Latest news with #Goldsmith
Scoop
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
New Law To Give Victims Final Say Over Sex Offenders' Name Suppressions
Parliament has unanimously passed legislation that will ensure the courts cannot issue a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence, unless the victim agrees to it. The Victims of Sexual Violence Bill had its third reading late on Wednesday night. It also amends the law so that children under the age of 12 will not be able to be questioned about whether they consented to sex. The Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said this made it crystal clear children could not consent to abuse. New Zealand was now moving into line with many other countries in outlawing it. "It was well overdue and needed to be done." The law further closes what Goldsmith said was a legislative gap, by ensuring the victims of all sexual crimes, including intimate visual recordings offences, were automatically given name suppression. "These changes will help ensure victims of sexual violence and their needs are returned to the heart of the justice system. We've been clear from day one that victims are our priority as we work to restore law and order," Goldsmith said in a media release. He said at present victims' views on suppression only had to be taken into account by the courts. Long battles over name suppression retraumatised victims, as did the inability to discuss what happened to them and to warn others. Goldsmith told Morning Report he was concerned about people who had gone through the court process and then found there was a permanent name suppression for an offender and there was no opportunity to talk about their experience and most importantly, warn others. "We're talking about people who have been convicted of sexual crimes and they need to be named and held to account." While the legal profession had expressed some concern around reducing the powers of judges, he said it was a significant change focused on the needs of victims and a chance to do things differently. Police Minister Mark Mitchell spoke on behalf of the Justice Minister during the third reading. "It is abhorrent that the law allows questions about whether children enjoyed or agreed to sexual activity. We're fixing that. "It is unconscionable that victims feel silenced by our laws especially when they've braved the scrutiny of the court process to prove their case. We're fixing that too." Mitchell said victims had been clear that name suppression settings had disempowered victims, prevented them from speaking out about their experiences and warning others. New Zealanders also believed the way children were questioned in court was unacceptable, Mitchell said. MP Kahurangi Carter spoke in favour of the bill on behalf of the Green Party. "I know that we all feel this really heavily for victims under 12. It seems so obvious. "I'm glad today we're bringing our legislation, our laws into line with what is right." Goldsmith recognised some victims would not want to make the decision about name suppression themselves. In those cases, the decision would rest with the courts. He believed the changes would assist in ensuring 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029. While the bill was passed unanimously, there were no Te Pāti Māori MPs in the House at the time.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Victims to get final say over sex offenders' name suppressions
Parliament has unanimously passed legislation that will ensure the courts cannot issue a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence, unless the victim agrees to it. The Victims of Sexual Violence Bill had its third reading late on Wednesday night. It also amends the law so that children under the age of 12 will not be able to be questioned about whether they consented to sex. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said this made it crystal clear children could not consent to abuse. The law further closes what Goldsmith said was a legislative gap, by ensuring the victims of all sexual crimes, including intimate visual recordings offences, were automatically given name suppression. "These changes will help ensure victims of sexual violence and their needs are returned to the heart of the justice system. We've been clear from day one that victims are our priority as we work to restore law and order," Goldsmith said in a media release. He said at present victims' views on suppression only had to be taken into account by the courts. Long battles over name suppression retraumatised victims, as did the inability to discuss what happened to them and to warn others. Police Minister Mark Mitchell spoke on behalf of the Justice Minister during the third reading. "It is abhorrent that the law allows questions about whether children enjoyed or agreed to sexual activity. We're fixing that. "It is unconscionable that victims feel silenced by our laws especially when they've braved the scrutiny of the court process to prove their case. We're fixing that too." Mitchell said victims had been clear that name suppression settings had disempowered victims, prevented them from speaking out about their experiences and warning others. New Zealanders also believed the way children were questioned in court was unacceptable, Mitchell said. MP Kahurangi Carter spoke in favour of the bill on behalf of the Green Party. "I know that we all feel this really heavily for victims under 12. It seems so obvious. "I'm glad today we're bringing our legislation, our laws into line with what is right." Goldsmith recognised some victims would not want to make the decision about name suppression themselves. In those cases, the decision would rest with the courts. He believed the changes would assist in ensuring 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029. While the bill was passed unanimously, there were no Te Pāti Māori MPs in the House at the time.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Government Sabotages Settlement: Te Pāti Māori Backs Te Whānau-Ā-Apanui
