimes for very good reason indeed simply do not feel able to front up. Now that’s where, I think, the programmes which will be available will help; it’ll bring I would like to think a greater understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and assist victims in that respect.”

His Honour appears to have been well indoctrinated in seminars provided by the domestic violence industry. More begging the question about victimhood, more circular argument (an order was applied for therefore there was a victim therefore the order was applied for; and therefore the applicant should not have to be inconvenienced by proper cross-examination…), more substituting the word “victims” for “women”, and faithful parroting of the manufactured industry slogans “power and control issues” and “the dynamics of domestic violence” both of which concepts arose out of feminist ideological theory and neither of which are consistent with the findings of scientific research.

Further, there is no good evidence that the indoctrination programmes based on this ideology (i.e. those provided by the NZ domestic violence industry) are effective in reducing violence. Oh well, never mind.

12. When asked if he had any concerns about unintended consequences of the new law and how it might be used and/or abused, Judge von Dadelszen replied:

“… I don’t think it’s possible to say that in protecting victims and children one should put that second to the ability of the Courts to react and to … act in their favour and sometimes I’m afraid that does mean putting aside the interests of justice insofar as the perception of the respondent is concerned.”

Then, when challenged by the interviewer that the injustice here might be real rather than perceived, the judge in rather condescending tone replied:

“I suppose one can’t rule that out Kathryn”.

Unbelievable if it were not true. Again the phrase “victims and children” where by definition there are no victims, suggesting the word “victims” is used instead of “women” who are really the favoured ones here. Again, claiming that somehow the aim of favouring “victims” and children is higher than maintaining the interests of justice. (Although hard to believe, it’s happening right before our eyes; feminism has become so powerful that women’s interests are now being put above fundamental principles of justice. That’s exactly what’s happening here.) Again, minimizing the seriousness of this by implying that the resulting injustice to respondents (i.e. men) will merely be a perception. However, His Honour was then forced to admit that such proposed injustice will not only be seen to be done, it will be done.

13. (Talking about current protection orders under the DVA):

“…Respondents who are the subject of an order have to leave the home unless the applicant says they can stay, and in those circumstances they’ve simply got to find alternative accommodation, and I suspect in the vast majority of cases that’s not too difficult.”

How callous. Hasn’t he thought about what it is like to be thrown out of your home at short notice? What it is like to be prevented from use of most of what your own labour has earned, worrying about what is happening to your possessions? What it is like to be prevented from seeing and talking to your own children, knowing they are being punished by losing their father usually for no good reason?

Many men issued with protection orders live on friends’ and family’s couches, struggling to maintain their employment without adequate domestic facilities and whilst experiencing serious anxiety, anger and depression. Their partners are advised by lawyers to put a block on all bank accounts, so men are left almost penniless and also put through the stress of being unable to pay the mortgage and other bills they are often responsible for.

IRD quickly starts extracting so-called “child support” to ensure the partner’s lifestyle can be maintained, then the men face the legal costs of their desperate (and usually futile) efforts to remain involved in their children’s lives, so many simply do not have enough to afford decent accommodation. Many men commit suicide. Oh well, never mind, at least if the judge turns a blind eye to it all he won’t have to lose any sleep.

14. “I think that they (the changes) are needed and that the increase in domestic violence that there has undoubtedly been in recent times is a good indication of the importance of bringing into place the kinds of measures which the government has decided to bring in.”

Undoubtedly there have been many more complaints and allegations of domestic violence but that must largely be due to a redefining of such violence to cover the ways most normal people behave in a heated argument, and to extensive government-funded advertising campaigns that have hugely increased the market for industry providers. Interestingly, if there has been any increase in domestic violence this has occurred during the reign of our current protection order laws.

This outcome was predicted by many who thought carefully about the consequences of closing off the opportunity of conflicted (ex-) partners to resolve their arguments and/or to vent their strong feelings verbally, of preventing parents from protecting their own children and of subjecting citizens to injustices such as punishment without trial.

However, instead of acknowledging that the Domestic Violence Act is a failed approach, the industry thinks that by applying it even more extremely and with even greater injustice this will magically make it work. The government obliges and learned judges who should (and probably do) know better collude for whatever reason (could it be empire-building or simply political expediency?).

Also, His Honour seemed confident that the new draconian measures were already a certainty. So much for select committees and democratic process.

15. “There is a real problem with that (the Family Court’s ability to cope with the pressures) … The Principal Judge has spoken publicly about measures which are going to be taken to increase the efficiency of the Court. I do note that one of the provisions here is to require the Family Court to provide information as to why orders are not made on an emergency application. If judges are required to do that we are going to be really stretched because time has to be set aside to provide that information. I’m assuming by that we have to write a judgment and that will increase the pressure on us as judges … and we’ll simply have to find measures to find more time. If we don’t then it will take longer to get to hearing cases which need urgent attention.”

Sounds like more judges will be required and more money will have to be provided. Surprise, surprise.


  1. I’m no Christian, but God help us all.
    Justice and human rights “for men” are unraveling before our very eyes.
    I can’t understand how such unrealistic, unjust and inhumane legislation can even be discussed when the first point made is that there is NO EVIDENCE! If there is no evidence, there is no victim, no perpetrator and no threats.
    We men would be better off with Helen’s uncle Roberb in Zimbabwe.

    Comment by xsryder — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 2:02 am


    Comment by help — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 6:49 am

  3. After reading the NZ Herald….

    Labour’s support in Auckland has dropped dramatically in the Herald’s latest digipoll survey after a month in which violence in south auckland and soaring petrol prices dominated the public’s attention.

    We see all these advertisements on tv in reference to so called domestic violence…
    Why are there not then t.v. advertisements asking police not to bash up suspects, polynesians not to shoot defenceless shop keepers and businessmen not to murder taggers e.t.c

    Why is violence seen mainly as a domestic issue within a family unit when it clearly is not fact ???
    Male against female violence is a myth…

    Male against male violence is fact and acceptable behaviour at the end of the day…

    Where are the government sponsored t.v. advertisements denouncing this male against male crime wave…
    Where is the Ministry of Mens Affairs to offer solutions…

    Go helen go to hell … (while you run your “stop – he said, she said” propaganda on national t.v) you ignore the escalating violence that new zealand is now becoming famous for under your watch)

    Comment by help — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 7:37 am

  4. Back to the subject.. Police safety orders = (“he said, she said orders”)

    Police safety orders (“he said, she said orders”) are a waste of tax payer money. government would be better off with sponsored TV advertisements for gang recruitment…it’s OK to be in a gang, its OK to burn another gangs house down, it’s OK for gang members to murder rival gang members babies…

    everything is just A-OK in New Zealand under Helen..

    Comment by help — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 8:27 am

  5. POLICE being used by HelenGrad has been on its way for many years – Legislation is now set in place to empower any future government to have its way – Blind, chip on the block, or just plain greedy, dutiful Bureaucrats, Police and Judges with those who support the governing power of the day will do the damage even in local govt as we have seen on the Shore, with even more venim than we have yet known

    Where are the MEN?

