Public trust in NZ’s judical system
Colmar Brunton have done a survey of 1000 NZers, Who Do We Trust.
27% of respondents said their level of trust in judges and the courts had fallen cf 10% who said their levels had risen.
35% had complete or lots of trust in judges and the courts. 17% had little (14%) or no trust (3%). The majority had some trust 48%.
Younger people (45% of 18-29 year olds) had more trust 45% whereas those aged over 30 were more distrusting with only 31% having complete or a lot of trust. in the court process. Is that the voice of experience?
However the most startling result is based on household income. Those with $100,000 or more coming in were more assured 49% having complete or a lot of trust cf just 27% for those of us with incomes of $70,000 or less. I was somewhat surprised that the results for those on incomes of $30,000 or less was no different than those of us with average household incomes.
Does this reflect that those reliant on legal aid have found judges and the courts fail them? It seems to show higher satisfaction for those with an ability to pay for legal workers to successfully lead them through the maize of bureaucracy. Is this a concern? Maybe “blind justice” is peeking behind her blindfold?
Surveys like this where every participant has had personal experience of Courts and Judiciary within the last 12 months would give more accurate stats.
But also whether it was a criminal case or a civil court or tribunal hearing.
That may be true but any system where 16% of a random 1000 respondents have falling confidence says a lot in my view. Certainly doesn’t seem to suggest changes by Judith Collins have done anything to improve public confidence.
Some areas there is a marked gain in confidence (Medical, Police and education) other areas of bureaucracy and government are falling in confidence.
Who do we Trust
It might be interesting to know
The type of court, for example Family and more specifically children and their care.
How satisfaction is determined?- for example optimum positive outcomes for the children must be the unit of measure in my view. In all cases we must accept that this must consider options proposed by the other side, as the court must do and potential reactions from the other side are consideration which is also in the mix.
When children are left with a decent or ok father having given up, gone, tried, tired, frustrated by access not being provided in accordance with directions with no apparent recourse to the mother other than the prospect of more process for him can we really say “great process”? This is of course after having endured the process of getting to directions.
Perhaps we can say great process if this is the optimum outcome.
Statistics show that the mother’s new partner is often the child abuser, with no dad – natural protector this new partner is able to abuse away.
This consideration seems to be the Elephant in the room re child abuse discussion. Some fathers must be kept away agreed, as should some mothers.
Embrace good fathers, support them, help them, pat them on the back, assist them, let them know they are valued and mean it. Does this system do that?
Has this system done that?
Directions might say it but what are the actions beyond that?
Teach us as well, decent fathers actually want to be good parents, irrespective of their relationship with the child’s mother. We don’t have to like each other and if the matter goes to court, probably won’t. It’s better if parents communicate well but if the matter has not been resolved by hearing time – clearly communication is not good, that must be a given.
I believe we can do a whole lot better in terms of outcomes for the children which may be more about actually making the systemic shift which is to say “ok and good fathers are essential and not just in a contact and a break for mummy role and they are to be embraced, supported and encouraged”
Articles and pretty much anything these days showing ‘statistics’ with a headline similar to the above are fraught from the get go.
Because not everyone knows how to ‘read’ the statistics basically the media / journos pull off the parts needed to either prop up or tie down the topic their presenting. As some of the previous brothers have posted, there is so much missing specifically from the article. Not to say that there is some ‘truth’ in the content it’s how it has been packaged and presented and to what ends or means.
I seriously doubt the sample used would have targeted specific groups I.e fathers that had been through the system via the family courts. I am not saying that there aren’t any in the sample, what I am objecting to is the under representation of the demographic in which we all sit. As it is fathers on both sides of the fence get a rough deal for past indiscretions both actual and perceived. Even so called good fathers get persecuted and past judgement over by a system setup to stifle our involvement.
A judicial review of the the system is what is needed, it needs to be done using a fair and objectively lens that it is viewed through. As with most things presented in the mainstream media, they are answerable to this process just as much as the system itself. it does not help the cause when the media pounce on child abuse stories, to the detriment basically of fathers going through a ‘process’ at the time. Court staff have a duty of care to all whom are in proceedings or working through a process, but even they too are conflicted.
