Auckland Action Against Poverty is organising a picket this week – Friday 22 July 5.30pm, Heritage Hotel, 35 Hobson St, Auckland
GLOBAL PEACE AND JUSTICE AUCKLAND NEWSLETTER No. 383, July 20, 2011
Friday 22 July 5.30pm, Heritage Hotel, 35 Hobson St, Auckland
Auckland Action Against Poverty is organising a picket this week: The right wing Maxim Institute is hosting a dinner that night at 6pm at which UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, will be the guest speaker. Mr Smith is a prime mover behind welfare reforms in the UK which are causing increasing destitution and even suicide among claimants, particularly people who are being pushed off the invalids benefit. He is also presiding over ever increasing privatisation of welfare and employment , including forced work for dole schemes in the private sector. His reforms are the model for much of our National Government’s Rebstock Report, currently under consideration by a high powered Ministerial group. AAAP is organising this picket because we: • Seek to stand in solidarity with welfare claimants in the UK who are suffering hugely as a result of what Mr Smith is inflicting on them there. • Want to draw attention to the links between the UK reforms and the National Government’s approach to welfare. It would be great if you and other members of your group could join us next Friday. If you are able to get this information out to other people in your organisation and any associated networks, that would be really helpful as well. For more information, please feel free to email me at bradford.sue73 or Karen at karendavis700. With thanks for any support you can give – best wishes, Sue Bradford, Auckland Action Against Poverty. See: Visiting UK Welfare Minister to Face Picket http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1107/S00131/visiting-uk-welfare-minister-to-face-picket.htm
PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright NZ ‘Whistleblower/ Anti-Corruption Campaigner’: “Are NZ Judges effectively ‘out of control?'”
19 July 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright NZ ‘Whistleblower/ Anti-Corruption Campaigner’:
“Are NZ Judges effectively ‘out of control?'”
New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark and Singapore), according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption Perception Index’.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010
Therefore – shouldn’t New Zealand arguably be the most ‘transparent’ country in the world?
So – how come in New Zealand, our Judges don’t have:
An enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’?
A ‘Register of Pecuniary Interests’?
A mandatory requirement to record all court proceedings?
(How can ‘justice be done or be seen to be done’ – if there is no court record of what was done? How can a ‘court of record – not keep a record? )
On top of this – some New Zealand Judges – at the highest levels – apparently don’t think that the ‘Rule of Law’ applies to them.
How can it be lawful, for some New Zealand Judges to make ‘court orders’ based on ‘judicial discretion’ – not the ‘Rule of Law’?
How can it be lawful, for some New Zealand Judges to just ‘make it up’?
I, Penny Bright, publicly-acknowledged ‘anti-corruption campaigner’, have been trying for days to file in the Auckland High Court, an ‘Application for Order’ to get a Judge’s ‘suppression order’ lifted.
This was a ‘suppression order’ – which suppressed the JUDGMENT itself and the REASONS for that judgement.
Under New Zealand law – s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 – there is no lawful right for a New Zealand Judge to do this.
s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
…….
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
[Bold and emphasis added]
The ‘suppression order ‘ to which I am referring, is that of Judge Winkelmann, New Zealand’s Chief High Court Judge, made in December 2010, where she not only denied the 18 defendants in the ‘Operation 8’ (NZ’s first so-called ‘terrorist’ case) – their statutory right to trial by jury, but then ordered the Court staff to suppress the judgment.
After all the ‘MAN ON THE MOON’ headlines from 15 October 2001 which burst across world headlines – the continued proceedings have now become ‘top secret’? Not only were the public not allowed to know that the ‘Operation 8 ‘ defendants had been denied their right to trial by jury – but the public were not allowed to know that they had been denied their right to trial by jury?
How can this be right?
Vince Siemer,(in my considered opinion New Zealand’s leading ‘whistleblower’ exposing the lack of judicial transparency, accountability and judicial ‘conflicts of interest’), didn’t think this was right, and did something about it.
Vince Siemer defended the public’s right to know Judge Winkelmann’s decision and her reasons for it – by publishing her judgment on his website, along with his story ‘Judge or be Judged’ 10 December 2010 http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845331
(For a more detailed story by Vince Siemer about the ‘Operation 8’ case – “A Public protest away from tyranny”
A PUBLIC PROTEST AWAY FROM TYRANNY
THE OPERATION 8 SAGA
______________________________
(A documentary has been made, called ‘Operation 8’, now playing in NZ cinemas, which examines the ‘anti-terror’ raids of October 2007.
http://www.flicks.co.nz/movie/operation-8/ )
______________________________________________________________
Contempt proceeding against Vince Siemer were then initiated by the ‘second highest lawyer in the land’ – the Solicitor-General of New Zealand David Collins QC, who has effectively ‘backed up’ the arguably unlawful decision of Judge Winkelmann to suppress her judgement and the reasons for it.
Vince Siemer has been found guilty of ‘contempt of court’ and now faces imprisonment for so doing, as ruled in the following decision of the High Court, Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer CIV-2010-404-8559 MacKenzie and Simon JJ 4 July 2011.
Interestingly, THIS judgment has not been suppressed, yet it makes reference to Judge Winkelmann’s Judgment – which was.
Which arguably helps to show how patently ridiculous it was to suppress this original judgement in the first place?
I have not just published press releases about this matter on my blog (https://waterpressure.wordpress.com) , I have actively and vigorously disseminated this information to all New Zealand MPs; NZ media, all NZ Councils, all NZ Unions, a wide range of social justice and human rights activists.
Surely, if we are ‘all equal before the law’ – I too, should be facing contempt proceedings?
Or has New Zealand’s second highest lawyer in the land – the Solicitor-General David Collins QC – arguably maliciously and vindictively abused his power and authority, in order to continue his on-going persecution of Vince Siemer?
If I too, am not going to equally face ‘contempt of court’ proceedings for arguably doing worse than Vince Siemer – then it must be obvious that Vince Siemer is being ‘picked on’ and unjustifiably victimised.
In my considered opinion, Judge Winkelman’s arguably unlawful suppression order must be lifted forthwith.
Once Judge Winkelman’s arguably unlawful suppression order is lifted, then, in my considered opinion, all proceedings against Vince Siemer in this matter, must be dropped, including his upcoming sentencing for ‘contempt of court’.
In my considered opinion, what then needs to happen is an inquiry into the actions of the Solicitor-General against Vince Siemer; whether he has abused his power and authority; including possible ‘Contempt of the House’, through his involvement in the decision of the former Justice and Electoral Select Committee in arriving at a decision not to ‘conduct an inquiry into the committal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court’ on the basis that the matter was ‘subjudice’ – at a time it was not.
I take full personal responsibility for my actions, as a ‘whistleblower’ in this matter, and am prepared to face whatever consequences may be forthcoming.
However – I equally expect the Solicitor-General to do the same.
The first step in this process is to get the (unlawful) ‘suppression order’ of Judge Winkelmann removed.
The path for so doing was outlined in the above-mentioned decision of Judges MacKenzie and France, where they stated:
“[41] … It is open to persons including Mr Siemer to apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal, but until that is successfully done the order is binding.”
However – this ‘path’ has not been a clear one to follow, given that this is effectively trying to ‘undo’ a ‘court order’ which has not itself been based upon the clear, open, written, ‘Rule of Law’.
Arbitrary decisions by Judges, based upon ‘judicial discretion’ ie: ‘rules’ which only exist inside their heads, are arguably neither open, transparent nor accountable.
Isn’t that why we have the ‘Rule of Law’?
Wouldn’t you think that if there was anyone who should be expected to follow the ‘Rule of Law’ – it would be the Chief High Court Judge – not to mention the second- highest lawyer in the land – the Solicitor-General of New Zealand?
Today, Tuesday 19 July 2011, I will again attempt to file in the Auckland High Court, an ‘Application for Order’ to get Judge Winkelmann’s suppression order ‘removed’.
May ‘justice be done and be seen to be done’ and the ‘Rule of Law’ upheld.
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
Anti-corruption campaigner’
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) 2009 (Brisbane, Australia)
Attendee: Transparency International 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010 (Bangkok, Thailand)
Auckland Mayoral candidate 2010
Botany by-election candidate 2011
Howick Ward (Auckland Council) by-election candidate 2011
Ph 00 64 09 846 9825
_______________________________________________________________
WHAT I WILL BE ATTEMPTING TO FILE TODAY IN THE AUCKLAND HIGH COURT:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2011-404-
BETWEEN PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT
Applicant
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Respondent
ORIGINATING APPLICATION FOR ORDER
Filed by Penelope M. Bright
86 A School Road
Kingsland, Auckland
Phone/Facsimile:(09) 846 9825
To The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, and
To Crown Law on behalf of the respondent.