    Be afraid my friends – VERY afraid


    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 9:28 am

  6. My hands are cold as I type.I thought this guy would have retired by now.Surely soon? Unfortunately I am all too familiar with this particular Judge and his warped beliefs and way of doing things.
    Nothing he says or does would surprise me after having had many first hand experiences of the way he has treated me and my family.His reason for denying my most recent application for discharge of the nonesensical protection order-“Ms___________ has said she is afraid of you calling her house to speak to your children.Those comments whether you agree with their validity or not are her perception.That perception is enough for me to maintain this order.You say that there was no basis for the original order 7 years ago.That is irrelevant save for the fact that you must show that things have improved significantly since that time.You will pay costs in the sum of $2500.As for communication with your daughter,maybe in a few years if the mother’s perception of you changes.Have a nice trip back to Auckland.”
    I could go on and on about other decisions he has made about my property,costs,other things.I will not bore you here.I have detailed the outrages on several previous posts.
    von Dadelszen has always been biased to ridiculous extremes.A true example of everything that is wrong with people in New Zealand.Not surprising at all but nevertheless sickening that he has been elevated to the rank of Deputy Family Court Judge.
    He is actually oftened used by the Government to write legislation so weilds great power.
    Later on in life when my children are sufficiently mature to read the various lengthy files and his appalling decisions that have denied them fathering they will seek out his grave and spit on it.

    Comment by whanga — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 1:43 pm

  7. Whanga Et al,

    Judge Paul von Dadelszens appointment is more than enough proof that the hierachy in FC are political appointments – Thou boshier is more subtle they are both destructive – I say deliberately following the requirement of Govt.


    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 28th June 2008 @ 3:31 pm

  8. Whanga, your experience re protection orders and your children being abused by having their father’s role in their lives trashed highlights the ridiculous nature of the legislation. No evidence whatsoever of a respondent’s violence or risk of violence is needed, simply a claim by a woman to be frightened. But if a man tries to use the DVA in the same way he is usually told that because he’s a man he couldn’t truly be frightened so his application fails. Jim is probably right; successive governments seeking to attract the feminist vote or for other reasons to give women ridiculous levels of power to control men have appointed lap-dog judges who will ruthlessly damage men and children as required.

    Comment by blamemenforall — Sun 29th June 2008 @ 12:29 pm

  9. The whole concept of police issuing “safety orders” is largely missing the point.

    If protection orders have had almost no positive net impact for improving the safety of women and children, what is significantly different about a police “safety order”, that will make it more effective? (and also make sure that it isn’t just another device for abuse of police and familycaught powers?)

    If “protection orders” have negligible positive effect for improving women and children’s safety, then how can it be justified, to continue this uncivilised practice, of issuing them through clear breaches of natural justice?

    see post on:
    look down to comment #17

    Presently, there seems to be an attitude of “just throw the book at it”. Essentially a dumb, thoughtless, skill-less, evidence-less approach. This approach does some some good and does about an equal amount of harm!

    Following this principle, we don’t really need “judges” with skills or legal training, a clerk on $35,000 per year could do the job just as successfully. Why then do we pay these comedians over $200,000 per year? (It seems that we are wasting many $millions per year on these salaries.)

    The research into domestic violence shows clearly that the breach of natural justice approach, drives as many murders as it saves. More usefully, it also shows that when the consequences appropriate to the real world situation are brought back to offenders (female and male), then very significant improvements will be obtained. This can only be done by looking at the evidence in each individual case and weighing it competently and fairly.

    This is the old “let the punishment fit the crime”, that has been known for several thousand years of jurisprudence.

    The task of a judge isn’t dead easy, this is why a salary is paid. In return, we do have a right to expect that these “judges” do try to look at the individual situation before them and then to write a judgement that addresses the particular situation that they have been asked to address. (A willingness to enforce familycaught orders would also help!!!!)

    When a without notice application is made to any caught, there is an obligation to present all of the relevant facts, not just those to support your own cause. Although there has been much discussion about this “obligation”, it does seem to be honoured in the breach. Whilst consequences for legal workers who dishonour this “principle” have been clearly laid out by “judges”, I have never seen any consequences applied. The real world outcome, is that many (mainly men) now work from home. These orders to keep men away from their place of employment, are effective tools for damaging and in some cases destroying these men’s livelihoods.

    There hasn’t been any discussion about how the police could handle these issues successfully?

    Appropriate outcomes obviously includes applying appropriate sanctions, for perjury and abuse of familycaught, by men and by women.

    When I see judges doing their job, constructively, I look forward to being able to applaud their work. This requires compliance with their judicial oath. In these cases, there is no substitute for hard work, looking through evidence does take some effort, more than just throwing the book, like an idiot.

    There is more to writing successful legislation, than just good intentions. The research may look confusing, so applying it to create new legislation does take wisdom and common sense, more than head in the sand ideology. It also takes a willingness to review legislation and to modify or scrap it, if it is not meeting the goals set when it was passed. Presently, NZ gets poor marks for setting goals and managing the implementation of new, high social risk legislation.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 30th June 2008 @ 10:31 am

  10. Well put Murray.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 30th June 2008 @ 12:32 pm

  11. There are details on the parlimentary website on how Safety Orders will be issued. There are four papers in Annette Kings name on DVA change proposals. Guys get detaiuned for up to 2 hours dragged downtown where senior sergant issues the 72 order.
    Hopefullty the presence of a 72 Police issued order is viewed by Judges as sufficent cooling off time that an interin 3 month TPO isn’;t needed. If so its a bonus. If not its disaster that Safety Orders are a step towards TPO then final PO’s.
    Time will tell how Women’s Refuge and the local Refuge solicitors use them.
    They could be OK, we all are fearful that will not be the situation.
    Allan Harvey

    Comment by allan Harvey — Mon 30th June 2008 @ 12:48 pm

  12. Murray – many judges do their work. The law requires them to do things that are contrary to any notion of justice most people would recognize. F.C. judges make “findings on the balance of probabilities”, which is weasel talk for “finding whatever takes their fancy and that will please their political masters”. They have to wreck children’s relationships with their father whenever a woman makes any allegation of wrongdoing by the father. This is what the law requires them to do. Somehow, they find a loophole to allow them to sit on their hands when a father makes similar allegations about the children’s safey in the care of the mother.

    Allan – I confidently predict that the police safety orders will be used and accepted as evidence that further protection orders are needed. Bets anyone?

    Comment by blamemenforall — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 12:28 pm

  13. Allan – I confidently predict that the police safety orders will be used and accepted as evidence that further protection orders are needed. Bets anyone?

    You forgot the intervention team that will be notified by the Police when the injunction is issued. Their aim will be to obtain a DPO in the 72 hours.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 1:41 pm

  14. Dear blamemenforall, whilst we do have legislation that allows breaches of natural justice to occur, especially in secret caught rooms where there are few or no witnesses, the legislation doesn’t require “judges” to carry out these acts.

    The judicial oath requires judges to treat all people appearing before them, without fear or favour and to do justice.

    In my personal experience, breaches of natural justice have been due to “judges” personal behaviour and usually in clear breach of their judicial oath.

    Some of the legislation may be risky, even hazardous, but it doesn’t actually require breaches of natural justice.

    In my experience, the familycaught operates in a generally adversarial basis. This is in stark contrast to the Family Proceedings Act, which allows the judge to proceed in an inquisitorial manner. This issue is important, as to get to the truth, does take considerable presentation of evidence and challenge by the other side. This can only be done successfully, in a patient inquisitorial court.

    Thus the adversarially operated familycaught, with “judges” receiving about 10x the average wage, will never be able to reliably, competently and cost effectively “find facts”.

