It also ignored the landmark case in the European Court of Human Rights case where a similar ban on prisoner voting was found to be against the European Convention on Human Rights. This was a vindictive bill, designed to further punish prisoners by taking away their right to vote. While being a prisoner obviously means that you lose many of the freedoms and privileges enjoyed in our society, there is no natural causal link between being in prison and being unable to vote.
The Council's position is that, as with our other rights, the right to vote shouldn't be unreasonably withheld. As strong supporters of a free and democratic society, we think that prisoners should be encouraged to think of themselves as being part of our society and having a stake in its future as part of their rehabilitation, and that participating in elections is part of this. In our letter , we asked the Government to introduce a new bill to amend the offending law and that "this would be a positive step, and show that the NZ Government takes the NZ Bill of Rights Act and civil liberties in New Zealand seriously.
Introduction
Unfortunately this decision also reveals just how toothless our courts are when it comes to Bill of Rights issues. This was a historic decision - the first time that a court has made a declaration that the law was inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights Act - and the Government has just shrugged it off.
It is a sad irony that this decision by the courts appears to have weakened the position of the Bill of Rights Act in our system rather then improving it. In our submission to the Constitutional Review we said that we " Unfortunately we can add the Constitutional Review to the list of improvements to New Zealand that the government has chosen to ignore. We can only hope that future goverments will pick up this issue and provide better protection for New Zealanders' rights and civil liberties.
Thank you for your correspondence of 14 September about prisoner voting and the steps the Government proposes to take in response to the High Court declaration of inconsistency. The Attorney General tabled a report in Parliament soon after the Bill was introduced, pursuant to section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act. This report, that the Bill appeared to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, was discussed during the parliamentary debates on the Bill.
- looking for gay Paraparaumu New Zeland.
- Screenshots!
- HIV/AIDS in New Zealand - Wikipedia.
- Matters of Substance: July 12222?
- old gay escort Napier New Zeland.
- Matters of Substance: July 12222?
- Gay social network and chat!
Parliament may form a different view from the Attorney-General about whether a particular right of freedom is limited or whether the limitation is justified. In this case, Parliament decided to pass the Bill.
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/CDZ5PF37JF3KVH4TWLWWNUUOD4.jpg)
The High Court declaration of inconsistency has no impact on this decision. The Ministers then submitted a final report to Cabinet. The Report is therefore with the New Zealand Government and it is the practice that the Government provides a response to the report within 6 months; this ought to have occurred during , even with the delay around the General Election. The Report contained a number of recommendations; the key submission being that the Government actively support a continuing conversation about the constitution by ensuring people can find out more about the current arrangements and options for our future.
The recommendation with regards the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was that the Government set up a process with public consultation and participation to explore in more detail the options for amending the Act to improve its effectiveness. The Government is considering the Panel's report.
If the Government decides to undertake further work, or propose constitutional change, there will be more opportunities for New Zealanders to have their say. Buried deep within the massive omnibus tax bill now before the Select Committee in Parliament is a provision that if enacted as it is, will strip an entire class of New Zealanders defined by national origin, association or mere accident of birth, of their privacy and civil liberties under the Privacy Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Further, the Government is taking this action at the behest of the foreign state. US persons who live abroad are required to file complicated annual tax returns and reports of all their financial assets and activity even if no tax is owing. There are ruinous fines and the threat of prison even for inadvertent non-compliance. The Government would have you believe that they are merely assisting our American friends in stopping tax evasion by a few wealthy individuals. This is far from the truth. There are an estimated 7 million US citizens abroad by that definition. For example, a child born to a New Zealander studying or working temporarily in the US automatically becomes a US citizen at birth.
No registration or positive claim is required. In both of these cases, the Kiwi is required to report and pay taxes on their worldwide income and in both of these cases a New Zealand financial institution will be forced to give their bank details to the US IRS. Thus, an innocent Kiwi, who may not even know she is a US citizen for tax purposes, will have her bank details sent to US authorities and will be subject to all the taxes, interests, fines and penalties provided for in American tax law. The above cases above would be bad enough. However reporting is also required when a US person has a beneficial interest in an account.
Thus, the spouse, partner, child or other close relative of a US person will have their financial data reported to the US even if they have no other connection to America. Family trusts with even one US person as a beneficiary? Businesses where a US person has signing authority over an account? Joint beneficiary with a US person of life insurance policy? The IRD has issued compliance instructions to financial institutions as to which accounts must be reported. The reporting is based on indicia which may show that the holder is a US person or that US person has beneficial interest in the account.
The Census recorded 21, New Zealanders with a place of birth in the US and this is the number usually offered by the Government as the number affected. Clearly though, the number will be far, far higher than this. Based on average family size and immigration, I think that , is probably a better estimate of the number of innocent Kiwis who, without their consent, will have their private financial information transmitted to a foreign tax authority.
No suspicion or probable cause is required. The rules are based solely on national origin and association. To allow the whims of a foreign government to dictate which New Zealanders have rights and which may be safely discriminated against is a violation of natural justice and a dangerous precedent. As it is written, the bill is not confined to the American situation. The IRD can enter into these agreements with any country that passes similar laws.