This document notifies you that –
Under The Judicature Act 1908 Schedule 2 High Court Rule
19.5Court may permit proceeding to be commenced by originating application
(1) The court may, in the interests of justice, permit any proceeding not mentioned in rules 19.2 to 19.4 to be commenced by originating application.
(2) The court’s permission may be sought without notice.
(3) The proposed originating application must be filed with an application for permission under this rule.
1. The applicant, Penelope Mary Bright, will on __________________ 2011 apply to the court for orders:
1.1 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world
at large, from knowing about Her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in
18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342), known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions”.
1.2 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the Minute of Winkelmann J dated 21 December 2010; to the extent that “Minute” intends to – or results in – the New Zealand public or word at large from knowing relevant facts in the prosecution or reasons for suppressing all of Her Honour’s 9 December 2010 Judgment in the Operation 8 prosecution, including such basic and important information as the fact of their indictment on charges.1
This application relies on the decision of the High Court in Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer CIV-2010-404-8559 MacKenzie and Simon France JJ, 4 July 2011:
“[41] … It is open to persons including Mr Siemer to apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal, but until that is successfully done the order is binding.”
1.
ON THE GROUNDS:
2. It has not been established in the body of the judgment that the Judge had, in fact, made such a suppression order. The suppression wording was apparently added later by a member of the court staff.
3. There is no basis in law to suppress a court judgment resulting from a criminal prosecution. Such judicial powers are limited to the evidence adduced, the submissions made, publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses under s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
_____________________________________________
1 Refer to paragraph [1] of the Judgment of Winkelmann J dated 9 December 2010, “Operation 8 prosecutions”
4. s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
…….
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
[Bold and emphasis added]
5. It is a violation of natural justice to attempt to enforce a suppression order, with criminal penalties, against the public at large (i.e. not parties to the proceeding) for commenting on, or disseminating, a judgment, without the right to be heard, in a free and democratic society.
6. Similarly, it is an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for New Zealand citizens to face prosecution and be threatened with loss of their liberty simply for disseminating or commenting on any court judgment – particularly cases pertaining to the ongoing “Operation 8 prosecutions”, which have already been the subject of significant public interest.
7. The order is in direct conflict with the principles of open and transparent justice which have been the hallmark of an honourable and just court system in every egalitarian society, because it effectively makes the judgment secret and unavailable to public scrutiny.
2.
8. The subject suppression order violates a broader interest – that of significant public interest – and the conflict of Justice Winkelmann’s alleged suppression order against this broader public interest has been confirmed in correspondence between the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Burns, in the Operation 8 prosecutions and the High Court in which the alleged suppression order originates.
9. It is relevant to the grounds of this application that Justice Winkelmann gave no reasons for the alleged suppression order, if indeed it was Her Honour’s order, for concealing the public court judgment from the New Zealand public and the world at large. Justice cannot ‘be done or be seen to be done’, if the judgment of ‘what was done’, and ‘why it was done’ is deliberately hidden from the public.
10. A court “Minute” is an administrative direction of the court which is not publicly reported and can only affect actual parties to the litigation. In law, it cannot be used to contravene the legal right of the public’s right to know, let alone be used to imprison NZ citizens. Such Minutes are not disseminated to the public at large. This underscores the patent injustice of such a judicial tool.If anyone should have been obliged to follow ‘lawful due process’, in order to prevent a real risk to the administration of justice, then it should have been the Judge herself. The Judge herself has a duty/ lawful obligation/ to follow ‘lawful due process’ in order to prevent a real risk to the administration of justice
11. The risk to personal liberty against citizens of New Zealand is unacceptable, if the alleged suppression order is allowed to stand. The threat to personal liberty is evident by the recent prosecution of the legal news website publisher Vince Siemer, who is currently facing imprisonment as a sole and direct result of publishing this public court judgment. 2
12. As the applicant has disseminated details regarding this 9 December 2010 judgment to the public, as well as engaged in commentary regarding it, she faces potential prosecution by the State unless the court suppression order – if it is determined by this Honourable Court to be an actual order – is allowed to stand.
13. If Justice Winkelmann’s court ‘order’ has not been based upon the ‘rule of law’, then the public cannot be expected to respect it. If Judges don’t themselves follow the ‘rule of law,’ by basing their decisions upon the ‘rule of law’ – then they are not ‘setting an example’ to citizens which either safeguards the administration of justice, or enhances public confidence in the New Zealand judiciary.
____________________________________________________________________
2 Solicitor-General v Vince Siemer CIV2010 404 8559
3.
14. The Applicant holds that the real risk to the administration of justice stems from this court ‘order’ which has not been based on the ‘rule of law’ – but has been ‘made up’ by Justice Winkelmann, then enforced by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in such an discriminatory and arbitrary way as to constitute an abuse of power which cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
This application is made in reliance upon the Criminal Justice Act 1985, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, fundamental principles of natural justice; Company v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4, Couch v Attorney-General (No 2), Transport Accident Investigation Commission v Wellington District Court [2008] NZAR 595, the Laws of New Zealand “Criminal Procedure” citation 103, Lewis v Wilson and Horton [2000] 3 NZLR 546(CA), Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions 163 JP 789 [1999], Crim LR 998, 7 BHRC 375 [2000] HRLR 249; the legally balancing exercise engaged in Duff v Communicado [1996] 2 NZLR 89, Shaylor [2002] UKHL 11, [2003] 1 AC 247, The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Nov 1996, Application 22954/93: Ahmed v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 1, ECtHR, at para 7, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, Lester and Pannick- Human Rights Law and Practice (3rd edition 2009) Para 4.10.30, R v Togia HC Wellington, Clifford J, CRI-2007-485-37, Brooks v DPP [1994] 1 AC 568, 528G, T v Regional Intellectual Care Agency [2007] NZAR 643, [1996] 3 S.C.R 480; equity and good conscience and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to maintain the rule of law and protect its processes.
___________________________________
Penelope Mary Bright
(aka Penny Bright)
Cc: Rodney Harrison QC, on behalf of the Operation 8 defendants
Mr Ross Burns, Meredith Connell, prosecutor in the Operation 8 trial
________________________________________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2011-404-
BETWEEN PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT
Applicant
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Respondent
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AN
ORIGINATING APPLICATION FOR ORDER
Filed by Penelope M. Bright
86 A School Road
Kingsland, Auckland
Phone/Facsimile:(09) 846 9825
To The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, and
To Crown Law on behalf of the respondent.
Under The Judicature Act 1908 Schedule 2 High Court Rule
19.5Court may permit proceeding to be commenced by originating application
(1) The court may, in the interests of justice, permit any proceeding not mentioned in rules 19.2 to 19.4 to be commenced by originating application.
(2) The court’s permission may be sought without notice.
(3) The proposed originating application must be filed with an application for permission under this rule.
May it Please the Court,
It is not clear, how exactly to commence an ‘Originating Application’ for an ‘Order’ of this type.
However, having been assisted by the Registrar’s direction to the above-mentioned High Court Rule 19.6 of The Judicature Act 1908 Schedule 2, I, The Applicant, Penelope Mary Bright, hereby seek permission, without notice, on ___________________________ 2011 to file the attached
‘Originating Application for Order’.
___________________________________
Penelope Mary Bright
(aka Penny Bright)
PUBLIC WATCHDOG Penny Bright will file the Application for Orders: ‘Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J’ in the Auckland High Court Wednesday 13 July 2011.
12 July 2011
From: John Richardson <John.Richardson@justice.govt.nz>
Date: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:13 PM
Subject: URGENT – OPEN LETTER John Richardson (Criminal Manager Auckland High Court)
RE: Filing of an Application for Orders: ‘Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J’
To: Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com>
John Richardson.
URGENT – OPEN LETTER John Richardson (Criminal Manager Auckland High Court):RE: Filing of an Application for Orders: ‘Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J’
12 July 2011
OPEN LETTER John Richardson (Criminal Manager Auckland High Court)
I, Penelope Mary Bright, (aka Penny Bright) give notice that I will (again), on Wednesday 13 July 2011,before 5pm, apply at the Auckland High Court for orders:
“1.1 Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in 18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342), known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions”.