    It looks to me, that paying legally trained workers to address family problems, is essentially paying the wrong people! Apart from the lack of relevant skills, their pay expectations result that they are not willing to put in sufficient hours to have any hope of reliably and safely addressing the issues.

    While we persist with the present familycaught business model, overpaid, underworked and over-here, then we shouldn’t expect competent cost effective solutions to family problems.

    What we get instead, is a high cost, low performance, quick rough decisions, made by people trained in law, not knowledgeable about real family life and budgeting.

    The real pain comes when people walk into a caught room, expecting competent service. Misplaced idealism does cause real pain.

    Anyway, the Family Proceedings Act is now 28 years old!!!

    The promises made to NZ society, at the opening of the familycaught in 1980 have never been delivered on. With the passage of over 1 generation, we must start to look to understand why these promises have never been satisfactorily honoured?

    The inherent conflicts of interest in the caughts, allow substandard performance to continue to exist. Some of the judges are worthy of public respect, not I believe, the majority. Not even a significant minority. These problems are endemic throughout the caught system, not just familycaught.

    While these conflicts of interest are not being satisfactorily managed, ie we continue to trust the present judicial management, we will continue to receive grossly substandard service and pay an excessive and unreasonable cost for judicial services.

    I feel extreme pain, when I hear legal workers, including “judges”, making these same promises to the NZ public, as if they were new!

    It seems to me, that they know the NZ public is so dull, that they will never stand up to protect their interests, from the “enemy within”.

    Conflicts of interest can be managed by putting visible accountability onto the people who make decisions, subject to personal conflict of interest, or by moving the decison making about the management of the judiciary out of their own control. These are standard management techniques, that work well in the real world. Clearly, the solutions must be imposed by Parliament. Talk to your local MP….

    Back to your defense of judges, in many cases the breaches of natural justice are – in my opinion – the personal responsibility of these “judges”.

    We must also acknowledge that in many cases, evidence is poorly presented before these judges, it sounds like this is our personal responsibility, as well as being contributed to by the “quick” adversarial process. When caughts require that they be communicated to in ways outside the knowledge of experienced parents and caregivers, then there is really something irrelevant and sick about these “familycaughts”.

    The Labour Government has moved to improve accountability placed onto real estate angents. The same measures need to be applied for legal workers (obviously this includes judges too). This is about 500 years overdue.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 2:31 pm

  15. Yes, good observations Murray. However, it is also true that the legislation to a great extent demands injustice. For example, if an allegation is made, the Court is obliged to restrict contact between the father and child until it is satisfied there is no risk. The law requires the Court to cause definite abuse to children in order to avoid the possibility of “violence”, defined by the law with such a wide brush that it encompasses most behaviours likely in the course of relationship conflict. The law itself in this aspect does not recognize the harm done to children by damaging their relationship with fathers. Because the law does not recognise the essential abuse to children caused by imposing supervised access (not to mention the damage this can do to the child’s beliefs about the father, and by giving the mother undue power to cause alienation against the father, and other problems), the Court is not able to balance the abuse caused by restricting father-child contact with the risk of violence as alleged. Yes, from what I have seen Courts could do a much better job, but the law itself makes this difficult.

    Comment by blamemenforall — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 5:24 pm

  16. # 15. crystal clear observations, well chosen words. I have harped on before, but four judges and seven years to be told the child can have contact with his dad and probably $100, 000 in tax payer money, i say JOHN KEY, ARE YOU LISTENING OUT THERE ??? I said no to the 3 hour supervised access 3 years ago and have taken a position of never wanting contact with my 12 year old son, (even if he wants contact with me in the future) I give up, i did the distance, got to the top of the mountain and realised it was a waste of time, ‘sperm donor’ is my happy denotation. I don’t care, good luck to those who can be bothered to care, but please don’t judge me for how i see it. I’m not interested.

    Comment by help — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 6:44 pm

  17. i don’t tell new female acquaintances that i have a son, but proud to say i am a ‘sperm donor’, it is more honest.

    Comment by help — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 6:51 pm

  18. I apologise for seeming to argue. I sure would like to resolve this issue, so we can be confident that our understanding is correct.

    I am not sure whether a judge’s duty to deliver justice (I will do right) overides apparent requirements in specific legislation. I understand that this topic is called judicial discretion/judicial activism and Parliament has a large degree of control by specifying shall, or may…..

    Please look for yourself and verify:
    Select Acts

    Oaths and Declarations Act Section 18:
    I,……, swear that I will well and truly serve Her [or His] Majesty [specify as above], Her [or His] heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of ; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.

    Domestic Violence Act 1995
    14.Power to make protection order–
    (1)The Court may make a protection order if it is satisfied that–
    (a)The respondent is using, or has used, domestic violence against the applicant, or a child of the applicant’s family, or both; and
    (b)The making of an order is necessary for the protection of the applicant, or a child of the applicant’s family, or both.


    (3)Without limiting section 3(4)(b) of this Act or the matters that the Court may consider in determining, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) of this section, whether the making of an order is necessary for the protection of the applicant, or a child of the applicant’s family, or both, where some or all of the behaviour in respect of which the application is made appears to be minor or trivial when viewed in isolation, or appears unlikely to recur, the Court must nevertheless consider whether the behaviour forms part of a pattern of behaviour in respect of which the applicant, or a child of the applicantthe’s family, or both, need protection.

    (4)For the avoidance of doubt, an order may be made under subsection (1) of this section where the need for protection arises from the risk of domestic violence of a different type from the behaviour found to have occurred for the purposes of paragraph (a) of that subsection.

    (5)Without limiting the matters that the Court may consider when determining whether to make a protection order, the Court must have regard to–

    (a)The perception of the applicant, or a child of the applicant’s family, or both, of the nature and seriousness of the behaviour in respect of which the application is made; and
    (b)The effect of that behaviour on the applicant, or a child of the applicant’s family, or both.

    19.Standard conditions of protection order–
    This covers allowing contact if the couple are occupying the same dwellinghouse, by consent….

    Sir Douglas Graham said in Parliament that these clauses would be difficult to interpret, but that he had confidence in the ability of the judges to work with these clauses. It seems with hindsight, that his confidence was more that his own children wouldn’t be disadvantaged.

    In my opinion, these clauses do not require a breach of natural justice, or of common sense. These judges make these breaches, by operating outside of the legislation. This is personal responsibility.

    Blamemenforall notes that:

    For example, if an allegation is made, the Court is obliged to restrict contact between the father and child until it is satisfied there is no risk.

    Looking through the Domestic Violence Act, the word risk simply does not appear.

    I do agree that the act means that a judge can make such an order on very little evidence. While women have a well coordinated labby and newspapers embarrass judges who have the misfortune to handle a case which later degenerates into injury or death, this results in judges trying to be “conserthevative” by throwing the book, whenever the words “I fear” can be heard. To protect their children, men must be able to match these pressures. This would take a large number of men to stand up and say, I will not tolerate these illegal and incompetent behaviours.

    When “judges” accept claimed fear, without anything to show that it is reasonably based, they are acting well outside of the authority given to them by Parliament. The word “illegally” comes immediately to mind.

    So, who will prosecute the errant “judges”?

    If real men were concerned to protect their own interest, to be free from ill judged application of these “Protection Orders” against them, when there is no substantive evidence, then these men would band together and appeal these ill judged judgements and drive the decision point back to requiring some real evidence – in accordance with the legislation passed by Parliament.

