Weak, patchy and outdated” legislation leaves Kiwi whistleblowers unprotected and uncertain of processes, a leading professor says.

Professor A J Brown of Australia’s Griffith University  led research which found the New Zealand public sector’s systems for handling whistleblowers compared poorly to those in Australia.

When compared to the six Australian states, the New Zealand laws ranked above only Tasmania.

The Ombudsman is one of the authorities a whistleblower can approach with concerns.

Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier said the Protected Disclosure Act needed “a shot of adrenaline” and had never received the necessary support.

“I will want to start next year with an application for funding for a full time position in my office, to be available to answer enquiries on the Protected Disclosure Act,” he said.

Boshier said whistleblowing was not delivering the results he would like, which was demonstrated in the “enormous” amount of fraud coming from employees, particularly in the public sector.

“When you look at our history and the sheer amount of money we are losing, from people doing things unnoticed, surely we have problem,” he said.

“You have to ask how it wasn’t detected by someone else who might have blown the whistle. Were they scared? Did they not know? Where there no systems in place?”

The recent case of Ministry of Transport staffer Joanne Harrison revealed she stole more than $725,000 to pay off credit cards and her mortgage.

According to Brown’s newly-released report, titled Strength of Organisational Whistleblowing Processes, 30 per cent of New Zealand’s public agencies had no system in place for recording and tracking concerns, and 23 per cent had no support strategy for staff.

Only 36 per cent of agencies provided staff with a management-designated support person, and only one in five had processes for compensation or restitution if a whistleblower suffered negative outcomes.

Boshier said the Act did not require government agencies to have any set support or structure in place to deal with whistleblowers, but he would not be pushing for an overhaul of the Act itself.

“Our job, alongside the State Services Commission, is to provide structures and guidance, and give this the profile it should have,” he said.

New Zealand shares first-equal standing with Denmark in the Transparency International Index.

Boshier said Kiwis had benefited from their non-corrupt image, both in reputation and attractiveness to business.

“To maintain this position, we must have best practice whistleblowing processes. People have to know they are safe and will not suffer detriment if they speak up about wrongdoing in the workplace, and that their concerns will be heard and acted upon if needed.”

Brown said Kiwis were “lucky” to be rated so highly on transparency, but without overhaul of the Protected Disclosure Act they were gambling on goodwill to keep corruption at bay.

Brown said over the last decade, Australia had seen overhauls of protected disclosure legislation in most states, however New Zealand had seen no substantial amendments since 2000.

Amendments to the Act should focus on increasing procedural requirements for dealing with disclosures, protection of whistleblowers, support and compensation measures, Brown said.

The next stage of the research will involve looking at individual instances of protect disclosure, and will examine in greater depth how New Zealand organisations manage the reporting of wrongdoing.

Story by Ged Cann. Stuff News 4 July 2017

See Full Story:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/94380278/kiwi-whistleblowers-left-vulnerable-by-weak-patchy-and-out-of-date-legislation

Note: SPCS Inc. is a bronze level in a member of Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ).

The Society’s 2017 (Members Only) AGM will be held on Friday night from 7.30 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. Central Baptist Church, 46 Boulcott Street, Wellington (Lower Hall). Following the AGM a presentation will be given by guest speaker (TBA) on the subject of Voluntary Euthanasia – Assisted Suicide dealt with in the proposed the End-of-Life Choice Bill, sponsored by ACT MP David Seymour.

AGM 2017 Date: Friday 30th June

Venue: Central Baptist Church, 46 Boulcott St, Wellington #

Members’ Only AGM: 7.30 p.m – 8.00 p.m.
Followed by Free Public Address (All welcome)

8 pm to 8.45 p.m. approx.

Lecture topic:

“Euthanasia – Assisted Suicide: Changing Demographics and Changing Metaphors”

Speaker: Dr John Kleinsman

Director of The Nathaniel Centre, Wellington

Followed by questions & discussion

Concluding with supper: 9 p.m. – 9.30 p.m. approx.

For Background reading on AGM Lecture topic see:

http://www.lifechoice.org.nz/

and

End of Life Choice Bill

I know first-hand how painful it is to watch a loved one deteriorate and die.

However, I feel frustrated by the emphasis the current assisted suicide debate puts on the terminally ill.