1.2 Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the Minute of Winkelmann J dated 21 December 2010; to the extent that “Minute” intends to – or results in- the New Zealand public or world at large from knowing relevant facts in the prosecution or reasons for suppressing all of Her Honour’s 9 December 2010 Judgment in the Operation 8 prosecution, including such basic and important information as the fact of their indictment on charges.1
(1 Refer to paragraph [1] of the Judgment of Winkelmann J dated 9 December 2010, “Operation 9 prosecutions”) ”
The ‘legislative basis’ upon which I am relying, in order to file this application, lies in CIV 2010 – 404 – 8559 Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer , Judgment of MacKenzie and Simon France JJ, 4 July 2011.
[41] ……..
It is open to persons including Mr Siemer to apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal, but until that is successfully done the order is binding.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I have already attempted to ‘to apply to the Court’ for the ‘suppression order’ of Winkelmann J to be removed.
As you know, I attempted to file this ‘Application’ with yourself, on Thursday 7 July 2011, at the Auckland High Court.
I first attempted to file this ‘Application’ under the ‘Civil’ jurisdiction, but was told that ‘Civil’ jurisdiction – didn’t have the jurisdiction, and to take it to the ‘Criminal’ jurisdiction.
My ‘Application’ was passed over to you as ‘Manager’ but you refused to accept this document for filing, claiming that there was no ‘legislative basis’ for myself as a ‘non-party’ to apply for such an order.
(I do understand that on Thursday 7 July 2011, at the time you refused to accept my ‘Application’ for filing,you were probably unaware of this above-mentioned Judgment, and the part of this ruling [41] which is directly pertinent to this matter.)
However, you did accept a copy of my ‘Application’, for the Registrar of the Auckland High Court (Tony Mortimer) to ‘review’ – so you do already have a copy.
On Friday 8 July 2011, after reading carefully the above-mentioned judgment, which makes clear provision for ‘non-parties’ such as myself to ‘apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal’, I rang and left messages on both your ‘land line’ and mobile phone, in order to bring this very important information to your urgent attention.
I stated that there must be some basis in law for a non-party such as myself to apply for the removal of this suppression order – or these Judges wouldn’t have said that it could be done?
I put it to you, that once you have seen for yourself this Judgment CIV 2010 – 404 – 8559
Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer , Judgment of MacKenzie and Simon France JJ 4 July 2011, you can no longer claim any lawful basis for continuing to refuse to accept the filing of my ‘APPLICATION FOR ORDER’ .
What is also arguably patently ridiculous in this situation is that this latest judgment, which is not ‘suppressed’, contains details of the judgment of Winkelmann J which was suppressed.
Vince Siemer is now facing imprisonment for ‘contempt’ for ‘disseminating details of Judge Winkelmann’s decision – which I have too have disseminated. I too am upholding the public’s lawful right to know Judge’s decisions and their reasons for those decisions.
Am I too going to face imprisonment for ‘contempt’ of court?
What ‘LAW’ have I, or Vince Siemer ever broken?
If there is anyone whom you would expect to follow the the ‘Law’ – it it is surely the Judge?
Following are what I believe to be key grounds supporting this ‘Application’ for orders ‘revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in 18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342) known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions” ‘.
“[4] There is no basis in law to suppress a court judgment resulting from a criminal prosecution. Such judicial powers are limited to the evidence adduced, the submissions made, publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses under s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
4. s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
…….
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
5. It is a violation of natural justice to attempt to enforce a suppression order, with criminal penalties, against the public at large (i.e. not parties to the proceeding) for commenting on, or disseminating, a judgment, without the right to be heard, in a free and democratic society.
6. Similarly, it is an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for New Zealand citizens to face prosecution and be threatened with loss of their liberty simply for disseminating or commenting on any court judgment – particularly cases pertaining to the ongoing “Operation 8 prosecutions”, which have already been the subject of significant public interest.
7. The order is in direct conflict with the principles of open and transparent justice which have been the hallmark of an honourable and just court system in every egalitarian society, because it effectively makes the judgment secret and unavailable to public scrutiny.
8. The subject suppression order violates a broader interest – that of significant public interest – and the conflict of Justice Winkelmann’s alleged suppression order against this broader public interest has been confirmed in correspondence between the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Burns, in the Operation 8 prosecutions and the High Court in which the alleged suppression order originates.
9. It is relevant to the grounds of this application that Justice Winkelmann gave no reasons for the alleged suppression order, if indeed it was Her Honour’s order, for concealing the public court judgment from the New Zealand public and the world at large. Justice cannot ‘be done or be seen to be done’, if the judgment of ‘what was done’, and ‘why it was done’ is deliberately hidden from the public.
11. The risk to personal liberty against citizens of New Zealand is unacceptable, if the alleged suppression order is allowed to stand. The threat to personal liberty is evident by the recent prosecution of the legal news website publisher Vince Siemer, who is currently facing imprisonment as a sole and direct result of publishing this public court judgment. 2
12. As the applicant has disseminated details regarding this 9 December 2010 judgment to the public, as well as engaged in commentary regarding it, she faces potential prosecution by the State unless the court suppression order – if it is determined by this Honourable Court to be an actual order – is allowed to stand.
13. If Justice Winkelmann’s court ‘order’ has not been based upon the ‘rule of law’, then the public cannot be expected to respect it. If Judges don’t themselves follow the ‘rule of law,’ by basing their decisions upon the ‘rule of law’ – then they are not ‘setting an example’ to citizens which either safeguards the administration of justice, or enhances public confidence in the New Zealand judiciary.
14. The Applicant holds that the real risk to the administration of justice stems from this court ‘order’ which has not been based on the ‘rule of law’ – but has been ‘made up’ by Justice Winkelmann, then enforced by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in such an discriminatory and arbitrary way as to constitute an abuse of power which cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
I look forward to your assistance in ‘facilitating access to justice’ and accepting for filing the ‘Application’ which you have already received.
Please confirm that the ‘Civil’ jurisdiction of the Auckland High Court is the proper body with which to file this ‘Application’. It would greatly assist me, if this could be done before 12 noon Wednesday 13 July 2011, in order to assist in the facilitation of access to justice in this arguably very significant matter of public interest.
I am attempting to ‘do things in a proper way’, and respectfully look forward to your guidance and assistance in expediting the initiating of these proceedings.
Yours sincerely,
Penelope Mary Bright
(Penny Bright)
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
Anti-corruption campaigner’
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) 2009 (Brisbane, Australia)
Attendee: Transparency International 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010 (Bangkok, Thailand)
Auckland Mayoral candidate 2010
Botany by-election candidate 2011
Howick Ward (Auckland Council) by-election candidate 2011
Ph 00 64 09 846 9825
___________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
WORDING OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ‘APPLICATION FOR ORDER’ WHICH HAS NOT (YET) BEEN ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
_________________________________________________________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2011-404-
BETWEEN PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT
Applicant
AND THE QUEEN
Respondent
APPLICATION FOR ORDER
To The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, and
To Crown Law on behalf of the respondent.
This document notifies you that –
1.The applicant, Penelope Mary Bright, will on ________________ 2011 apply to the court for orders:
1.1 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about Her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342), known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions”.
1.2 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the Minute of Winkelmann J dated 21 December 2010; to the extent that “Minute” intends to – or results in – the New Zealand public or word at large from knowing relevant facts in the prosecution or reasons for suppressing all of Her Honour’s 9 December 2010 Judgment in the Operation 8 prosecution, including such basic and important information as the fact of their indictment on charges.1
ON THE GROUNDS:
2. It has not been established in the body of the judgment that the Judge had, in fact, made such a suppression order. The suppression wording was apparently added later by a member of the court staff.
3. There is no basis in law to suppress a court judgment resulting from a criminal prosecution. Such judicial powers are limited to the evidence adduced, the submissions made, publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses under s 138 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1985.
_____________________________________
1 Refer to paragraph [1] of the Judgment of Winkelmann J dated 9 December 2010, “Operation 8 prosecutions”
_____________________________________
4. s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
…….
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
[Bold and emphasis added]
5. It is a violation of natural justice to attempt to enforce a suppression order, with criminal penalties, against the public at large (i.e. not parties to the proceeding) for commenting on, or disseminating, a judgment, without the right to be heard, in a free and democratic society.
6. Similarly, it is an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for New Zealand citizens to face prosecution and be threatened with loss of their liberty simply for disseminating or commenting on any court judgment – particularly cases pertaining to the ongoing “Operation 8 prosecutions”, which have already been the subject of significant public interest.
7. The order is in direct conflict with the principles of open and transparent justice which have been the hallmark of an honourable and just court system in every egalitarian society, because
it effectively makes the judgment secret and unavailable to public scrutiny.
8. The subject suppression order violates a broader interest – that of significant public interest – and the conflict of Justice Winkelmann’s alleged suppression order against this broader public interest has been confirmed in correspondence between the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Burns, in the Operation 8 prosecutions and the High Court in which the alleged suppression order originates.
9. It is relevant to the grounds of this application that Justice Winkelmann gave no reasons for the alleged suppression order, if indeed it was Her Honour’s order, for concealing the public court judgment from the New Zealand public and the world at large. Justice cannot ‘be done or be seen to be done’, if the judgment of ‘what was done’, and ‘why it was done’ is deliberately hidden from the public.
10. A court “Minute” is an administrative direction of the court which is not publicly reported and can only affect actual parties to the litigation. In law, it cannot be used to contravene the legal right of the public’s right to know, let alone be used to imprison NZ citizens. Such Minutes are not disseminated to the public at large. This underscores the patent injustice of such a judicial tool.
If anyone should have been obliged to follow ‘lawful due process’, in order to prevent a real risk to the administration of justice, then it should have been the Judge herself.
11. The risk to personal liberty against citizens of New Zealand is unacceptable, if the alleged suppression order is allowed to stand. The threat to personal liberty is evident by the recent prosecution of the legal news website publisher Vince Siemer, who is currently facing imprisonment as a sole and direct result of publishing this public court judgment. 2
12. As the applicant has disseminated details regarding this 9 December 2010 judgment to the public, as well as engaged in commentary regarding it, she faces potential prosecution by the State unless the court suppression order – if it is determined by this Honourable Court to be an actual order – is allowed to stand.
13. If Justice Winkelmann’s court ‘order’ has not been based upon the ‘rule of law’, then the public cannot be expected to respect it. If Judges don’t themselves follow the ‘rule of law,’ by basing their decisions upon the ‘rule of law’ – then they are not ‘setting an example’ to citizens which either safeguards the administration of justice, or enhances public confidence in the New Zealand judiciary.
14. The Applicant holds that the real risk to the administration of justice stems from this court ‘order’ which has not been based on the ‘rule of law’ – but has been ‘made up’ by Justice Winkelmann, then enforced by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in such an discriminatory and arbitrary way as to constitute an abuse of power which cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
This application is made in reliance upon the Criminal Justice Act 1985, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, fundamental principles of natural justice; Company v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4, Couch v Attorney-General (No 2), Transport Accident Investigation Commission v Wellington District Court [2008] NZAR 595, the Laws of New Zealand “Criminal Procedure” citation 103, Lewis v Wilson and Horton [2000] 3 NZLR 546(CA), Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions 163 JP 789 [1999], Crim LR 998, 7 BHRC 375 [2000] HRLR 249; the legally balancing exercise engaged in Duff v Communicado [1996] 2 NZLR 89, Shaylor [2002] UKHL 11, [2003] 1 AC 247, The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Nov 1996, Application 22954/93: Ahmed v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 1, ECtHR, at para 7, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, Lester and Pannick- Human Rights Law and Practice (3rd edition 2009) Para 4.10.30, R v Togia HC Wellington, Clifford J, CRI-2007-485-37, Brooks v DPP [1994] 1 AC 568, 528G, T v Regional Intellectual Care Agency [2007] NZAR 643, [1996] 3 S.C.R 480; equity and good conscience and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to maintain the rule of law and protect its processes.
______________________________________________
2 Solicitor-General v Vince Siemer CIV2010 404 8559
PRESS RELEASE: SUE HENRY SPOKESPERSON HOUSING LOBBY :“The Housing Lobby supports the Labour Party’s proposed Capital Gains Tax”.
PRESS RELEASE: SUE HENRY SPOKESPERSON HOUSING LOBBY
“The Housing Lobby supports the Labour Party’s proposed Capital Gains Tax”.
6 July 2011
“ I believe that there is massive public support for Labour’s proposed Capital Gains Tax,” says Sue Henry, Spokesperson for the Housing Lobby.
“The speculative market has falsely over-inflated property values for years shifting out house buyers and pushing up rents.”
“There is no benefit to New Zealand when the taxpayer subsidised capital gain on multiple properties goes off shore, in most cases, with foreign overseas investors.”
“It was disturbing to see advertisements in newspapers from a variety of Asian countries promoting New Zealand as a ‘gold mine’ from which to make a quick, tax-free profit, with NO stamp duty, NO capital gains, and NO limits on foreign property investment.”
“It’s about time the party was over for these greedy property speculators.”
It’s long overdue for the ‘taboo’ to be lifted on this issue.
“The Housing Lobby fully supports the introduction of a capital gains tax with an exemption on the family home,” concluded Ms Henry.
Sue Henry
Spokesperson
Housing Lobby
Ph (09) 575 6344
PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright:IAN WISHART IS TRYING TO ‘BREAK THE SILENCE’ ON THE KAHUI CASE – SO WHY, AND WHICH PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SILENCE HIM?
30 June 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright:
IAN WISHART IS TRYING TO ‘BREAK THE SILENCE’ ON THE KAHUI CASE – SO WHY, AND WHICH PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SILENCE HIM?
“As a New Zealander who passionately believes in freedom of expression, I am appalled and disgusted at this campaign to ‘silence’ author and publisher Ian Wishart who would be ‘Breaking the Silence’ on child abuse and the Kahui case – if people were not having their rights restricted to purchase his book’, says Penny Bright.
“It disgusts me that ‘Chris’ – who set up the facebook page –
www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ – has blatantly LIED to the public, by stating:
“Macsyna is about to release a book that will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.”
This is NOT true”.
In a Press Release yesterday, Ian Wishart confirmed,
“The Facebook page on Macsyna King is dishonest.
They have known all along that Macsyna has neither sought nor been offered any money or compensation for the book Breaking Silence by Ian Wishart.”
“This ‘Chris’ who set up the ‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ facebook page, is also LYING about the purpose of the ‘boycott’,” continued Ms Bright.
“Read for yourself what ‘Chris’ himself has stated as the purpose of the boycott:
‘Description
Macsyna King, the mother (and I use that in a purely biological sense and not a maternal one) of the Chris and Kru Kahui is about to release a tell all (and by all, I mean the bits she remembers which won’t incriminate her further) book about the tragic murder of her three month old twin babies.
I am trying to organize a boycott of this book and until such time as it is pulled from the shelves, all other Ian Wishart books and all other books by the publisher. Somebody like this should not be allowed to profit from preaching her perverted view of the horrific events which led to the deaths of the only two children who hadn’t already been taken from her by CYF’s.’
“How does ‘Chris’ or ANYONE know what exactly Macsyna King has said, without having read the book for themselves?
There has been a court case – resulting in no conviction over the deaths of the Kahui baby boys. There was effectively a ‘wall of silence’ – which Macsyna King is now trying to break, with the assistance of Ian Wishart. How is this anything but a ‘good’ thing? Did the Police not ask the right questions during the court case? Did Macsyna King take actions to help her boys – that the public don’t know about? According to Ian Wishart – YES.”
Here are some pivotal questions relating to Macsyna King that were asked yesterday on ‘Kiwiblog’, and Ian Wishart’s replies:
www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/06/macsyna_king_and_that_book.html#comment-847295
IAN WISHART DEFENDS HIMSELF ON ‘KIWIBLOG’
Ian Wishart (45) Says: June 29th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
1.If Macsyna was so concerned about the environment she was introducing her twins to she could have adopted them out to a family that could have ensured a safer and healthier environment.
(Ian Wishart) Macsyna didn’t realise someone had injured the twins.
2.If Macsyna suspected abuse or neglect from herself or others within her household she could have spoken up for her babies… yes, she could have spoken anonymously or otherwise to CYFS, the Police, a Not-for-profit, Plunket, and others. Her previous children are cared for by others, why not these babies?
She did not suspect abuse – she was as surprised as everyone else to discover it. She then spoke to Police to help gain a conviction
3.She could have kept her eyes open. Macsyna either never noticed or didn’t care about injuries caused to the twins in previous “attacks” or incidents.
The injuries had to be picked up by scans. Babies are incredibly fragile. She didn’t notice anything unusual
4.After the hospitalisation of her babies, Macsyna could have spoken to the Police fully about what she did know.
She did speak to police fully about what she knew
5.Macsyna could have encouraged others in her family to speak to the Police.
She turned her own brother in to police
6.Macsyna could have told her story to the court throughout the trial. Indeed she did do this, but why not the whole story (as suggested by Wishart)?
Macsyna answered the questions she was asked.
I asked some different questions. Ditto
8.Macsyna has even had multiple opportunities to talk to mainstream, sensitive interviewers where she could have told her story in a non-confrontational way.
Bollocks
As for compensation. I purchased a Domino’s pizza for lunch during one of the interviews, does that count?
What a bunch of armchair experts firing off half-cocked.
For an audio grab from the interviews, visit
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Why are there so many thousands of people who are now treating Ian Wishart as if he is the main enemy? It is NOT Ian Wishart who killed the Kahui twins,” Ms Bright continued.
“I don’t begrudge Ian Wishart making money from writing and publishing this book.That’s what he does for a living, and he has a family to look after.
Isn’t that what people want? The ‘silence’ about child abuse to be ‘broken’? Especially in this Kahui case?
If Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’, which he has taken the time to research and write, helps to reopen the Police inquiry into the killing of the Kahui baby boys, and results in a conviction, following LAWFUL DUE PROCESS – then that will surely be the outcome most people want?”
“I look forward to exercising my lawful right to buy and read ‘Breaking the Silence’, and hope thousands of other decent, thinking New Zealanders do likewise.”
“In my considered opinion, Paper Plus and The Warehouse should reconsider their decision not to stock Ian Wishart’s book – ‘Breaking the Silence’, particularly if the reasons upon which the threatened ‘boycott’ is based are false and the public have been seriously misled by ‘Chris’ who set up the ‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ face book site.”
“Ian Wishart is effectively under seige in defending our right to ‘freedom of expression’.
I strongly recommend all those who support our basic human right to freedom of expression to join Ian Wishart’s facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Break-the-Kahui-code-of-silence-support-the-new-book/184638478257810 ”
You can pre-order ‘BREAKING THE SILENCE” from here
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/newshop/enter.html
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
IAN WISHART IS TRYING TO ‘BREAK THE SILENCE’ ON THE KAHUI CASE – SO WHY ARE PEOPLE TRYING TO SILENCE HIM?
www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/06/macsyna_king_and_that_book.html#comment-847295
IAN WISHART DEFENDS HIMSELF ON ‘KIWIBLOG’
Ian Wishart (45) Says: June 29th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
1.If Macsyna was so concerned about the environment she was introducing her twins to she could have adopted them out to a family that could have ensured a safer and healthier environment.
(Ian Wishart) Macsyna didn’t realise someone had injured the twins.
2.If Macsyna suspected abuse or neglect from herself or others within her household she could have spoken up for her babies… yes, she could have spoken anonymously or otherwise to CYFS, the Police, a Not-for-profit, Plunket, and others. Her previous children are cared for by others, why not these babies?
She did not suspect abuse – she was as surprised as everyone else to discover it. She then spoke to Police to help gain a conviction
3.She could have kept her eyes open. Macsyna either never noticed or didn’t care about injuries caused to the twins in previous “attacks” or incidents.
The injuries had to be picked up by scans. Babies are incredibly fragile. She didn’t notice anything unusual
4.After the hospitalisation of her babies, Macsyna could have spoken to the Police fully about what she did know.
She did speak to police fully about what she knew
5.Macsyna could have encouraged others in her family to speak to the Police.
She turned her own brother in to police
6.Macsyna could have told her story to the court throughout the trial. Indeed she did do this, but why not the whole story (as suggested by Wishart)?
Macsyna answered the questions she was asked.
I asked some different questions. Ditto
8.Macsyna has even had multiple opportunities to talk to mainstream, sensitive interviewers where she could have told her story in a non-confrontational way.
Bollocks
As for compensation. I purchased a Domino’s pizza for lunch during one of the interviews, does that count?
What a bunch of armchair experts firing off half-cocked.
For an audio grab from the interviews, visit
___________________________________________________________________________________
I DEFEND IAN WISHART ON KIWIBLOG:
publicwatchdog (752) Says: June 29th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
“That means we can boycott the book, and any other books by this publisher – Howling at the Moon. Wishart could have redeemed himself. If he had published this book with the intention to bring justice in this matter or to hand over the guilty killer. Sadly, Ian Wishart has positioned himself as sensationalist, and undermined any previous reputation he had for investigative reporting.” __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Really? How about getting the FACTS – from Ian Wishart directly? __________________________________________________________________________________________________
News release on Ian Wishart’s Kahui case book, Breaking Silence
NEWS RELEASE FROM IAN WISHART
The Facebook page on Macsyna King is dishonest.
They have known all along that Macsyna has neither sought nor been offered any money or compensation for the book Breaking Silence by Ian Wishart.
Still, the anonymous woman behind the Boycott Macsyna site continues to peddle her claim, knowing it to be untrue. ______________________________________________________________________________________________
EVIDENCE THAT THE ‘BOYCOTT MACSYNA’ FACEBOOK SITE IS BASED ON LIES – THAT
“Macsyna is about to release a book that will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.”
www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
Boycott the Macsyna King Book
About
Macsyna King is about to release a book which will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.
Description
Macsyna King, the mother (and I use that in a purely biological sense and not a maternal one) of the Chris and Kru Kahui is about to release a tell all (and by all, I mean the bits she remembers which won’t incriminate her further) book about the tragic murder of her three month old twin babies.
I am trying to organize a boycott of this book and until such time as it is pulled from the shelves, all other Ian Wishart books and all other books by the publisher. Somebody like this should not be allowed to profit from preaching her perverted view of the horrific events which led to the deaths of the only two children who hadn’t already been taken from her by CYF’s.
Website tvnz.co.nz/national-news/inquest-… ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IAN WISHART CONFIRMS: ‘Ms King was not getting any money out of the book’
www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10735205
Anti-Kahui book group is a ‘lynch mob’
Mr Wishart has spoken out against the angry Facebook posts on the ‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ page in an interview with TVNZ. Many of the posts accuse Ms King of profiting from the death of her sons and call for violence against her. ………….
Ms King was not getting any money out of the book, Mr Wishart said.
He said he would be collecting profits from sales, but most would go to book stores and he would be left with a “wage on the table”. _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Who from the ‘Kiwiblog LYNCH MOB’ would like to have a go at me – because you don’t like the FACTS and HONEST OPINION that I am putting forward?
Fill your boots.
I support Ian Wishart 100% on this one. Good on him.
If Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’, which he has taken the time to research and write, helps to reopen the Police inquiry into the killing of the Kahui baby boys, and results in a conviction, following LAWFUL DUE PROCESS – then that will surely be the outcome most people want?
I don’t begrudge Ian Wishart making money from writing and publishing this book.
That’s what he does for a living, and he has a family to look after.
Isn’t that what people want? The ‘silence’ about child abuse to be ‘broken’?
Especially in this Kahui case? Full credit to Ian Wishart.
I look forward to exercising my lawful right to buy and read ‘Breaking the Silence’, and hope thousands of other decent, thinking New Zealanders do likewise.
Penny Bright
PRESS RELEASE: Sue Henry Housing Lobby Spokesperson: ” Leave vulnerable elderly State Housing tenants alone!”
27 June 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Sue Henry Housing Lobby Spokesperson:
” Leave vulnerable elderly State Housing tenants alone!”
“After Housing Minister Phil Heatley’s confirmation on TVNZ’s “Q & A” programme (Sunday 26 June 2011) that National intend to break their promises to State Housing tenants, and dismantle and privatise State Housing stock – there are further issues that need clarification”, says Sue Henry Housing Lobby Spokesperson.
tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/phil-heatley-interview-transcript-4262392
“The majority of State Housing tenants receiving the Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS), each year, have to fully disclose all forms of income, and supply evidential statements from the appropriate departments, for an annual review by Housing New Zealand.
So, technically, an ‘annual review’ for those State Housing tenants receiving the IRRS is already in place.
Those paying market rents do not have to disclose their income details because they are not applying for the Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS).
_________________________________________________________________________________
“PHIL [HEATLEY – MINISTER OF HOUSING:]
Well, the interesting thing is that those people paying a full rent – we don’t know anything about them.
We don’t know if they’ve got investment properties.
We don’t know if they’ve got significant assets, own businesses.
Because they pay a full rent, we historically have not asked them those questions.”
_________________________________________________________________________________
“Annually those paying market rents will simply get a statement from Housing New Zealand of their rent increase for the following year,” explained Sue Henry.
“The Minister also said surplus houses would be handed over to charities ie: third sector organisations like the Salvation Army:
__________________________________________________________________________________
“GUYON The other big aspect of this is strengthening this third-party sector, if you like, the non-governmental organisations – the Salvation Army, for example – and letting them take over a core amount of social housing.
You originally talked to of perhaps 20% of the Housing New Zealand houses going into that charity sector, if you like. Is that still your thinking?
PHIL Look, I just have to correct you there. We had an independent review team that actually were from-
GUYON They recommended the 20% figure?
PHIL And they recommended the 20%.
We don’t envisage that many surplus state houses being passed over.
What we’re doing is looking at how we can boost the community-housing sector because, actually, they’re key here.
What we’re saying is as a government is, ‘Look, we can’t house all these people alone.’
We want to focus on those most in need, so what were going to do is pass cash, some surplus state houses and also surplus Crown land to these housing organisations across New Zealand and say to them,
‘Look, use these assets to house a lot of these people on the housing continuum that probably aren’t desperate enough to have a state house, but can’t quite go into private rental or ownership.’ “
____________________________________________________________________________________
There are NO surplus State houses,” states Sue Henry.
“There is a shortage.
In 1998 there were 8691 on the State Housing waiting list even after National sold off 13,000 houses as ‘surplus to requirements’.
The State Housing stock should NOT be sold off – ie: PRIVATISED, whether to supposedly ‘not-for-profit’ charities, or NGOs, or to the ‘for profit’ private sector.”
“With there no longer being tenure protection for the elderly this new policy puts them at risk.
The elderly and widows including those in Council pensioner units that Housing New Zealand took over should not be subjected to harassment and intimidation as they have been under previous National Governments.
The elderly should not be subjected to unnecessary change, and unstability.
Older citizens should feel secure in their homes, able to live out whatever life they have left in ‘peace and quiet enjoyment’.
This includes retired servicemen and widows, (World War 2 veterans) who were told that their State houses were permanent dwellings for the rest of their natural lives.
The Housing Minister Phil Heatley is acting in a very callous manner, and has no business trying to shift the housing ‘goal posts’ for these vulnerable elderly people in their twilight years,” concluded Sue Henry.
Sue Henry Spokesperson
Housing Lobby
Ph (09) 575 6344
____________________________________________________________
BACKGROUNDER: tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/phil-heatley-interview-transcript-4262392
PAUL The government’s being deciding some fundamental questions about state housing – who’s eligible for a state house, how long for, and even who should provide that state house.
And there are some big changes coming to the government’s $15 billion worth of social housing. As Q+A revealed last year, the state house for life is a thing of the past.
To find out exactly what is intended, political editor Guyon Espiner is with Housing Minister Phil Heatley.
GUYON Thanks, Paul, and thank you, Minister, for joining us. We appreciate your time.
From July, you are effectively going to take 4500 people off the waiting list – people who are categorised C and D – in other words, they have lower housing needs than the urgent A and B category. What circumstances are the people in that you are going to remove from the waiting list?
PHIL HEATLEY – Housing Minister Well, there’ll still the categories, the waiting list – the A, B, C and D categories – so A and B are the most serious and severe housing need; C and D is much less need – they’re already in accommodation and are just simply wanting a state house.
But what we’re going to do – keep the A, B, C and D, but only the As and Bs will be going into state houses, so essentially they’re on the state-housing waiting list.
The Cs and Ds will be on a housing-needs register. They may very well in time qualify for a state house and move to an A or B category if their situation becomes severe, but they will move into other accommodation or remain where they are.
GUYON So what sort of income threshold are we talking about? Do you do that? Do you categorise by income?
PHIL Oh, correct.
GUYON I’m trying to get a sense of- for us to judge whether this is fair or not. I guess we need to know what are the circumstances that a person who is in a C or D category is actually in?
What level of income? What are their circumstances generally?
PHIL Well, broadly speaking, the A, B, C and D categories won’t change at all.
It’s just that the As and Bs are more serious housing need, so what we do is we look at income, we look at the number of children in the household, the size of household that they need, we look at unique aspects to the family – there might be disability, mental-health issues, perhaps they’re elderly, perhaps they’re on a benefit.
So we look at income, yes, but there’s a wide range of matters that we consider.
GUYON Because it begs the question why they would then be lining up for a state house.
I mean, surely they believe that they have a need to go into a state house, or else they wouldn’t be queuing up.
PHIL Well, this is the big change that every government over the generations – Labour, National, Labour, then National – what they’ve done is they’ve said anyone can apply for a state house.
You can be on $200,000 a year and apply for a state house, so there’s people on the waiting list now who will never get a state house, cos their incomes are very high.
They know it, they’ve been told it, but they’re allowed to apply. What we’re saying is, yes, you can still put your name down for a housing-needs register, but only those who are A and B categories – that’s serious housing need, significant housing need – will be able to get a state house.
So what we’re doing is we’re saying that the state houses that the state provides are for those who have genuine need.
GUYON And what happens to those people who no longer qualify, who are ineligible for a Housing New Zealand house, when they go to your register of accommodation? Will they get income-related rents in those other houses?
PHIL Well, as I say, they’ve always been able to do it, and they’ll continue to be able to go on a housing register, but now we’re giving them certainty.
They understand that it’s not a state house they’re going to get.
What we’ll be doing is working with them through the Options and Advice service to source some housing if they haven’t already got it, and most of them have housing in the private sector where they’ve got their accommodation supplement.
GUYON Right, so they won’t have income-related rents, where you only have 25% of your income at a maximum.
PHIL Correct.
GUYON So they will be worse off, won’t they?
PHIL Well, at the moment, as I say, they’re not in a state house.
They’re categorised as a C and D under the current system, which has been going for decades.
They could never expect to get a state house.
Now we’re saying to them, ‘Look, you’re not going to get a state house. We are happy to help you get housing in the private sector, and you could get the accommodation supplement with that, or you could move into the community-housing sector,’ and this is why we’re putting so much capital into the community-housing sector.
GUYON And I want to talk about that a bit later, but are you talking about rolling this policy out for existing tenants if you win the election?
PHIL Correct.
So at the moment what we’re saying is that from the 1st of July, any new tenant enrolling with Housing New Zealand will go on the waiting list.
If they’ve got significant housing need, they’ll be categorised as an A or B tenant, and then they could possible- will get a state house.
They qualify for a state house, and so they’ll move through the system.
Those who are C and D applicants will go to the Options and Advice service, and they will be looked at being placed in the private sector, perhaps with a government subsidy or into the community-housing sector.
GUYON But if you roll this out for existing tenants, then you’re effectively talking about booting people out of state houses who you don’t think have a serious enough need.
PHIL Well, yes, and the second step. So the first step is for any new tenant from the 1st of July this year.
After the election if we’re re-elected, we’re going to be rolling this out for current tenants.
And what we’ll be doing is essentially saying to all current tenants that you will go on to a reviewable tenancy meeting, that you’ll no longer have your state house for life, you’ll be reviewed after three years, except, I must say, we’re not doing it for current tenants who are elderly, so those who are on the pension, and we’re not doing it for current tenants who are disabled, because their circumstances won’t be changing.
GUYON So how many Cs and Ds, effectively, are there in the 70,000 state houses?
PHIL Oh, well, we think- Well, currently, there’s about 4000 to 5000 state-house tenants at the moment who pay a full rent, meaning they could actually be renting from the private landlord next door, and yet they’re in a state house, and we don’t think that’s right. So those particular people will be- obviously go into reviewable tenancy, and they’ll go through that process.
GUYON So I repeat the question – how many people are you looking at moving?
I mean, how many people are there who you don’t think should be in a state house? Just 5000?
There must be significantly more than that.
PHIL Well, the interesting thing is that those people paying a full rent – we don’t know anything about them. We don’t know if they’ve got investment properties.
We don’t know if they’ve got significant assets, own businesses.
Because they pay a full rent, we historically have not asked them those questions.
What we’re going to need to do is from 1st July next year if we’re the government is go through and have a conversation with those tenants and say to them, ‘Actually, can you afford to rent privately, because we need the state house for someone desperately needy on the waiting list.’
And, yes, there could be many many people who end up moving out of the state houses. I
n fact, we expect that will be the case, and we’re going to have to work with them over a period of time.
GUYON So you’re going to have some messy situations here, though, aren’t you, because there is going to be some people who simply don’t want to move. Housing New Zealand spent the thick end of $850,000 trying to evict some people from Pomare. I mean, if some just don’t want to go, how are you going to move them on?
PHIL Well, the interesting thing is that the current law allows us to move people out of state houses.
It’s just it’s always been government policy that you don’t do that.
And, I guess, ultimately it’s for New Zealanders to judge. If you’ve got someone in a state house who’s earning $80,000 a year and someone on the waiting list who’s only on $15,000 a year, they’ve got three kids, they’re trying to raise them by themselves, quite simply, as Housing Minister, I’m comfortable with saying to the person in the state house who’s relatively wealthy, ‘Move on. Go into the private sector. I need to house this poor person.’
GUYON You might or might not win that argument, but how do you actually do it?
PHIL Well, we do it by working with the people. Essentially, Housing New Zealand will need to front those people who are on high incomes in state houses, say to them, ‘Look, you’re on a reviewable tenancy.
Tell us more about your situation. Can we help you into other home- housing situations?
Renting in the private sector, purchasing, perhaps moving into community housing.’
In either case, we’re going to have to work with them. It’s not going to be rocking up at day one, and I’d imagine that we’ll be working with them, and Housing New Zealand say they’ll be working with them over a period of six to 12 months.
GUYON Have you looked at this reviewable tenancy in Australia?
PHIL Yes, we have, and there’s a number of reviewable-tenancy type sort of scenarios in Australia. Sometimes they put people on to fixed-term tenancy, like three or five or 10 years.
GUYON It hasn’t been very successful, has it, because I read a review by Heriot-Watt University – a review was done on this – and they said that 1% of 3500 reviewable tenancies – in only 1% of cases, people moved on. And they’ve had since 2006, so people aren’t moving on in Australia.
PHIL Yes, but the difference- GUYON Is that your reading of their system?
PHIL Yes, except the difference in Australia in that in the first instance and over the decades, Australians have been much tougher in determining who moved into public housing in the first place.
In New Zealand, as I say, anyone has been able to rock up and put their name on the waiting list, and therefore we’ve got hundreds and thousands of families who moved into a state house 20 years ago, their four kids have left home, they’re by themselves, rattling round in a four-bedroom house.
And, quite frankly, when there’s desperate people on the waiting list, we can’t afford to have that.
GUYON Sure, but one of the points that was raised in the Australian experience is incentive.
Now, if you’re in a state house and you know someone’s going to review your tenancy, there is a temptation, perhaps, to refuse opportunity or to not earn that extra income, because you may think, ‘Well, I’ll lose my house if I take this job or I earn more money.’
PHIL And that’s something we’ll have to deal with over time, but when we-
GUYON Well, how do you deal with that? Because you create the incentive to stay there, don’t you?
PHIL Yes, and that’s correct. And one of the things that Housing New Zealand and the Department of Building and Housing are now looking very closely at is actually what incentives can we put in place to encourage people to move out of their state house?
GUYON What are they?
PHIL Well, for example, you can get involved in shifting expenses.
You can give assurances to the new private landlord that this tenant is of good character and that if it doesn’t work out over a period of, say, six months, that we’ll actually find another replacement tenant so that landlords have got continuity of tenancy.
And we can look at issues around bonds.
There’s a lot of tools we can use to encourage people to move on. But, ultimately, if someone shouldn’t be in a state house, they need to move on. Housing New Zealand will make that call because we have to house the people in state housing who are in the most desperate need.
GUYON I understand that. I wonder, though, what the social impacts of this will be.
I mean, if you are in a community where people are moving on every three years, it’s not a long time. I mean, people like to lay down roots and form a community and form bonds in a community, don’t they?
And you’ve got children in school, perhaps. I just wonder what sort of social impact you’ll have if you’re churning people through. Are you worried about that?
PHIL Well, it is a concern to us because we know that families, you know, have got a kiddie at the local school, they go to the local doctor and, as you say, they’ve got roots in the community.
But I think it’s important to note that because what we’re saying is that new tenancies- tenants coming into state housing will be, you know- are those who are most in need, we wouldn’t imagine that their situation changes, you know, hugely over time.
Certainly over a period of five or 10 years, we would expect them to improve their circumstances.
In fact, that’s what we want for them, but the reality is that most won’t. And what we’re dealing with around the edges here are those current tenants who have been in state houses for sometimes 20, 30, and I can tell you there’s some who have been in there for 40 years, whose circumstances have changed immensely, and they really shouldn’t be in a state house.
GUYON So would you imagine a lot of people will get rollover tenancies and contracts – that they’ll be there for three years, then that’ll get rolled over?
PHIL There’ll be a lot like that and particularly the elderly.
I mean, their circumstances won’t change, and we’re giving them those assurances that – the seriously disabled – we’re giving them assurances that, ‘Look, when we review you, it’ll just be a desktop review.
We won’t be knocking on your door, because we understand you’re on the pension.’
GUYON So they will actually be reviewed?
PHIL Oh, yes, no, what we’re doing- what we’re saying is that everyone will go on a reviewable tenancy in three years, but the disabled and, of course, the elderly, who we know their circumstances are highly unlikely to have changed unless they’ve won Lotto or something, essentially what we’d be doing is just doing a desktop review, not troubling them, and then that will just roll over.
GUYON The other big aspect of this is strengthening this third-party sector, if you like, the non-governmental organisations – the Salvation Army, for example – and letting them take over a core amount of social housing. You originally talked to of perhaps 20% of the Housing New Zealand houses going into that charity sector, if you like. Is that still your thinking?
PHIL Look, I just have to correct you there. We had an independent review team that actually were from-
GUYON They recommended the 20% figure?
PHIL And they recommended the 20%. We don’t envisage that many surplus state houses being passed over. What we’re doing is looking at how we can boost the community-housing sector because, actually, they’re key here. What we’re saying is as a government is, ‘Look, we can’t house all these people alone.’
We want to focus on those most in need, so what were going to do is pass cash, some surplus state houses and also surplus Crown land to these housing organisations across New Zealand and say to them,
‘Look, use these assets to house a lot of these people on the housing continuum that probably aren’t desperate enough to have a state house, but can’t quite go into private rental or ownership.’
And they’re saying that they’re willing to do that, and they’re quite enthusiastic about it.
GUYON OK, just a minute or so to go. I do want to ask you about state housing in Christchurch.
How many Housing New Zealand state houses were there in that red zone of 5100 who were going to get- basically have to abandon their land.
PHIL Yeah, well, people forget, of course. We’ve got 6000 state houses in Canterbury.
There’s about 182 in the red zone. Just under half of those are still tenanted, and then we’ve got about 280 in the orange zone. So there’s a significant amount of state houses down there, and we’re obviously having to have a conversation with our tenants about them being relocated.
GUYON And can we handle that? Have we got housing problems as a result of this?
PHIL Well, to date, Housing New Zealand have managed their tenancies down there – as I say, there’s 6000 of them – very very well, and we envisage that because of the long time frame that we’ve got, that we’re signalling in order to move people out and into alternative housing, which, again, could be other state houses outside the red zone, they’ll do that work. We’re pretty confident that we’re able to do that.
GUYON And you had temporary housing, like even caravans, etc, in Christchurch.
PHIL Yes.
GUYON I mean, have they been necessary? Are people using those?
PHIL Well, we invested in leasing a bunch of campervans – about 350 at first – and we’re phasing those out. They’ll all disappear in August because they’re needed for the World Cup. Very little usage.
We’ve been stunned, actually, about how people have self-helped, but what we knew at the time when the earthquakes had just happened is that we didn’t want people sleeping in the streets and in the bushes, in the parks, and we got those campervans.
They were there as a contingency, haven’t been taken up, but we’re still pleased we made that choice.
GUYON All right, that’s about all we’ve got time for, but, Minister, thanks very much for joining us. We appreciate your time.
PHIL My pleasure.