    I hope my words can be seen as showing that there is an incentive to work together, rather than to just criticise and moan?

    I acknowledge that many men have been treated quite improperly, even after paying their legal workers quite abhorent sums of money, some over $5,000 even!!!! to try to address these problems.

    Let the buyer beware!

    If they pay these sums to legal workers without first checking that they are able and willing to address the issues, then their payments are really just stupid charitable donations, toward overseas holidays and mistresses.

    To give our children a good life, surely we need to checkout value for money, before committing ourselves to large legal bills?

    Look before you leap.

    You must checkout your legal workers skill and willingness to work, before you get them to “work” for you. A legal worker that refuses to work constructively, once you are in caught, is far worse than useless, they are scuttling your family life – for personal gain!

    Back on the “balance of probabilities” / proof, a professionally skilled judge, would judge such a situation, by making a decision which would do the least harm, for these children. Clearly, this would require an understanding of the damage done by treating a father like an abuser, balanced against a real world estimate of the risk to these children. However, the adversarial approach and desire for a quick easy solution, precludes a professional level assessment of risk. Professional level risk assessments are difficult at the best of times, they take time, patience and sustained effort. This is close to impossible for a legal worker who is used to getting quickly through a criminal prosecution by damaging credibility and then sitting down, in a dramatic fashion, thinking only of the easy money.

    Whilst a competent judge would work to do minimum harm, if they lack knowledge of the harm that they do, then they will never be able to safely perform their job.

    However, it is also true that some men overstate the damage done by a short period of supervised access. Unfortunately, the period of time that supervised access runs for, often isn’t short. Some legal workers present accepting supervised access as an admission of guilt – to manipulate the customer into fighting it out in caught, like a fighting dog trapped in a ring.

    Legal workers – certainly the familycaught type – are the lowest of the low.

    It is only through working together, that we can drive back these stupidities and manipulative extortionate thieves. These legal workers may profit from deceiving and misleading, it is up to us to clarify the issues, protect our families and lives and imprison the worst of the thieves,

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 9:12 pm

  19. Murray, the following legislation requires the Court, when allegations of violence are made, to be satisfied that the child will be safe before allowing unsupervised contact with the parent alleged to have been violent. There is no consideration here for balancing the harm done by restricting parent-child contact against the potential harm from that parent’s alleged violence. It’s an absolutist law that sees any “violence” of any level as more important than the relationship between parent and child. It is feminist legislation based on feminist priorities and ideology. No particular criterion of seriousness of “violence” has to be attained. Under this legislation, one light smack if alleged and believed by the Court or admitted by the respondent would require the Court to restrict parent-child contact to supervision until there is further evidence convincing the Court the “violent” party will not commit further such “violence” to the child.

    Care of Children Act 2004

    5(e) the child’s safety must be protected and, in particular, he or she must be protected from all forms of violence (whether by members of his or her family, family group, whanau, hapu, or iwi, or by other persons):

    51 Court must consider protective conditions in certain cases
    · (1) This section applies to a parenting order when–
    o (a) the order provides for a person (person A) to have contact with a child; and
    o (b) the Court is satisfied that person A has used violence (as defined in section 58) against the child or a person (person B) who has the role of providing day-to-day care for the child.
    (2) The Court must consider whether the order should be subject to conditions imposed for the purpose of protecting the safety of person B while person A’s contact with the child takes place (including while the child is being collected from, or returned to, person B).

    58 Interpretation
    … violence means physical abuse or sexual abuse.

    59 Allegations of violence made in proceedings relating to parenting orders
    · (1) Section 60 applies to proceedings–
    o (a) relating to an application under this Act for any of the following:
    § (i) an order about the person or persons who have the role of providing day-to-day care for a child:
    § (ii) an order about contact with a child:
    § (iii) the variation or discharge of, or of any condition of, an order in subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (ii); and
    o (b) in which an allegation is made that a party to the proceedings has used violence–
    § (i) against the child or a child of the family; or
    § (ii) against the other party to the proceedings.
    (2) Section 60 applies to proceedings specified in subsection (1) whether or not those proceedings also relate to any other matter (whether arising under this Act or any other enactment).

    60 Procedure for dealing with proceedings in section 59(1)
    · (1) In proceedings to which this section applies in accordance with section 59 (the proceedings), the Court must, as soon as practicable,–
    o (a) consider whether to appoint a lawyer to act for the child under section 7(1); and
    o (b) determine, on the basis of the evidence presented to it by, or on behalf of, the parties to the proceedings, whether the allegation of violence is proved.
    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) requires the Court to make any inquiries on its own initiative in order to make a determination on the allegation.
    (3) If the Court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings (the violent party) has used violence against the child or a child of the family, or against the other party to the proceedings, then, unless subsection (4) applies, the Court must not make–
    o (a) an order giving the violent party the role of providing day-to-day care for the child to whom the proceedings relate; or
    o (b) any order allowing the violent party contact (other than supervised contact) with that child.
    (4) In the situation in subsection (3), the Court may make an order in subsection (3)(a) or (b) if, after complying with section 61, the Court is satisfied that the child will be safe while the violent party–
    o (a) provides day-to-day care for the child; or (as the case may be)
    o (b) has contact with the child.
    (5) If, in the situation in subsection (3), the Court is not satisfied as provided in subsection (4), it may make an order for supervised contact between the child and the violent party, and, if it does so, the Court must specify in the order whether the supervised contact is to occur–
    o (a) under the supervision of an approved provider; or
    o (b) in the immediate presence of a person approved by the Court (for example, a relative, a friend of the family of the child, or any other person whom the Court considers suitable).
    (6) Despite subsection (1), the Court may make any order under this Act that it thinks fit in order to protect the safety of the child if the Court–
    o (a) is unable to determine, on the basis of the evidence presented to it by, or on behalf of, the parties to the proceedings, whether the allegation of violence is proved; but
    o (b) is satisfied there is a real risk to the child’s safety.

    Comment by blamemenforall — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 10:36 pm

  20. Dear Blameforall, thank you very much for your reply and clear quotations.

    I believe that we are in much agreement, and our disagreement is very small.

    What does safe mean? By using slightly different meanings, we can obtain vastly different outcomes.
    As safe as possible
    pretty safe, by eliminating all fun and real life
    safe by everyday standards
    Having fun, going a bit too fast for exhilaration…

    The acid question is – when faced by a particular situation, could we do any better ourselves? Is someone just being wise after an adverse event?

    Would we be prepared to refuse a protection order, knowing that there is some tiny possibility that there could be injuries or death in this case in the future?

    I understand that less than half of the murders had protection orders issued previously. Therefore, no matter how many protection orders were issued, short of awarding them for every single woman and child in our community, could we have all murders covered by protection orders. Even then, many of these murders would still occur, because a piece of paper is quite limited in what it can achieve.

    Given the real world factors above, we must accept that legal measures can have only limited positive effect anyway. When legal measures are applied without common sense and wisdom, they are likely to inflame the situation and result in more harm than good. This harm however, is much less likely to be thrown in some judge’s face publicly.

    Presently, very few men complain in public, about the malicious mis-application of protection orders.

    Many of those that do, present themselves in a manner that they are easily discredited in the public view, by people who profit from the abuse of men by familycaught. Do we judge heroism by noise, or by its ability to persuade tens of thousands of voters?

