Focusing on the things that Matter, Ctd

NZ Herald

During last year’s election Labour said that they would focus on the the things that matter to Kiwis. They promptly did exactly the opposite and as a result they saw their support tank to record lows. It has barely recovered.

Since then they have changed their leader for someone who has barely shown up…certainly not in the opinion polls.

Now their Justice spokesman has hit on an absolute winner of a policy that will excite the populace into returning to Labour . Judith Collins must be laughing at the sheer idiocy of Labour’s new legal illuminati.

Labour is going into the next election with a justice reform platform aimed at boosting confidence that innocent people are not being sent to prison.

The party is developing a policy which would see new rules affecting everyone from the police officer to the Governor-General.

It comes as a new book into the murders of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe – The Case of the Missing Bloodstain – also calls for justice reforms.

Farmer Arthur Allan Thomas was twice convicted and then pardoned of murdering the couple in a case which featured claims of police planting evidence.

Author Keith Hunter said the Crewe murder case destroyed the public’s trust in the justice system. He said subsequent cases around which there were questions, including the murder convictions of David Tamihere and Mark Lundy, had further eroded the public trust.

Labour justice spokesman Charles Chauvel said the party wanted to increase trust in the system through greater transparency and oversight.

He said the final recourse for those who believed they were wrongly convicted was to apply to the governor-general for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, which allows for new trials or for convictions to be overturned.

He said the process, which was operated through the Minister of Justice’s office, needed to be removed from any connection with political office. “It’s not a transparent process. There is a need for something more than we have now.”

I’m not sure using the case Mark Lundy to support your contention is a particularly wise move.

If they wanted more transparent in the justice system then they should push for a policy that would remove name suppression…but instead they are going for a cerebral solution to a problem that doesn’t actually exist.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to daily code cracker?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

41%