KIWIBLOG DEBATE OVER HONE HARAWIRA/ MANA PARTY / TE TAI TOKERAU RESULTS:
26 June 2011 Inventory2 (6,431) Says: June 26th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Here’s a serious question for Penny Bright. After the Botany by-election, she was forecasting the demise of the National Party based on the low turnout for the by-election, which was entirely expected.
Based on that, does she believe that Hone Harawira has a mandate from the electors of Te Tai Tokerau given that: * 33% of eligible, enrolled voters turned out to vote, and * Hone Harawira got less than 50% of the votes cast, and *On that basis, Hone Harawira is supported by around 16% or eligible Te Tai Tokerau voters?
As I began, this is a serious question. Ought there now be fresh consideration of the abolition of the Maori seats given that this was as high-profile as a by-election gets (far moreso than Botany), yet two-thirds of registered electors were too apathetic to vote? Compared to the Te Tai Tokerau numbers, Jami-Lee Ross’ result in Botany was an absolute landslide. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ errr.. how about some FACTS to underpin your arguably ‘not-so-considered’ opinions ‘Inventory 2’?
1) Most people seem to have completely forgotten about the yet to be counted Te Tai Tokerau 1,916 ‘special votes’.
So – at this stage any talk of Hone Harawira’s majority is arguably premature.
At the moment his majority is 867 over Labour’s Kelvin Davis – but with nearly 2000 votes to be counted – it is highly likely to end up being far greater than that.
2) Voter turnout. Most people have missed counting the ‘polled’ votes with the ‘special’ votes.
Counting both – the voter turnout in the Te Tai Tokerau 2011 by-election was 41.36%.
Which is significantly more than the voter turnout in the 2011 Botany by-election – which was 36.44%
3) Drop in electorate voter turnout.
Comparison between the Botany and Te Tai Tokerau 2011 by-elections:
Hmmmm………. fascinating that no one else that I know of appears to have discovered this rather significant statistic?
a) In Botany 2008 – the electorate voter turnout was 76.29%
In the Botany by-election 2011 – the voter turnout was 36.44%
(A drop in voter turnout of almost 40%)
b) In Te Tai Tokerau 2008 the voter turnout was 63.25%
In Te Tai Tokerau 2011 the voter turnout was 41.36%
(A drop in voter turnout of almost 22% )
ie: The drop in % voter turnout in the Botany by-election was almost double that of Te Tai Tokerau?
4) Comparison between electorate vote majorities of winning candidates, for Botany and Te Tai Tokerau.
a) 2008 Botany election – Pansy Wong 10,872 majority over Labour’s Koro TAWA
2011 Botany by-election – Jami-Lee Ross 3,972 majority over Labour’s Michael WOOD.
Majority ‘slashed’ by 6,900
b) 2008 Te Tai Tokerau election – Hone Harawira 6,308 majority over Kelvin Davis
2011 Te Tai Tokerau by-election – Hone Harawira 867 majority over Kelvin Davis
(1,916 special votes yet to counted.)
Majority ‘slashed’ by 5,541
EXCEPT 1,916 ‘SPECIAL’ VOTES HAVE YET TO BE COUNTED?
5) Comparison between total number of votes cast for winning candidates, for Botany and Te Tai Tokerau
a) 2008 Botany election – Pansy Wong 17,382
2011 Botany by-election – Jami-Lee Ross 8,352
Vote ‘slashed’ by 9,030
b) 2008 Te Tai Tokerau election – Hone Harawira 12,019
2011 Te Tai Tokerau by-election – Hone Harawira 5,611
Vote ‘slashed?’ by 6,408
(EXCEPT 1,916 ‘SPECIAL’ VOTES HAVE YET TO BE COUNTED) _____________________________________________________________________________________
Comparison of NZH headlines:
John Armstrong NZH – Botany
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10710626
“Botany byelection loss holds silver lining for Labour Party”
John Armstrong NZH – Te Tai Tokerau
www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10734620&ref=nzbopt
“Risky tactics leave Hone bruised” __________________________________________________________________________________________________
You can try putting your ‘spin’ machine into turbo drive – but those are the FACTS.
Kind regards, Penny Bright
PRESS RELEASE: Sue Henry Spokesperson Housing Lobby: “STOP PRIVATISATION OF STATE HOUSING ASSETS!”
25 June 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Response from Sue Henry Spokesperson Housing Lobby:
“STOP PRIVATISATION OF STATE HOUSING ASSETS!”
www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10734409
“Thousands to come off housing list” By Simon Collins Saturday Jun 25, 2011 ________________________________________________________________
“With the continuation of Auckland’s serious housing crisis and families still languishing in sheds, garages and overcrowded and sub-standard accommodation, including those left homeless in Christchurch – the last thing any decent Government should be doing is privatising the state housing stock, using charities such as the Salvation Army and ‘trusts’ in a mixed economy to do it,” says Sue Henry, Spokesperson for the Housing Lobby.
“It is totally unacceptable to have Government policies in the 21st century that create instability, transience and homelessness.
There are several other aspects that are very concerning:
The ‘housing crisis’ will not be fixed by taking people off the waiting list.
Prime Minister John Key promised that there would be no asset sales in this first term of government.
This is what John Key promised on 14 April 2008:
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00195.htm
“Transcript: Agenda IV’s John Key Monday, 14 April 2008, 10:57 am
Article: Agenda
GUYON Alright you rightly point out it was sold by the National government in 1998 now that brings us to this position. What is your position now as a National Party on state asset sales?
JOHN Well National’s had some time to reflect on that and the position that we’ve decided to have is the following one. That in the first term of the National government there will be no state assets that will be sold either partially or fully.
GUYON So no state assets, you’re completely firm on that?
JOHN That’s right.”
________________________________________________________________
“But Housing Minister Phil Heatley has said ‘some iwi groups wanted to take over managing state houses rather than buying them, but the Government wanted to sell them.’
Prime Minister John Key is breaking this promise.
The proposed sale of any state housing stock must cease forthwith.”
Housing Lobby Spokesperson Sue Henry drew attention to what Prime Minister John Key had stated on 12 March 2007 – that he didn’t ‘ favour a move back to market-related rents.
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10428292
Before the 2008 election, National’s stated policy on housing, as declared by Phil Heatley on 22 July 2008, included the following:
National Party promised to keep at least the existing number of state houses if it wins this year’s election.
National would not sell state houses to outside investors, as it did in the 1990s, and would use the proceeds of sales to tenants to buy or lease new state houses.
“We won’t be running down the state housing stock. We acknowledge that we need it.”
Mr Heatley said the party would now keep Labour’s policy of fixing state house rents at only 25 per cent of the tenants’ incomes except for tenants on high incomes.
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10522930
“This will be yet another broken promise,” says Ms Henry.
“Why then would the ‘social housing unit’ (which should also be scrapped forthwith because it has no public mandate), be asked to ‘propose a new system of subsidising housing costs to replace the income-related rent subsidy for state houses?,” she continued.
[He [Housing Minister Phil Heatley] told the Weekend Herald that the new social housing unit, due to start in the Department of Building and Housing on July 1, would be asked to propose a new system of subsidising housing costs to replace the current income-related rents for state houses and accommodation supplement for the private sector within the next six to 12 months.’]
“This is ludicrous.
The Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) works extremely well for tenants trying to manage on a low income. The system is not broken. It doesn’t need to be tampered with by vested interests,” concluded Ms Henry.
Sue Henry Spokesperson Housing Lobby
Ph (09) 575 6344
-
Archives
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (108)
- May 2011 (107)
- April 2011 (110)
- March 2011 (53)
- February 2011 (25)
- January 2011 (7)
- December 2010 (4)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (13)
- September 2010 (12)
- August 2010 (24)
-
Categories
- 9/11 TRUTH
- Anti-GE
- Auckland Mayoral campaign
- Botany By-election 2011
- Centre for Public Integrity
- CLG REPORT:
- Fighting corruption in NZ
- Fighting corruption internationally
- Fighting water privatisation in NZ
- Howick by-election campaign
- Human rights
- i watch news (Centre for Public Integrity)
- Internationally significant information
- Jane Burgermeister Report
- Metrowater
- Stop the $uper City
- Transparency in Govt spending
- TRUTHOUT
- Uncategorized
- VINCE SIEMER REPORT
- WORLD WATER WARRIORS
- YOU TUBE: John Clarke and Bryan Dawe
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
The Watchdog 