    Whilst some complain about the performance and lack of accountability of judges, I believe that most of the damage done to men’s situations results from them accepting outright defective advice from their own legal worker. Surely this self-damage could be reduced by men’s groups putting out better information, to protect men (and women too) from these legal worker sharks?

    Do people really have a right to complain, when they haven’t used “the system” properly?

    We can improve our own responsibility quicker than we can change legislation, so lets get to it straight away.

    Whilst there are problems in the legislation, solving these may achieve very little, if the personal values of the “judges” will subvert the legislative changes anyway?
    I refer to the USA article, backsliding to the tender years doctrine, which shows how easily judges may subvert clearly expressed intentions of Parliament. It is worth reading the original article from, for the examples of judge’s rationales for their transgressions of clearly worded legislation.

    No judge can solve the world’s problems. They are trying to do what is outside of their capability, even if they did use skills outside what they are trained to perform competently. I am an engineer and I very clearly remember being told that one of the greatest sins is to act outside what you have been trained and tested to do. Medical practitioners are told similar, for the same reason.

    Judges, in their arrogance, seem to never be told this, they can do anything. And they can too, its just that they cannot do it successfully!

    In mature legal systems, there are checks and balances to deter false accusations. It’s just that we have not got to this stage in the present operation of familycaught. We will get there, it’s just unclear how long it will take. Legal workers profit from NOT applying accountability for false accusations and perjury. As the public benefit from prosecuting perjury, they must enforce these laws, not the “judges”!? This is but one example of many conflicts of interest that judges are presently entrusted with.

    Whilst judges don’t face professional accountability for the quality and cost effectiveness of their services, we will never make forward progress on these issues. This can be quickly and very cost effectively solved, by taking the management of the judiciary out of their hands, so that their services can be managed to be reasonably cost effective and the low quality service providers can be scrapped from the public payroll.

    Would I refuse a protection order to a woman or man that claimed such was essential, without providing any evidence? Certainly I would.

    For a start, if both parties carried the cost of supervised access, then they would both have an incentive to use these family spirit crushing thumbscrews only where appropriate.

    To my eye, almost all aspects of familycaught action fail to show proper application of responsibility. This means bringing the consequences of decisions back onto the person who made the decision, that brought these costs into effect. Its amazing how quickly that people improve, when accountability is applied to their actions.

    Even so, we cannot blame “judges” for our own lazy apathy.

    Thanks again for the debate, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 1st July 2008 @ 11:35 pm

  21. This law, which has nothing to do with protection orders, allows the Court no option to act sensibly or in the best interests of the child when there are allegations of “violence”. Without major change in political direction resulting in new laws no amount of improvement in how judges do their job will change the child abuse that the Family Court perpetrates. Here again are some key bits of the legislation from the excerpts above; note the words “must” and “must not”:

    5(e) the child’s safety must be protected and, in particular, he or she must be protected from all forms of violence

    (3) If the Court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings (the violent party) has used violence against the child or a child of the family, or against the other party to the proceedings, then, unless subsection (4) applies, the Court must not make–
    o (a) an order giving the violent party the role of providing day-to-day care for the child to whom the proceedings relate; or
    o (b) any order allowing the violent party contact (other than supervised contact) with that child.

    Comment by blamemenforall — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 12:00 am

  22. The evil bitches will just make up stories and the womens refuges will tell them just what to say to get us into trouble. They will “persuade” the kids to make up lies for these stories.

    Comment by martin swash — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 5:12 am

  23. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
    The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act places limits on the actions of those in government (including government departments, the judiciary, state-owned enterprises and local authorities) that interfere with the rights of individuals.
    Laws to be consistent with the Bill of Rights
    All new legislation is examined to see if it is consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed by the Bill of Rights Act. If there are any inconsistencies, then the government is required to provide a justification for the limits placed on these rights. The Attorney-General must report any inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights Act to Parliament when the legislation is introduced.

    If you are arrested or detained under the law you have the right to
    – be told of the reasons for your arrest or detention
    – consult and instruct a lawyer and be told of that right
    – lent and be told of that right
    – challenge the lawfulness of your arrest or detention in court
    – be charged promptly or be released
    – be brought before a court as soon as possible, if not released.

    POLICE SAFETY POWERS are totally inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and should not be knee jerked into legislation as once enacted it provides mechanism for establishing a Police State at the behest of a minority.
    This legislation can then be used as crossover into other areas repressing your fundamental rights of freedom.

    Kind Regards
    Paul Catton
    East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
    09 271 3020

    Comment by Paul Catton — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 8:50 pm

  24. Paul et al,

    I find it hard to believe that so many with so much experience still believe in the Law

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Wed 2nd July 2008 @ 9:06 pm

  25. Paul is right about the breaches of basic human rights.

    From all of the legislation quoted above, I still believe that the legislation is hazardous, but doesn’t actually require judges to breach natural justice, it allows them the discretion – to choose – to breach natural justice. This is why I say that these transgressions are the individual responsibilities of the “judges” who have carried them out.

    I know that “judges” have claimed that they are only following the legislation, but they are being disingenious in their denials of their personal responsibility, dishonest really.

    This is like the gunman claiming that the bullet aimed the gun (and should be jailed).

    Certainly the legislation contains a scary amount of poorly defined words and ambiguity and relies on the wisdom of the judges, when it is acted on. The counterpoint to enabling discretion, is is the enforcement of accountability – onto all of the parties who take part in the process.

    If men wish to apply pressure that matches the women’s refuges pressure onto judges, then men must stand together and speak clearly to our MP’s and listen to their responses and follow up with meaningful lobbying. Communication needs to be two way, to be effective.

    I suggest that apart from the effects on our own skins, surely we owe it to our children.
    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 3rd July 2008 @ 11:02 am

    Police investigating the “suspected homicide” of a 7-year-old boy have charged a man with assault and say further charges are likely.

    The man, believed to be the boy’s stepfather, will appear in the Nelson District Court today.

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Thu 3rd July 2008 @ 11:33 am

  27. There is really absolutely no evidence whatsoever that protection orders achieve their set objectives. In fact, the little evidence we have (spousal murder rates) show that they failed to make any difference.

    PO’s are designed to prevent crimes from happening and – as is the case with any laws designed to have such effects – they are deeply flawed. I really wonder if such laws are not in contradiction with human rights or the Bill of Rights.

    Comment by Pete — Thu 3rd July 2008 @ 12:07 pm

  28. Dear Jemma,

    Unless you are prohibited to release details of Mr Powers on the spot protection orders proposal I request once again that you send me the information I request.


    Wayne Fergusson.
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Jemma Montagu
    To: Wayne
    Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:25 PM
    Subject: RE: Protection orders – quary

    Dear Mr Fergusson,

    Thank you for your further emails. I appreciate hearing your comments.


    Simon Power
    MP for Rangitikei

    From: Wayne [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: Friday, 27 June 2008 8:27 a.m.
    To: Jemma Montagu
    Cc: Murphy; Benjamin Easton; Noelle
    Subject: Re: Protection orders – quary

    Hi Jemma,

    I have just read through Mr Keys speech and I am saddened to see how shortsighted National is the most important issue facing New Zealand’s future,

    Our Nation is being inundated with corruption and yet Key diverts attention to current consequential problems of an impotent government-given Mandate.