The support services out there for men is almost non existent, there is nothing practical let alone easily accessible. It’s only until it is a requirement via the courts will men toe the line for example attendance at an ‘anger management’ type program. We have to be more proactive but this is not easy, especially with (ex) wives, partners this can prove a minefield even for the most experienced. Once we are emotionally, financially vested it is to late with communication to said partner been the first thing to go. To a degree the mothers know this and we as men (re)act accordingly almost walking blind into it. This said, there are no support services that come close to supporting father post relationship breakdown. It’s called work, local watering hole or a mates/family members couch. This is a humbling experience to say the least and not always helpful to ones emotional state. How come there is no organisation that can access emergency funding for fathers in need to be able to restore them somewhat to a point where they have some form of independence? Given when relationships breakdown the male is the most likely one to vacate with little or no financial backstop. Thus severely limiting him and his ability to still provide for his children and or himself.
Neira te mihi
I am extremely impressed with this thread, especially the comments above.
As said so well above, given that the research aimed to cover many different Government organisations, with different internal departments too, dealing with so many different types of issue, a much larger sample size is needed to handle this task competently. Maybe ok for exploratory work, to gain more funding to redo the task properly.
In my opinion, in NZ corruption (including in the most subtle ways) is approaching the same level of damage done by incompetence. Usually incompetence doesn’t do as much harm per incidence, as corruption.
I didn’t used to take corruption very seriously. But now that I have seen it in action and seen the longer term consequences on many people, my tolerance has far dropped. Consequences include driven suicides…… note the plural.
NZ is sliding backwards and strenuous actions will be required, not just trivial public relations jobs, like Chester Burrows and Judith Collins have executed.
Comparing to other countries, with working complaints systems covering judges, we should be dismissing a judge every few years. We haven’t really dismissed a judge in our entire history!
Time to get real and protect vulnerable people more than the advantaged and privileged.
#6 Murray. The problem is that New Zealand can’t bear to use the term “corruption”. Preferred terms are “misconduct”, “lack of judgement” or “misappropriation of funds”. ANYTHING but using the correct term in case it tarnishes the bollocks that we are one of the least corrupt countries in the World. We’re not, we just hide it better, call it something else, fail to investigate or prosecute it.
Yes Golfa, that’s how I see it too.
Follow-up on this story from NZ Lawyer magazine. Seems they doubt themselves.
Public opinion is like a large ship. Slow to respond and even if honest and effective remedial action were to be taken, it would be a long term before the public ever regained confidence in judges. But, I certainly don’t see any hint of honest and effective remedial actions?
It will take an incident so obvious and so unable to be ignored, before proper action will be taken. The judges are just too comfortable, have too high opinions of themselves, so why change anything? Politicians, many of whom are legal workers, are complicit in protecting the gravy train. Many reforms promised, none have any positive impact at all. No concept of serving the public at all.
Knowing what goes on and how well it works?
Special report: Blind investment in early education
10:00 AM Tuesday May 3, 2016
The Government is pouring $1.5 billion per year into early childhood education without pausing to measure whether the increase is helping improve children’s development.
Primary school principals say despite a huge surge in pre-school participation, they are not seeing better early literacy and numeracy skills among 5-year-olds, with some worried it is getting worse.
The Government’s chief education scientific adviser, Professor Stuart McNaughton, said there needed to be ways to better understand the effects of early childhood education and how well it was meeting the needs of families and children.
“I think it’s unethical to not know how well we’re serving our kids,” Mr McNaughton said.
“We don’t know in any systematic sense just what the quality really is like on the ground, other than using indicators of ‘good practice’.
“We don’t know as much as we should know.” ………….
I realise that familycaught$ doesn’t have as much effect on children, as the education system and parents at home.
However, I suggest that we do know much more about how well Early Childhood Education is working. Maybe a “C” score, maybe not quite that. Tolerably ok, but for the money spent, surely much more could be achieved?
But as a society, we have much less idea about the reliability and quality of what goes on in familycaught$.
There is no good quality evaluation research about what goes on and what should go on in familycaught$.
This lack of good quality evaluation is every bit as unethical regarding familycaught$, as it is about Early Childhood Education.