Te Pāti Māori stands in solidarity with Te Whānau-ā-Apanui after revelations the Government is looking to derail their almost completed Treaty settlement. Minister Goldsmith has stated that the Government will not budge on its position that the Crown is sovereign. They are seeking to remove the 'sovereignty clause' agreed to under the previous Labour government. This is not just a broken promise it is a betrayal of whakapapa, a direct assault on mana, and a deliberate act of sabotage by Minister Paul Goldsmith and the Crown. 'The government sees tino rangatiratanga as a threat, not a Treaty obligation' said Te Pāti Māori Co-leader Rawiri Waititi. Te Whānau-ā-Apanui retains ownership of over 90% of their whenua and has maintained undisturbed access and authority over their moana since the first encounter with Captain Cook on 30 October 1769 and after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Te Kaha June 14, 1840. They have never ceded sovereignty not through conquest, not through legislation, and certainly not through a modern-day settlement process. To demand that they dilute their tino rangatiratanga to finalise a deal is a continuation of colonial arrogance, an insult to their tīpuna, and is offensive to their future. Te Pāti Māori makes this solemn commitment today: Following the 2026 General Election, Te Pāti Māori will work alongside Te Whānau-ā-Apanui to honour and implement every aspiration, every commitment, and every clause of their negotiated settlement with their tino rangatiratanga fully intact. 'We will not allow colonial politics to destroy what iwi have fought for across generations. We will support any iwi who choose to pause or walk away from settlements that demand the erasure of their sovereignty in exchange for a cheque! 'This Government may stall justice, but it will not stop it. 'Te Whānau-ā-Apanui is not negotiating to be ruled. They are asserting their independence. And we stand with them' concluded Waititi.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Treaty Negotiations Minister Says Settlements With Iwi Can't Be 'Open Ended'
The Treaty Negotiations Minister says money and time spent on progressing settlements with iwi can't be "open ended". Paul Goldsmith told reporters the process "can't be as long as forever." It comes as NZ First is drafting a member's bill forcing Aotearoa's largest iwi, Ngāpuhi, into a single commercial settlement. Last week Goldsmith said it was the government's preference to have one commercial settlement for Ngāpuhi, and on Tuesday said he wouldn't put a timeline on concluding that. He wouldn't say whether there should be a limit on the amount of money or time spent on reaching a settlement, but said he wasn't comfortable spending as much or as long as it took. "I don't think it can be open ended. Can't be as long as forever. "We do need to make progress at some time, but we haven't put an exact date." When asked if it would be within the political term, he said he wouldn't make any commitments around this, "it's only 18 months". "There's a tension between - we don't want to impose an unrealistic deadline, but likewise, we don't want things to go on past 2040 when we want to be celebrating our bicentenary. "We're encouraging proper movement as best we can." He said currently the various hapū of Ngāpuhi were trying to get an agreement around a mandate to negotiate, "and we're still at that stage." Labour's Peeni Henare - of Ngāpuhi descent - said Goldsmith's comments had "fiscal envelope tones", referring to 1994 when the then government suggested capping the amount allocated for settlements. "It's certainly got fiscal envelope tones to it, and that's what they tried to do to our people in the 1990s. "I suspect that while it might not be an official policy of this government, it's front of mind in terms of the expenditure on settlement." In regards to Jones' potential Members Bill, Henare said "Ngāpuhi is unique". "Whatever Mr Jones thinks is going to bring Ngāpuhi to the table, he is misguided if he thinks forcing a bill to bring Ngāpuhi to the table is going to do that. "I think it's going to be a dismal failure by him and this government." He said it would go against the "good faith" provisions that had seen settlements conclude. "If they do that, I think they're setting a really bad precedence." Labour leader Chris Hipkins also said he did not think sending "veiled threats" was useful. He said everyone needed to continue negotiating in good faith. Hipkins said the National government's "hostile position" towards Māori was likely to make Treaty settlements in the next few years "very, very difficult to achieve". He referenced the discussion around the "agree to disagree" clause, which he called an "elegant way out of the issue" of determining who was sovereign. In 2023, the previous Labour government initialled a Deed of Settlement with East Coast iwi Te Whānau a Apanui which included an "agree-to-disagree" clause where the iwi maintained it was a sovereign nation while the Crown also maintained its own sovereignty. Goldsmith said that was not something the government was comfortable acknowledging and that the Crown was sovereign and represented the "democratic will" of New Zealand. Hipkins said if the government walked away from that, it would mean debates around sovereignty would again be "front and centre" of the Treaty settlement debate, which was not helpful for the country moving forward. Ngāti Hine leader Pita Tipene told RNZ no hapū of Ngāpuhi will be subdued. "Working together for the common good is still there in 2025 and beyond and "no colonial government then or modern government now will impose themselves on the hapū of Ngāpuhi." On taxpayer money being spent, he said that money is being wasted "because governments have made serious mistakes in trying to impose themselves on the hapū of Ngāpuhi". "The moment they listen to the hapū and work with hapū instead of imposing themselves or trying to impose themselves, they will save many a taxpayer dollar. "And the taxpayer needs to know that the government has tried this in the past and failed." He suggested the government try a different approach, given they are getting the same result from the same approach. "They can learn a lot from the previous minister, Chris Finlayson, who realised the way that the government tried then and failed must not be repeated." Finance Minister Nicola Willis confirmed the government had a goal of progressing and settling any outstanding Treaty claims. "What we need to do is keep in good faith progressing our desire to negotiate." She said it was up to Ngāpuhi to decide that they too wanted to do that. "Settlements have proven to be a really effective tool for advancing relationships between iwi and the crown. "I would say that any leader needs to be responsive to the needs of their people. Leaders change, but the needs of people don't tend to." Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said the Treaty of Waitangi was not something to be settled, and wasn't about "ending something", it was an "enduring relationship". "It needs to go on for as long as it needs to go on for." Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would support putting a timeline to Ngāpuhi that would require a decision to have been made by a certain point, but said that was ultimately up to the Treaty Negotiations Minister. Shane Jones told reporters on Tuesday his party would be taking its proposal for how taxpayer money would be used for settlements to the next election. "We can no longer have 20 years and beyond 20 million of squandered money, someone's gotta draw a line in the sand and stop this dysfunction." On the agree-to-disagree issue, he said NZ First's focus was economic empowerment, not funding "unrealistic dreams about hapū sovereignty". Jones said it had been people from Ngāpuhi who encouraged him to take this step Tipene acknowledged there are always differing voices in any community or country, but he said the majority of people won't allow the government to impose themselves on the hapū. "You will find some people in Ngāpuhi who, for their own reasons, want to get on with it. "Largely, you will find that those people are not connected to the people on the ground."
New York Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Was Trump's Iran Attack Illegal? Presidential War Powers, Explained.
President Trump's decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran has prompted accusations that he violated the Constitution by carrying out an act of war without congressional authorization. The dispute underscores a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and how the country has been governed in practice. While most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted Congress to decide whether to go to war unless the country is under attack, presidents in the modern era have carried out military strikes without authorization from lawmakers. Courts have shied away from weighing in, and Congress has acquiesced rather than impeaching those presidents. 'Was the Iran strike constitutional?' Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, said on Monday. 'I don't know because the constitutional law of war powers is inscrutable.' Here is a closer look. What has happened? Mr. Trump ordered the American military to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, without seeking congressional authorization or claiming there was evidence of an imminent threat. Threatening further escalation, Mr. Trump has warned Iran that he will respond with more bombings if it strikes back, while musing about pushing for a change in government. But after Iran launched missiles on Monday at a U.S. base in Qatar, Mr. Trump said Iran had given advance warning and there were no injuries. He suggested he wanted to de-escalate. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