    From our meeting with Simon on Monday and in Feilding he will know exactly what I’m talking about,

    Simon must offer New Zealand a much better proposal if he truly wishes to restore Justice.

    Wayne Fergusson


    —– Original Message —–
    From: Jemma Montagu
    To: Wayne
    Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:43 PM
    Subject: RE: Protection orders – quary

    Dear Mr Fergusson,

    Thank you for your email. Please find attached a copy of the speech John Key gave to the Police Association last year, which outlines details of our protection orders policy.

    I would be interested in your comments.


    Simon Power

    MP for Rangitikei

    From: Wayne [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2008 4:55 a.m.
    To: simon power
    Cc: Murphy; Benjamin Easton; Noelle
    Subject: Protection orders – quary

    Dear Mr Power,

    I have noticed you champion on the spot protection orders,

    While there may well be situations where this might be of benefit I am curious as to what terms, conditions and procedures your proposal would be subject to.


    Wayne Fergusson,


    Comment by Wayne Fergusson — Thu 3rd July 2008 @ 12:41 pm

  29. John Key MP
    National Party Leader

    1 November 2007

    Speech to the Police Association National Conference

    I am privileged to be addressing a group of men and women who are dedicated to promoting the security of New Zealanders, their families and their communities.

    That is an honourable mission and your service of it too often goes unthanked.

    So thank you.

    Despite the best efforts of New Zealand police men and women, the size of the violent criminal threat is as big and intimidating as ever.

    Last year, on average, six Kiwi police officers were assaulted every day. That number is higher than at any time in New Zealand’s history.

    Weapons, such as firearms or guns, were used in 88 of those assaults. That is a sad indictment on the state of our society and a chilling reminder that the fight against crime is far from over.

    Some 11,000 more violent offences occurred last year than in 1999. A violent offence, such as a grievous assault or robbery, now occurs every 10 minutes. There’s a sexual attack every four hours and a robbery every three and a half hours.

    The size of the criminal threat is measurable not only by crime statistics, but by the widespread fears of everyday Kiwis. Kiwis fear that ours is not a safe society.

    They fear that their personal security is at risk: Children being beaten to death by their parents. Paroled offenders murdering innocent citizens. Gang shootings. P-induced frenzied attacks on innocent citizens. Youth gangs intimidating communities. These things strike worry into the hearts of all New Zealanders.

    As police officers, you do your best to alleviate this worry. But in the end your response can only ever be as effective as your Government-given mandate will allow.

    Today I want to talk to you about the mandate a National Government will bring to the law and order table.

    Let me start by saying that improved security is central to my vision for a better New Zealand. I want Kiwis and their families to feel safer in their homes, their streets, and their neighbourhoods. I am 100% committed to reducing crime and 100% committed to law and order policies that further that goal.

    In recent months, my Justice and Corrections spokesman, Simon Power, has put extensive work into developing those policies. He has consulted widely with sector groups, with experts, and with everyday New Zealanders.

    With Simon’s guidance, National has put together a comprehensive and inter-locking set of policies that will improve New Zealand’s methods for dealing with the effects of crime, and at preventing crime from occurring in the first place.

    I will release these policies one by one over the coming months in the lead-up to the next election.

    I will announce new policies for youth justice; for enhancing the rights of victims; new sentencing policies for the worst offenders; new policies for rehabilitating offenders; and new policies for improving the management of our prisons and our courts.

    Today I will announce our first set of law and order policies, and those that have the most direct relevance to you, as enforcers and upholders of New Zealand law — our policing policies.

    In making these announcements I want to thank National’s Police Spokesman, Chester Borrows. Chester’s experience as a police officer of more than 20 years’ experience has been invaluable in helping us develop practical policies that will help you fight crime.

    I’m going to talk about those policies in three main categories: the police toolkit of resources and powers; the assistance we can give you to clamp down on gangs; and our police recruitment policies.

    Upgrading your toolkit

    National is committed to ensuring police have the tools they need to protect the public.

    No one would expect a mechanic to fix a 2007 model car with a set of tools from the seventies. Neither should we expect our modern police officers to fight 21st century crime with outdated equipment, laws and powers.

    The contents of the police toolkit need to be upgraded in line with changing crime patterns and growing public expectations. To that end, National has identified three aspects of your kit that are due for immediate upgrade.

    First, we think you need an improved means of protecting yourselves and the public from dangerous, violent offenders.

    Increasingly, police are confronted with out-of-control offenders, high on drugs and unaware of their surroundings, who are near impossible to stop.

    We think police need another non-lethal means for dealing with these offenders.

    Tasers are the obvious answer.

    The recent trial showed that in most cases where a Taser was drawn, the offender was ‘laser painted’. Though drawn 120 times, Tasers were discharged only 19 times throughout the trial

    Tasers have been shown to be an effective tool for deterring offenders who would have gone on to harm the public, and for allowing police officers to do their jobs safely. Those are goals that National enthusiastically signs up to.

    So today I’m pleased to announce that National will introduce Tasers, subject to a positive evaluation of the trial.

    We’re also keen to ensure your toolkit makes the most of modern crime-solving technology.

    DNA is one such technology. It is the 21st century fingerprint. It’s time to increase the range of situations in which we use it.

    National’s rationale for this is simple: if we catch and punish criminals earlier, we prevent them from creating more victims.

    DNA profiling is a highly effective tool for identifying and catching criminals. On the flipside, it is also an invaluable tool for exonerating the innocent.

    Currently, DNA samples can be taken only with a suspect’s consent, or where people are suspected of an offence punishable by more than seven years imprisonment.

    That requirement precludes DNA samples being taken from those suspected of a wide ranges of significant offences, such as assault with a weapon. And it requires police officers to go through the complex process of applying to the High Court for leave to take a DNA sample where consent is not obtained.

    National thinks DNA samples should be taken in a wider range of circumstances.

    So, we will require DNA samples to be taken from all those arrested for offences punishable by a term of imprisonment.

    As is the case with fingerprints and photos, we would require DNA records to be destroyed where charges are dropped or where suspects are found not guilty.

    Thirdly, we want to ensure that police are able to urgently intervene to protect vulnerable Kiwis from becoming crime victims.

    Police are frequently called to domestic situations where it is blindingly clear that a mother or her children are under serious threat from an abusive and violent partner.

    In these situations, police are often unable to act on their instinct to urgently protect these victims. Instead, victims, often battered women, are expected to apply to the courts for a protection order.

    The number of applications for protection orders has declined by 26% over the past six years despite no evidence that family violence is decreasing.

    Not surprisingly, many victims simply don’t apply to the court for a protection order, either because of the associated delays and costs or a fear of the repercussions. The result is further victimisation.

    National thinks victims and police need access to more immediate means for dismantling these domestic time bombs. Victims’ safety should not be put at risk by administrative delays.

    National wants police to take family violence seriously so we’re going to give you serious tools for stopping it.

    National will empower police with the ability to issue time-bound on-the-spot protection orders.

    These will provide police with an immediate response to dangerous domestic situations, and will ensure potential victims are protected until courts are able to fully deal with the matter.

    Taken together, National thinks these three policies: introducing Tasers, increased use of DNA sampling, and allowing police to issue on-the-spot protection orders, will greatly improve the police toolkit.

    We are also keen to address police concerns with recent changes to the bail system.

    Earlier this year, Labour changed the Bail Act to make it easier for accused people to get bail and harder for police to keep them behind bars.