NOT tolerably ok. For the money spent, surely much, much more could be achieved?
What we see now is an argument between lawyers and politicians as to who might investigate moral issues in the Law Society.
For those of us that have experienced their
Their Political Crimes
Then you know only too well it’s a juvenile organization that is yet to learn to wipe its own arse.
This is a short but significant article about a man betrayed by his lawyer.
Having seen this happen as a support person in court proceedings it doesn’t come as a surprise to see this.
It does come as a surprise that something actually got done about it.
I also have heard quite a few men tell similar stories. I met a lady who had done time in jail for manslaughter of her child. She didn’t complain about the same scenario happening to her, but I suspect that she should have made the same complaint. Just my own observations, so there must be many hundreds of similar cases each year…..
a society betrayed by its legal workers…..
I guess that is what legal ethics is all about?
In the end, if the public behave like sheep, they are easy pickings and will be regularly fleeced.
In my opinion the Law Society DO know what is going on in the “profession” and are quite happy as long as easy money keeps rolling in and nothing threatens their future comforts.
There are enough legal worker-MPs to protect legal workers interests from being challenged by Parliament. Maybe we need to enforce conflict of interest rules covering MPs and we might get some action against advantage taking legal workers?
We hear a lot about trust in New Zealand but we know comparatively little about it.
The Institute for Governance and Policy Studies (IGPS) has commissioned this survey to generate
a snapshot of the current state of play and, more importantly, to kickstart a much needed
Our findings suggest that there are serious concerns with levels of public trust in the country. Not only is trust in our government, politicians and media low but it has declined over the last three years.
Specific areas such as political party funding are clearly viewed with great scepticism if not outright suspicion.
Our respondents indicate that levels of trust in people generally (i.e. our friends and neighbours) is high, and that we trust key institutions such as the medical profession and the police. But none of our findings are absolutely definitive.
Therefore we need to have a free and frank discussion about the causes and effects of our lack
of trust in politics and media. Our survey is a start but we need to keep asking why people feel the way they do and what we need to change in the future.
We are very grateful for the work that Colmar Brunton has done. IGPS feels that this is an
important piece of research. We hope that you do.
NZ Trust Survey
Trust, Murray is as essential to society as breath is to the human.
It’s the essence of conflict in the works of Shakespeare which in essence are not his but translations from old Italian stories.
Trust has been undermined and diminished and men have been left to accept that any misplaced trust is their own fault and not the failing of authority or another party.
Some defence lawyers sometimes do a poor job as indeed happens in all professions and trades. They often seem to take on more cases than they have time to do justice to. Many lawyers work hard to do the best for their clients. Yes, they are very expensive; that’s the marketplace. A case could and should be made for some system to limit lawyers’ charges to something more in line with most people’s earnings, but how to do this?
However, lawyers are working in a system showing considerable corruption, with police prosecutors cherry-picking evidence that supports the prosecution and leaving out stuff that contradicts it and judges colluding with this dishonesty. One would have thought this stuff would have stopped after the ridiculous Christchurch Creche case but we hear accounts of similar nonsense going on recently. This seems especially so in sexual offence prosecutions, with evidential video interviews being allowed as evidence even though interviewers used suggestion and manipulation to get ‘complainants’ to say what the interviewer wanted, and even with bits of the interview cut out to hide the most egregious examples of that and other things the interviewee said that call the story into question. Defence lawyers are shut down in cross examination that might be uncomfortable for the accuser often only because it will be likely to show up lies or evidence inconsistent with the prosecution. Unfortunately, many accused men are correctly advised to plead guilty to things they haven’t done because that will reduce their punishment if convicted, and given the Court process is against them false conviction is often likely. When it comes to the Family Court, sexist injustice, poor evidential standards and toleration of perjury, all largely discriminating against male litigants, are the norm and have been legalized by our parliament. Our legal system is definitely a key part of a femaleist war against men.
When you’re at court having a stand off with a Feminist lawyer who ends the conversation with
“Either he pleads guilty or I’m not representing him.”
Before walking out of the room.
That’s that kind of reality that’s missing from your narrative and either that’s because you’re an apologist or you don’t know what the frontline actually looks like.
I’d suggest it’s the latter and that’s what backs the naive arrogance that labels ordinary blokes angry shitheads.
The top side of that: The Law Society adopts a similar approach in that the Family Court is just a place for lawyers to cut their baby teeth, if not the District Court as well. Female lawyers in particular are not disciplined on the basis that any injustice to men is inconsequential.
The natural consequence is they soon learn they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
When you listen to the current cries of ‘bullying in the courtroom from judges’, there is a question as to whether young female lawyers have become totally intolerant in discipline.
Bevan Berg: Your frequent arrogant criticism of others’ contributions is tiresome. Allegations of ‘naive arrogance’ are simply destructive and unnecessary. Copious and recent experience at the frontline is exactly what informed reply # 18. There is no dispute that femaleist lawyers sometimes behave in appallingly sexist ways. Reply # 18 ends with “Our legal system is definitely a key part of a femaleist war against men”. The reply pointed out that the system and our laws are as much if not more to blame for injustice than is the behaviour of some bad lawyers, and that many lawyers work hard to do the best for their clients.
Could you please try to be a bit supportive and respectful on this site, rather than know-it-all-better and destructive?
Totally agree with Post#18 “…lawyers are working in a system showing considerable corruption, with police prosecutors cherry-picking evidence that supports the prosecution and leaving out stuff that contradicts it and judges colluding with this dishonesty” and it is to be hoped that Andrew Little will take steps to rectify this systemic corruption fostered by successive ministers in the equally corrupt Key administration. Unfortunately the adverserial system creates these problems in “sex” cases and adopting the inquisatorial system would go some way towards correcting this problem.
#21 @moma there are a number of ‘tiresome commenters’ to use your words, who simply give up and disappear after getting the same tired line from you because they have disagreed with you.
I’ve also seen this brought to your attention a number of times by other participants.
Not everyone can be bothered with a long winded answer to something that is contradictory and doesn’t make much sense.
Lawyers should have a functioning professional society, that deals with this – but that doesn’t happen.
The greater conflict may also be the distance between what is being taught in university and the social reality.
They often seem … That’s a very uninformative opinion but your entitled to it. They might equally be ill equipped to deal with a normal workload.
Hard work is expected. One would think that expense got expertise and experience. That is no justification for incompetence.
It is an existing function of the Law Society.
And this is pretty big however …
So, lawyers are the unfortunate innocent party here?
The substantial complaint? It might have been better made by itself. And this might also have come from one of a number of people who write for MOMA. Which may also be causing MOMA a problem, which is your problem, not everyone else’s.
I doubt anyone is disagreeing.
One supportive statement, from the MINISTRY OF MEN’S AFFAIRS is not justification for the exclusion of men who have been burnt by the system.
It is not surprising that this site fails to develop when the situation regularly occurs with many commenters.
Downunder @23. [Edited: Not in the spirit of the site.]
Can you provide some evidence for your claim that ‘other participants’ have brought something to our attention ‘a number of times’?
We have no problem with anyone debating, disagreeing with or adding to our comments but there is no need to resort to ad hominem criticisms. It’s just poor form, destructive. What on earth is your motivation for this?
I do recall that this ‘often seems’ to have been the case.
The lawyer may have been admonished for the consequences of their action but there is also a question of whether they were incompetent or bowed to outside pressure to behave in that fashion.
I doubt I’m the only one whose had lawyers (plural) crying down the telephone.
Kia ora Gents,
Thanks for the link to that article in post #14 Bevan. I suspect that things like this happen all too often but few judges get the opportunity to call such behaviour. We can see that despite this being a December matter I doubt the NZLS has yet to consider the matter.
What MoMA says in post #18 also rings true to me as well. However like you I am less tolerant of those who take on so much work they serve all their clients in a mediocre fashion whereas their clients deserve better.
MoMA I do find the plurality of people posting under your label makes it hard to follow.
However I agree attacking each other here is not useful and it is for that reason I often stay away.
I recall Stephen Franks during his time in Parliament saying that 12,000 lawyers was an excess.
The Law Society has commissioned Colmar Brinton to survey workplace well being in the more than 13,000
that we now have, according to this article
Evan @ 28: We believe the number of lawyers should increase greatly to increase competition between them and thereby to lower their fees. Alongside law changes to reduce the need for their services.
We acknowledge the efforts of people like Allan Harvey and the Jim Bagnall (R.I.P.) who have supported many in self-representing in a Family Court that was claimed to be designed for self-representation.
Men and their dissertations
Women and their achievements.
More lawyers will not bring the rates down.
It will increase lawsuits. We’ve seen it in America.
I think we’ve seen this effect in New Zealand not as lawsuits but charging higher prices for smaller amounts of work.
You see this play out (Family Court aside) as a reluctance to use civil processes which you may remember was regularly complained about by established lawyers as the numbers of female graduates infested the food chain.
@29 The base line for fees is established by legal aid.
The 1000 – 1500 increase in lawyers would likely advantage women through cosy relationships and exchange of services.
That no doubt is a recognized advantage to women and has accommodated the significant increase.
The ongoing affect wouldn’t be a real decrease in incomes.
The perceived decrease in legal incomes would have the lower end of the sector paying less tax but living a higher lifestyle.
Likely find the left wing establishing a form of income protection around lawyers in the same way they have psychology.
There will be a lot of other law degrees that have attracted a healthy income in government sector rather than as private practitioners.
Evan Myers # 33: What income protection around psychology are you referring to?
As we speak nurses are protesting for a 2% pay rise. Feminism doesn’t place any significant value on that industry sector as it’s always been a woman’s profession and it doesn’t lead to any great advance for women.
There is a general theory that over reprentation of females in a professional division will lead to low wages, and that may be supported by the case of teaching.
However if you look at the two professional studies that were solely male, that would be considered the power and control levers of society, law and psychology, Feminists fight to ensure incomes don’t fall to encourage female participants to outnumber men.
Psychology is around 80% female, law heading that way, and I don’t recall hearing any grumbles from the 80% female PSA of recent.
The same thinking might also be applied to media, where we see a collective of well known Feminists spinning the web, with political figures, while generally the industry is suffering from an excess of graduates and a declining income, so you see the junior ranks suffering from the excess of graduates, but the Feminist celebrity ranks being protected.
This is where Claire Curran cut herself off at the knees, taking this for granted and was cause for the resignation of Hirschfeld, when her silly games came to light.
It’s so damn obvious that even policians have been left speechless. Mind you, you’d have a ‘D’ on your forehead if wanted to get between the media and Curran, and Jacindarella is sucking the Kumara big time over this one.
So what or who is protecting the income of psychologists?
Basically it’s government protocol a lot of which is run through the PSA.
What you don’t see is
– the value that can be awarded to qualifications.
– the non existence of payrises that is covered by an allowance for ‘new qualifications’ …
– also the hatchet feminists restructuring in Government bodies while it ‘saves the taxpayer money’ also supports the motivation of Feminist ideals.
MOMA might want to refer back to this video in one of their earlier posts.
In the introduction of this Corrections’ employment promo you see an English Immigrant speaking:
“I wanted to move to New Zealand so basically I applied for the job and moved over.”
That’s a significant statement that most likely fell on deaf ears because the post was about gender in interpersonal relationships in prisons.
Most psychologists are not in the PSA
Psychologists are protected as thier income is protected by force and extortion.
Put yourself in the position of a person told to be tested by the family court. Eg Sid Hanzlik
You may be threatened with imprisonment if you don’t. (Subject yourself to testing)
You may not be released from remand if you don’t.
You will not be allowed to see your children if you don’t.
Or if your a prisoner facing parole.
You can be refused parole if you don’t.
You can be refused parole even if you agree but they fail to arrange the test.
I think that is DJ, protection of authority rather than income and just as relevant.
Mentioned as the levers of power and control the bigger picture is how these two operate together.
That most psychologicists are in dependant practitioners is irrelevant, the construction of two industry sectors is very similar if not identical.
#42 assuming that is independent rather than in dependancy it begs the question as to whether ongoing Feminism is a codependency between the guardians of law and ideology.
No, I don’t think any question is begged, but a question may have been raised.