Rhetoric about how the terminally ill need assisted dying is only a way to manipulate our emotions and soften up society for the real agenda: legal assisted suicide for everyone. The pro-euthanasia lobby wants suicide to be regarded as normal, acceptable and rational. Their only objection is that “suicide is violent” – not that it’s to be prevented and discouraged in principle. In fact, it should be facilitated for anyone who “wants to die”.

Recently euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke appealed his medical deregistration in response to his involvement in the suicide of a 45-year old depressed but healthy man. Nitschke’s lawyer said in his opening address the case was about “the dangerous idea [of] whether a person who is contemplating rational suicide ought to be required by a medical doctor not to do so”..

He implied that if a person had a good reason to want to die, a doctor should not intervene.

Since suffering is subjective and universal, any suicidal person would have a rationale for wanting to die. Terminal illness is only one of many possibilities.

The slogans with “choose to die”, “die on one’s own terms” and “right to control the timing and manner of one’s death” apply to suicide and by definition, rights apply to everyone.

Last June I asked Maryan Street at a public forum: “If this right applies to everyone, why are there conditions in your bill?”

She replied that suicide was legal, but assisted suicide was illegal, so to change the law there had to be conditions.

The End-of-Life Choice Bill proposes legal assisted suicide for anyone over 18 who has an irreversible physical or mental medical condition and understands that a request will result in death. This would include disability, chronic illness, mental illness, depression and ageing-related conditions. Effectively, any adult could be eligible.

The essence of the assisted dying debate is whether anyone who wants to die should be allowed to kill themselves.

Should assisted suicide be legal for anyone, irrespective of their health condition or age? If the answer is no, we should not legalise assisted dying at all, not even for the terminally ill.

Any law would be a stepping stone, a toe in the door, towards assisted suicide on demand.

Any law would inevitably be extended, in law or in practice, to other groups of people who are also suffering, as has happened overseas.

It would be inconsistent and discriminating not to.

Source:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/your-stance-on-euthanasia/10847260/Assisted-suicide-a-stepping-stone

New Zealand frequently sits at the top when it comes to international rankings in tourism and economics. A new Unicef report has ranked us number one in another global measure. This is not one to celebrate.

New Zealand has topped the global teen suicide rankings, again.

Our position in the world was cemented on Thursday by a Unicef report that called into question the wellbeing of Kiwi kids.

The Innocenti Report found New Zealand’s rate for teen suicides (15-19) was the highest of the 41 OECD and EU countries included. We also came in 38th out of 41 countries when it came to overall health and wellbeing of our young people.

Meanwhile, Portugal topped the list at the right end, with a teen suicide rate of 1.7 per 100,000. Italy and Spain were close behind.

The report put New Zealand’s teen suicide rate of 15.6 people per 100,000, based on data from 2010. The rate had dropped slightly from the previous comparable report that used 2005 data but more recent figures show we were now headed in the other direction.

Provisional suicide statistics released by the Coroner’s Office, show 51 (16.02 per 100,000) people in the age group died by suicide in the year to June 2016 and 52 (16.41 per 100,000) the previous year..

In an average week two young people would kill themselves, and about 20 young people would be hospitalised for self-harm, according to Youthline.

Unicef NZ chief executive Vivien Maidaborn says the rates don’t stand in isolation – a range of societal shortfalls are exacerbating the problem.

‘WE’VE CREATED WHAT WE HAVE’

For Full Report by Laura Walters including statistics:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/93705446/unicef-releases-damning-child-welfare-report

Speaking after his private member’s bill was pulled from the ballot today, Seymour said 40 MPs had indicated they would support it, while 27 said they would oppose it. Another 50 had said they were undecided.

He needs 61 votes for a majority at the first reading. While that is likely to take place before the September election, Seymour did not expect it to pass through all stages under the current Parliamentary term.

Parliament is also set to debate another conscience issue, legalising medical cannabis, after a bill in the

Her bill will exempt anyone with a qualifying medical condition to cultivate, possess or use cannabis for therapeutic purposes, if they have the support of a registered medical practitioner.

Seymour said he was delighted Parliament would debate voluntary euthanasia. He turned down a ministerial portfolio to focus on the issue.

“This is morally, democratically and legally the right thing for Parliament to do,” he told reporters at a press conference this afternoon.

While he believed some MPs may try to filibuster the legislation, he believed it could pass later this year under the next government.

“I think we will easily pass this legislation. Its time has come.”

NZ Herald full story dated 8 June 2017 here:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11872253

Prime Minister Bill English, a practising Catholic, has previously said he is firmly against legalising euthanasia. Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little has said he would support legalisation if it had appropriate safeguards.

Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett said today she was undecided on her vote, and she wanted to take some time to consider her position.

“I’m not an absolute no. So I suppose I want to see what the consequences are, what the kind of detail is.”

A number of National MPs said they would vote against the bill today, including Foreign Affairs Minister Gerry Brownlee.

National and Whanganui MP Chester Borrows said he was firmly against it.

“We have a horrific record on suicide and I think it sends a message that sometimes it is okay to top yourself. And I disagree with that.”

Economic Development Minister Simon Bridges said he was likely to vote against it, but may vote for it to go to a select committee to it could be properly debated.

“Ultimately life is sacred,” Bridges said. “And I think there are … ‘thin edge of the wedge’ arguments that concern me.”

New Zealand First MPs said they wanted a referendum on the issue. If that could not be achieved, they would likely vote against the bill.

The Green Party has a formal policy of legalising euthanasia for terminal patients.

Health spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter said Seymour’s bill went further, and her caucus would need to discuss it before deciding its vote.

Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox said the bill was “not something we would support at the moment”.

“I’ve sat holding the hands of dying people over and over again … so I have a good understanding of this and I’ve never once heard one of those people tell me they want to go early.

She supported the debate, but said it was not something she personally supported: “It’s a conversation the nation is ready to have.”

POLARISING ISSUE

The controversial bill represents the best chance for voluntary euthanasia to be legalised in New Zealand – although the issue is deeply polarising and many MPs including Prime Minister Bill English are firmly opposed.

Despite opinion polls showing strong public support for legalising euthanasia, the issue’s extreme divisiveness has meant politicians have been reluctant to champion a change.

That has all changed now Seymour’s bill has been drawn from the lottery of a ballot.

His The End of Life Choice Bill is based on an earlier piece of legislation drafted by former Labour MP Maryan Street.

It would allow mentally competent New Zealand adults who have a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months, or have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, the choice to ask a doctor to help end their life at the time of their choosing.

The Director-General of Health would establish a group of medical practitioners who would maintain a register of health professionals willing to participate in assisted dying.

A new process would require two medical practitioners to be satisfied a person meets the required criteria. The second would be independent of the patient and initial doctor.

Seymour has expressed confidence that his bill will pass a first reading in a conscience vote.

That confidence is based on conversations with MPs in Parliament’s corridors, researching public statements, and pressure from voters (Seymour polled Epsom before putting up his bill and 69 per cent were in favour).

A parliamentary inquiry into voluntary euthanasia began last year.

But that is unlikely to lead to a recommendation legislation be introduced and Seymour said he did not want to wait for the outcome of the inquiry.

Both Labour and National have ruled out making euthanasia a priority if they are in power after the election.

The inquiry was prompted by a petition which followed the death of Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales, who unsuccessfully sought a High Court ruling that would have allowed her doctor to help her die without criminal prosecution.

Seales’ husband Matt Vickers said today she would be “over the moon” that Parliament would now debate the issue.

Months before she died in mid-2015, Seales unsuccessfully appealed before the High Court to be able to choose a medically assisted death.

name of Green MP Julie Anne Genter was pulled from the ballot today.

A plea for free speech in our universities might seem about as unnecessary as a demand that all people be treated equally under the law.

After all, the Education Act asserts clearly the right of academics to speak as critics and consciences of society – supposedly securing universities as bastions of independent thought and open expression.

Yet, recent events at home and overseas are endangering freedom of speech at our universities.

Threats against minority communities in New Zealand, and in other Western countries, and terrorist attacks in Europe are having a chilling effect. A recent study of 115 British universities found only seven had not experienced some sort of censorship, ban or intervention which curbed free speech.

The right to free speech is so ingrained in New Zealand’s ethos that today a diverse group of 27 high-profile New Zealanders has released an open letter warning of “the forceful silencing of dissenting or unpopular views” on our university campuses.

Its signatories include not only academics, and business and community leaders, but some of our most outspoken commentators, including Sir Bob Jones, Dr Don Brash, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dame Turiana Turia.

Of course, with rights come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech must have some constraints; that’s why it is a crime to incite hatred and violence. And damaging someone’s reputation – outside the privileged protection provided at universities and Parliament – can end in a defamation suit.

Just as the courts and the media must always jealously guard freedom of speech from state controls, so must our universities.

The pretext of avoiding offence is regularly hauled out as the basis for curtailing free speech on campuses. If a group is offended by an idea or argument, it is increasingly – and misguidedly – believed it is better to ban or “disinvite” the causers rather than ruffle sensitivities or risk the speaker being drowned out by vigorous protest.

This patronising sanctimony continues to gain ground along with an absurd notion that universities should provide intellectual “safe-spaces”.

There is no inalienable right not to be offended. It is paradoxical that those who clamour for such “safe spaces” often seem untroubled by the intimidation being used to shut down unpopular speech.

It is precisely these intellectually dangerous or subversive spaces that academics and students must enter and explore. Political dissent, artistic deviance and intellectual rebellion are at the heart of a healthy and progressive society, and universities have tradtionally played a leading role in challenging conventions and ushering in new ways of thinking and doing.

The forced closure of a student club at Auckland University recently – and threats to their members’ safety – is a slippery slope we should all be wary of. Kneejerk calls from police and the Human Rights Commission to introduce hate-speech laws after recent abuse against ethnic communities will have the unintended consequence of suppressing free speech.

Education, open debate and understanding will change racist and intolerant views – not censorship.

A vibrant society permits heretic views to be expressed. A country where the state – or universities for that matter – determines what is permissible thought and what isn’t is a dictatorship, not a modern democracy.

History shows that it is fear and intolerance that drives suppression of free speech, rather than free speech causing fear and intolerance. Those who attempt to suppress free speech tend to do so out of fear and intolerance. Censorship is a crude tool used to replace healthy counter-argument.

That we think and believe different things is something to be cherished, not smothered, and different ideas and opinions are something to be welcomed. That is how we learn and progress.

Universities teach people how, not what, to think. Now more than ever, they must protect the very core of their work – free expression.

Paul Moon is Professor of History at the Faculty of Maori Development at Auckland University of Technology.

The campaign which was the brainchild of Auckland University of Technology history professor Paul Moon, rejects “the forceful silencing of dissenting or unpopular views” on tertiary campuses.

It also insists debate must not be suppressed because the ideas put forth “are thought by some or even by most people to be offensive, immoral, or wrong-headed”.

The move comes after an Auckland University group called the European Students Association was closed down after threats to its members amid accusations of racism. Its leaders had denied the club was racist.

The letter also follows Human Rights Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy’s February call for a review of online hate speech, and Police Commissioner Mike Bush suggesting an examination of the pros and cons of specific crime.

The open letter has been signed by academics, business leaders, community representatives and controversial commentators including Sir Bob Jones, former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Maori educationist Sir Toby Curtis, poet Albert Wendt and former MP Luamanuvao Winnie Laban.

Moon said freedom of speech was the foundation of a modern diverse and democratic society. It protected religious freedom and individual expression.

“Kneejerk calls from police and the Human Right Commission to introduce hate-speech laws after recent attacks on ethnic communities will have the unintended consequence of suppressing free speech. Education, open debate and understanding will change racist and intolerant views – not censorship,” he said.

Freedom of speech was intimately connected with freedom of thought. “There is no inalienable right not to be offended. It is dangerous and wrong to silence someone because you take offence or don’t like what they say. Of course, there are limits; that is why inciting hatred or violence is already a crime.”

The current law was working well, he added.

Police Minister Paula Bennett has also poured cold water on the idea of a new crime, saying hate speech can be an aggravating factor in sentencing but going further was not a government priority.

But Moon said Devoy’s idea seemed to be her legacy project. “It’s not dead in the water yet as far as we can tell.”

In a speech at a Holocaust Remembrance Day event, Devoy said free speech was one thing, hate speech another. “I believe online hatred is something we can get better at calling out. We need better restrictions when it comes to online forums and social media.”

It was obvious to her when freedom of speech became a cover for threatening and harmful language.

She was also keen to see police gather hate-crime statistics.

Meanwhile, Moon has pointed to the forced closure of the controversial Auckland University club, calling this a slippery slope.

“History shows that fear and intolerance drives suppression of free speech, not that free speech causes fear and intolerance.”

Universities must be places for robust debate and the free exchange of ideas.

He said the letter’s signatories included those diametrically opposed on some issues, such as Brash and Turia on Maori rights. “But they are all prepared to have their say and let others have their say, even if it’s a very different imposing argument. That is the essence of how free speech works.”

Report by Vernon Small

The Dominion Post  (Tuesday 3 April 2017), p. A2.

Note: Paul Moon is Professor of History at the Faculty of Maori Development at Auckland University of Technology.

Exit International director Philip Nitschke said his members were fed up with politicians’ inaction, and would set up ExitAction as a shamelessly criminal group similar to the Aids drug-buying group portrayed in the movie Dallas Buyers Club.

“This is not something you beg for. This is something you take,” Nitschke said.

It would mean that people wanting to take their own lives would not have to import euthanasia drugs illegally and – as happened earlier this year – receive visits from police.

“We are not going to sit around for another decade while politicians wax and wane [on legalising euthanasia],” he said from Amsterdam.

When ExitAction was announced internationally earlier this month, Nitschke put out a statement saying access to euthanasia drugs was a right of all competent adults, “regardless of sickness or permission from the medical profession”.

Exit members are believed to be concerned that the Government position could change under new Prime Minister Bill English, who is Catholic and a known opponent of voluntary euthanasia.

His wife Mary, a Wellington GP, told a health sub-committee hearing on the subject last month that legalising euthanasia would create ethical issues for doctors.

“A core principle has been that we do not kill our patients.”

She repeatedly referred to pro-euthanasia laws by the acronym “MAD”, or medically assisted dying. “It would be unsafe for those at risk of suicide.”

A spokesman for the prime minister said on Wednesday that the Government’s position had not changed.

“It remains the Government’s position that euthanasia is a conscience issue.

“As the prime minister has said, he does not personally support euthanasia, but would not stand in the way of members voting according to their conscience, should a member’s bill on the matter be drawn.

“A select committee is also currently considering a petition on the matter and is due to report back next year.

“Any New Zealanders considering illegally importing controlled substances should be aware there are consequences for doing so.”

Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) president Maryan Street currently has a 8974-strong petition asking Parliament to investigate legislation that would permit medically assisted dying, in the event of terminal illness or an irreversible condition that made life unbearable.

She said on Wednesday that Exit’s plans were “completely outside the area of activity that my organisation is involved in”.

Police said: “The legislation regarding voluntary euthanasia is a matter for Government.

“However, the importation of controlled drugs, along with aiding and abetting suicide, remain serious offences in New Zealand and police will take appropriate steps when we become aware of allegations regarding these offences.”

by Tom Hunt. Reporter Dominion Post. Thursday, December 15, 2016

Paul Bublitz and his co-defendants Richard Blackwood, Bruce McKay and Lance Morrison have denied charges of theft by a person in a special relationship, making false statements to a trustee, and false statements by a promoter.

Co-accused Peter Chevin was also charged and on Monday morning pleaded guilty to 10 charges of theft by person in a special relationship. He will be sentenced in September.

Two companies associated with the defendants, Mutual Finance and Viaduct Capital, collapsed in 2010 owing investors $9.3 million and $7.8m respectively.

The judge-alone trial began in the High Court at Auckland on Monday.

Crown prosecutor David Johnstone told Justice Mark Woolford that "the essence" of the Crown case was that Bublitz acquired and used the two finance companies to support his various property investments, and was assisted by his co-accused.

"In the course of Mr Bublitz’s conduct, the Crown submits that the defendants deliberately misled investors and potential investors by failing to disclose a series of related party transactions," Johnstone said. 

Bublitz, a former property developer, was described as being left "asset rich but cash poor" following the fallout of the Global Financial Crises in 2007.

His property assets were held in two groups, Hunter Capital and Hunter Property, which had various projects across Auckland including a development at Silverdale, north of Auckland.

Full story by Kelly Dennett published August 8 2016

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/82925102/four-go-on-trial-following-milliondollar-collapse-of-finance-companies

The survey of 500 women shows threats of physical violence, death, rape and sexual assault are just some of the things they have been subjected to.

The majority of the harassment reported was of a sexual nature, with one in 10 women experiencing graphic sexual harassment, according to the survey, published by internet security company Norton by Symantec.

For full story go to: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/social-networking/82294142/survey-reveals-large-number-of-kiwi-women-abused-online

Also see: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-cooper-leads-cross-party-campaign-against-online-abuse