    The Crown now has to prove that a defendant is at “real and substantial risk” of reoffending or absconding, even if they’ve repeatedly broken their bail conditions in the past. This lowering of the bar has needlessly increased the threat to public safety and has made your job more difficult. There is no sound rationale for it.

    National proposes reinstating the position for determining bail as it was prior to the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act.

    Clamping down on Gangs

    I now want to turn my attention to what National views as a pivotal battle in the fight against crime — the battle against gangs.

    National will make criminal gangs a key target in our fight against crime. It’s a battle where we think the police deserve better legislative backing than they’re getting.

    Don’t look to us for hand-wringing about the importance of the so-called social bonds on offer through criminal gangs. National will pass laws that remove the legitimacy, power, and status of gangs.

    My Justice and Corrections Spokesman Simon Power has previously outlined four things we will add to your arsenal.

    Let me go over these today.

    One, we will amend the Crimes Act to ensure it reflects our policy that membership of a criminal gang is a criminal offence in and of itself. We will strengthen the provisions of the law that make it illegal to be a member of a criminal organisation.

    Two, we will amend the Crimes Act to make it easier for police to conduct surveillance on and listen in on gang communications.

    Three, we will amend the Local Government Act to give police increased power to remove and storm gang fortifications.

    And four, we will make sure criminals with gang memberships are subject to harsher sentences than their non-gang member counterparts. We will amend the Sentencing Act to make gang membership an aggravating factor in sentencing.

    Those four steps are just the beginning of the battle National will wage against gangs.

    We’re also keen to investigate other means for undermining gang power, where changes can be made consistent with other laws.

    I think Government legal-eagles should be asked to provide answers to the two questions Kiwis often ask me: Why shouldn’t we ban gang patches? And why, under any circumstances, do we allow paroled criminals to hang out with gang members? Why aren’t all paroled criminals banned from associating with gangs?

    National is investigating these issues and will search for practical ways through the legal hoops.

    I’m aware the answers to these questions will involve a balancing of concerns, but today let me be clear. Individual rights must at some point give way to our collective right as a society to have peace and safety in our communities.

    My Government will search out all legal and practicable means available for making it much, much tougher to be a member of a criminal gang in this country.

    Police numbers and priorities

    Finally, let me assure you that National’s backing of the police will be reflected in our police recruitment policies.

    As a general principal, we believe that more police in proportion to the population reduces crime. So we want more police on the beat!

    We will conclude and see through the current campaign, begun in 2006, to recruit an additional 1,000 sworn police and an additional 250 non-sworn police by mid 2009.

    We believe that the bulk of the additional sworn officers should be deployed to pro-active policing to make our streets safer and prevent crime.

    I was concerned that of the 353 new officers deployed in the past financial year, 38 were assigned to road policing, 25 were assigned to recruitment duties, a further nine were made analysts, and three were deployed overseas. I am also committed to ensuring this campaign does not lead to a decline in recruitment standards.

    Further, National is determined to retain experienced officers in the job. In recent years experienced officers have been over-represented among those leaving the job. Greater efforts need to be made to retain these officers.

    In the long-term we would like to see any increases in the number of police being based on population ratios rather than just raw numbers. Police numbers must be increased as the population increases.

    As it is, there is one sworn police officer in New Zealand for every 530 people, a ratio that has remained relatively stable since the early 1990s. Australia has a ratio of 1 officer to every 445 citizens.

    The 1,000 extra police will bring New Zealand’s ratio down to 1 officer for every 504 people. This is still a long way off the Labour and New Zealand First agreed objective of achieving Australian-level ratios by 2010.

    National will continue to increase police numbers in real terms over time to try to progressively improve the ratio of police to population beyond 1:500 from 2009. The only way for police numbers to go is up.

    Backing the Police

    Our main message on policing is simple. You are New Zealand’s best resource for preventing and fighting crime and you will always have National’s backing.

    Your ability to do your job relies on the goodwill and trust of individual New Zealanders. And, overwhelmingly, Kiwis are prepared to give you the backing you deserve.

    I do not intend to go into the specifics of security matters and issues before the courts, but I do think it would be remiss not to talk about the public reaction to the police raids conducted throughout the country earlier this month.

    The huge publicity they generated has, I think, reminded New Zealanders just how much faith we put in the police to exercise their discretion carefully and enforce our laws with integrity.

    I’m sure the reverberations from this publicity are affecting you in your daily work. You should take some heart from the knowledge that most Kiwis are fair-minded and will withhold final judgment on these matters until all the facts are on the table.

    I have confidence that the overwhelming majority of police officers apply their discretion with integrity and sound judgment. Year after year, you are ranked highly in the most trusted professions lists. And, if you don’t think that means much, try being a politician!

    National wants to promote confidence in the police. As such, we, like you, want to see progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Bazley Report.

    We will also continue to take a strong interest in the progress of the Police Act review to ensure you have the legislative powers, controls, and obligations needed to match public expectations into the future.

    We’re committed to working alongside you to ensure that the confidence we have in you is shared by other New Zealanders.


    Before I finish I want to sound a warning against giving in to crime.

    We can and we must do better at reducing crime levels and keeping Kiwis safer. There are so many good ideas waiting to be put into action.

    Today I am making this commitment to you: If I am given the privilege of leading this country I will never bow down to the scourge of crime. I will not allow a mood of resignation and denial to creep into our state agencies, into the minds of officials, into the heart of government. Because, when our leaders give in to crime, our society pays the price.

    The National Party is convinced we can do better at putting in place the laws and policies needed to front-up to criminality in our society. We can provide New Zealanders with the security they have a right to expect.

    National’s intended investment in the New Zealand Police is a crucial part of our strategy for winning the fight on crime.

    We will give you the powers, we will give you the mandate and we will give you the toolkit. We will back you in the fight against crime.


    Comment by Wayne Fergusson — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 11:35 am

  30. Very scary speech.
    Well done Wayne on posting it.Nice to know what we are dealing with.
    It is a well known and documented fact that there is more domestic violence perpetrated by women than men.Maybe 5 times as much.Who knows?
    It is not reported and when it is the Police turn a blind eye.
    In my own experience 10 times as much when you consider my abusive and violent mother and former partners and the injuries I still carry.
    Then you get the probable future “leader” of our country speaking like this problem does not exist and it is a 100% men on women and children thing.You wonder just what level of educating is necessary and how long it will take.

    Comment by whanga — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 12:00 pm

  31. Ditto – Very scary -BUT- John Key is aware that Women are as violent if not more than Men, though more subtle – It is not to his political advantage to say or act so – Deceipt in high places will continue if not multiply – Helen and Co have set the scene even stronger in NZLaw and NZSocial Policy for those in power to force the populace and spin Doctor us to obey their take on whats best.

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 1:08 pm

  32. The FatherLess John Key is unlikely to turn things around to return Fathers into Families and Men-Tors into society to cure much of NZSociety ills – The longer we leave it the longer it will take to be effective – If the turn around stated today I would guess 2/3 generations to a better society

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 1:13 pm

  33. National have NEVER EVER been friendly to Fathers. Listen to Judith Collins (now on their front bench) and others like Anne Tolley, Katherine Rich, Pansy Wong, Linda Smith, Jackie Blue. Their words are very clear. Men will not make any gains under National.
    A change might be good but don’t expect any changes in fathering or Child Support. Judith Collins and Katrina Shanks (List MP) were the most dismissive members of the Social Services Select Committee when guys presented papers to that committe lat last year. Lets not believe that leaping from the frying pan into the fire is any advantage for Fathers and their children.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 6th July 2008 @ 7:31 pm

  34. It is good to see the comparisons of major parties policies. Voters do seem to too easily forget recent history. They must be reminded, it seems.