If the UK or South Africa, to say nothing of China or Zimbabwe, decide they would like to have the bank details of anyone born in those countries, will New Zealand hand them over? One would have thought that the argument over categorizing people by national origin, registering their assets and stripping them of their rights was settled in Are we to believe that the current Government cannot even stand up to the American tax man? The IPCA have responded to our letter asking them to investigate the officers who deliberately hid their badge numbers while evicting the Occupy Auckland protesters in They have refused our request, claiming that "the Authority has limited resources and can only direct its attention towards the most serious cases.
We believe that this is a serious case as it demonstrates a conspiracy of multiple members of the police to subvert their own policy, assumedly with the intention of breaking the law. The IPCA also claims that "Following a review of the Police inquiry, the authority believes that the sanctions applied do fall within the parameters of what would be considered appropriate under the circumstances. It fails on openness, it fails on transparency, and it fails to reassure that either the IPCA or the Police are doing their job in controlling rogue cops.
We are pleased to report that Immigration NZ has finally agreed to honour its legal obligations under the Public Records Act, and will now be recording reasons for its decisions made under s. See our earlier articles here , here and here. This contrasts with the original instruction that reasons should not be recorded, with internal emails showing that this was to expressly avoid potential for " We are pleased that this change has been made, but disappointed that it took complaints to both the Ombudsman and the Chief Archivist after Immigration refused to back down from their initial position.
The report confirms that police will get a load of new powers: video surveillance where police trespass on private property will be legal; the circumstances in which audio bugging will be legal will dramatically increased from what it is at present. The threshold for warrantless searches is being lowered, as are the circumstances for setting up roadblocks. Along with police, some 70 government agencies - from IRD to the Overseas Investment Office and the Pork Industry Board - will be able to apply to conduct video and audio surveillance and install as yet undeveloped surveillance devices into your home, car, community centre, church, marae, school, place of business, etc.
Events in New Zealand
While the report indicates that these new powers will be slightly smaller than originally envisioned in the Bill, the overall thrust is the same: a massive increase in state power to surveil ordinary New Zealanders. One of the fundamental problems with this bill is that it makes on-going hour-a- day surveillance equivalent to a one-off search. That conclusion is not accepted; the two are very different.
Secondly, the bill dramatically shifts the centrality of video and audio surveillance to being the first and primary means of law enforcement and crime solving. The privacy implications for ordinary people from video and audio surveillance are profound. The current law says that audio surveillance can be utilized effectively as a last resort when other methods have not worked or are not available.
We would argue that even this tight restriction is being abused by police. Thirdly, the bill makes no differentiation between video and audio surveillance. Again, most people would not agree with that conclusion. The old adage, 'A picture speaks a thousand words' illustrates well why video surveillance is indeed a far greater invasion of privacy than audio surveillance. It is without hyperbole to say that legalising trespassory video surveillance would be ushering 'Big Brother' into people's living rooms..
The authors of the Bill seek to balance 'human rights' with the State's right to violate them. The State, however is the one making the rules, and as such, there is no 'balance'. When our 'human rights' are not convenient for the police or other enforcement agencies, they are simply and routinely ignored. We believe that the so-called 'Oversight' provided by review clauses, the Privacy Commissioner or Ombudsman are simply incapable of holding any of these agencies to account. Plain view searches - Grants 'enforcement officers' the right to seize items in plain view.
SEEK - Australia's no. 1 jobs, employment, career and recruitment site
We believe that this will apply to computers and other data storage devices. Once seized these items can be copied in their entirety. The right against self-incrimination is totally compromised by this law. You may have to go before a judge to have them determine if you are incriminating yourself, thereby incriminating yourself Production orders - allow 'enforcement officers' to sit back and order you to produce documents on an on-going basis that you have or will have in future if they suspect that an offence has been committed.
Hugs not Drugs (or both) | NZ Drug Foundation - At the heart of the matter
At pages long, the 'interim report' does not go any way to making this complex piece of legislation easier to understand or more accessible to many New Zealanders. Submissions can be made until 3 September We would encourage people to send a submission, regardless of how long or short it is, indicating that you do NOT support this bill.
- best online dating sites for gay women Nelson New Zeland.
- Hugs not Drugs (or both)!
- popular gay dating app Oamaru New Zeland.
Interim Report : download the PDF. We have written to the Independent Police Complaints Authority to ask them to investigate the police officers who deliberately hid their identities by sharing badge numbers while evicting protesters in Auckland in January see One News report. We note with concern your decision not to take action against the police officers who deliberately obscured their identity while evicting the Occupy Auckland protesters in January Apparently the IPCA does not see this as a case of serious police misconduct, a position we cannot agree with.
One difference between a civil society and a police state is that in a civil society police can be held accountable for their actions. Obviously this cannot be done when individual officers cannot be identified, so we have rules that say that police must be identifiable including the use of badge numbers.