    It is good to see careful questioning of the degree of personal responsibility of the “judges”.

    It is only by understanding these issues, that we can target our actions, for best effect.

    Much of the discussion above, is passive and a bit depressed.

    As citizens, surely the important question is what can we achieve, by making the best use of our influence and resources, rather than what is going to happen if we do nothing?

    There are some harsh things happening, but surely if we work our strengths together, we can see room for some optimism?

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 2:41 pm

  35. What about fathers still suffering from invalid
    protection orders after seven years. Scum judges.

    Comment by dad4justice — Mon 7th July 2008 @ 11:14 pm

  36. Gentlemen – I am glad to see some reality appearing in this discussion – Changing the Govt will not change our woes – However I do see an aluement of arrogance floating around as I get to grips once again of what is going on in NZ’s Men and their Families – Face it things are worse – Apathy is deepened – Proving knowbody has THE answer

    Is it not time to grow above our particular take and to listen LOUDLY to each other?

    Is it not time to put our hands in our pockets and meet collectively and humbly 2/3 times a year somewhere central – Say lower North Island with consessions to those in CHCH and further south

    Preparing the Ration Shed and my relationship with my Son for even worse times – Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Tue 8th July 2008 @ 9:50 am

  37. In industrial countries, governments take 40-50-60% of the GDP OF THE WHOLE COUNTRY. WIth this they can do what they like, they can recruit the biggest GANG of the whole land, the cops, to do their dirty work. They can recruit many spies to read these sites (YOU ARE ALL ASSHOLES you SPIES) . This can all be done in a “legal” way, ie what the government wants. The current climate is pro-women and is blind to the plight of fathers. What we must do is to bring attention to the great injustice that is happening to us, and the problems that it is causing to the country.

    Comment by martin swash — Tue 8th July 2008 @ 10:54 am

  38. There is some good information about domestic violence on the UK website:

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 8th July 2008 @ 2:13 pm

  39. Meanwhile Peter Low organised the 10,000 strong auckland protest over violence against asians

    Comment by Wayne Fergusson — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 12:47 am

  40. Meanwhile NZMen and their families grow more scarce

    WHY oh WHY can’t we call 10,000 per suburb to march

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 1:01 am

  41. Think : Campaign for men only immigration into NZ !

    The total population of NZ is only about the same as a medium size Chinese or Indian city anyway. In 20 years when Chinese have taken over the country (organised by Chinese government), maybe Kiwi men will get family equality ? Trouble is there will be no democracy either

    Comment by Martin Swash — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 3:45 am

  42. Just imagine a men’s right March? Oh that’s right that
    won’t happen as the men’s movement is infiltrated by
    Labour scumbag feminist sympathizers.
    They can’t have their funding stopped.
    Spies everywhere and nothing achieved.

    PC cronies providing the enemy with info.
    Twisted two faced filth.

    Token activists who are on the Liarbour payroll !!!!

    They know WHO I am talking about ,bastards!!!!!!

    Comment by dad4justice — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 7:48 am

  43. # 42. Just imagine a men’s right March?

    I thought there was a mens rights march (or was it a convoy now..) a couple of weeks ago, you must be a man if you drive a truck ??? Right…. But Annette “my fair lady” king said the lads were “not being fair” about the Road User Charges, so from this; we deduct that it is not the the onus of government to be fair, but the voters must be fair to the government, how strange. What is one to do, it’s as bad as Tony Veitch fending off intruders in the middle of the night, all in self defence i here now, a case of mistaken identity now too. That is the latest lawyer story going round..Who do you believe..

    Comment by bull en a china shop — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 3:15 pm


    Comment by bull en a china shop — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 3:43 pm

  45. Bull,

    So true — I have taken the liberty of rewriting the some-up last paragraph

    Original WSWS spin; “The fundamental orientation of all of these layers is to prevent the working class from drawing the lessons of its bitter experiences and making a decisive political break from Labour and the trade unions. The WSWS insists, on the contrary, that the only way for workers to defend their jobs, living standards and basic democratic rights is to participate in the construction of new political movement of the working class, based on genuine socialist and internationalist foundations.”

    JimBWarrior Spin; “The fundamental orientation of all NZPolitical spin doctoring, its Bureaucracy, NGO’s, Courts, and other blindly obedient beneficiaries including local councils is to prevent Family Orientated Folk drawing the lessons of their bitter experience and making a decisive political break from Labour and National.
    JimBWarrior suggests, on the contrary, that the only way for FAMILIES to defend themselves and democracy is to participate in the construction of a new political movement of Family Orientated Folk, based on Preferential Equal Shared Parenting from conception, better still HandsOnEqualParenting from the first kiss, Real democracy etc.

    Dare I suggest that The Republicans have made a good start and would get my vote should basic Biblical guidelines be foundational.

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 5:18 pm

  46. Bull – The Tony V story highlighted to me how bad society
    views men who bash ladies, so I decided to file another
    affidavit so I can clear my name. I am no Saint, but I
    do not deserve to have 5 people court protected when I
    have full custody of my 15 -year old daughter. I want
    my chance in court to put my side of the story about
    seven years of hell living under protection orders that
    were built on false allegations.
    Show me a court that is not gender bias and I’ll eat my
    hat !!!

    Honesty and integrity is sadly lacking in the Family Court
    and various other government departments.
    Surely you agree with me on that point?

    Comment by dad4justice — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 6:36 pm

  47. Who gains by spin doctoring ALL Men bad

    Who gains by spin doctoring ALL Men Bad?

    Having spent a year or so away from watching NZLaw and NZSocial destroy our Families, I come back a little refreshed.

    However my increased clarity is alarmed to find;

    1- APATHY has risen among those who have had their Children stolen

    2- Violence has increased, a police person killed this morning

    3- The MPs who are responsible for creating the Policies and Laws that have destroyed our Families blame us

    What’s the answer?

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Fri 11th July 2008 @ 10:51 pm

  48. The answer is to bring our injustice to the attention of the public by having a campaign like Fathers4Justice in England !
    Being more caring dads, putting pressure on judges, CS workers are all great things, BUT WILL NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING. We need publicity !

    Comment by Martin Swash — Sat 12th July 2008 @ 1:13 am

  49. Martin,

    You are onto-it – How do you propose to do this? – What do we do that we have not already done? – What do we do that we are not already doing? – Matt (CEOF4J) has invited many of us to join over the years – Who has? – I didn’t simply because I believed it to hard to get Kiwi’s to follow Matt’s lead and pay for the privilege – Though I believe joining in with F4JUK would be a way fwd – Explore the archives on this site you will find we have tried many things over many years – I don’t mean to belittle your enthusiasm – I am simply admitting that I have run out of ideas – Things have gotten worse so that shows me that none have the answers yet, so into-it my passionate friend. – Go to the F4J website and ask to join etc.

    Ration Shed – Jim

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Sat 12th July 2008 @ 1:42 am

  50. i cant wait till some idiot from the nzpolice or government services etc,

    Comment by hayden — Fri 19th November 2010 @ 2:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar