The Maori Party bill to entrench the Maori seats

So, Hone Harawira, on his second day back in parliament, tried to submit a bill in the ballot to entrench the Maori seats. The bill is in breach of the confidence and supply agreement between the Maori Party and National, as neither party is to pursue entrenchment or removal of the Maori seats.

Harawira claims the bill he submitted was "drafted up to three years ago".

I know for a fact that the final draft -at least for a similar bill - was some time after October 2008 - and possibly well into 2009, assuming Harawira's bill was drafted properly. That's because I had a copy of the bill, but the bill while entrenching the seats, did not entrench the Maori electoral option. You can read what I wrote about that at the time here and here.

After those two posts, which I was told that all Maori Party MPs read, they decided to amend the bill to entrench the Maori Electoral Option, which was the correct thing to do. But of course National won the election and the bill was shelved. Instead Labour put one in, but, under standing orders, the bill requires a 75% parliamentary majority to pass, which means both major parties have to support it to enact it.

Now, Harawira has said the bill had been entered by "mistake". Did anyone else in the Maori Party know he put it in the ballot? If not, why not?

Getting people off benefits

Every week on average, some people have their benefit cut - not because they have found work or returned to study, not because they are leaving the country - but because they are going to prison. Guess how many..
a.20
b.46
c.59
d.85

National is not going to raise GST- is it?

Before the election

National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes

After the election

The coded call for an increase to GST... was rejected by Mr English.

" We won't be doing that... it is not our policy," he said.

( Hattip Gobsmacked @ The standard

Yesterday

The Government is also carefully considering a modest increase in the rate of GST, to no more than 15 percent.

We are acutely aware of the effect that a rise in GST could have on lower income families.

update: Today

I said I wouldn't raise GST to cover deficits.

[video]

Problem was, that was not what he said.
Rooiigghhtt...

Waitangi Day

Well today is Waitangi Day, our national day. And what a shame it is that so many people in this country have no knowledge of the Treaty of Waitangi, and many of those that do, misinform others. On TVNZ's Marae this morning there was a debate "Is the Treaty holding us back". Some of those who promote the role of the Treaty in this country have an indigenous argument and look to the future, those who think it is holding us back often look to the past, pointing to the fact that the Treaty is a historic document - and the " undemocratic nature" of the Maori seats in parliament of the failure of Maori focused units in prison. And those like Matthew Hooten try to have a bob each way.

Take Stephen Franks: "The Treaty has invented principles eg separate seats". At least that is what it sounded like. Well, the Treaty didn't invent the separate seats, nor are the seats a principle under it. Like the promotion of the Maori language, they were promoted through Acts of Parliament, even if they did reflect the intent of Treaty articles.

Sure the programme started at 8am and I was out on the town last night so I may have misheard Franks due to lack of sleep and coffee. But what I didn't mishear is that much of the discussion around the Treaty related to the Maori language, and land confiscations, none of which are are as direct result of the Treaty. Promoters emphasised indigeneity, substantive equality and equal citizenship. There is a clash of ideology - those who accept the concept of indigeneity and self-determination and and those who don't. There are different concepts of what equality is - and the role of the state.

One commentator said the Maori seats have led us into a "disgusting racial mess" and that land confiscations were done "because Maori rebelled against the Crown". - and it is the Treaty that is at fault.

It is not the Treaty that is holding us back. It is people who are holding the Treaty back. The Treaty can be a framework to move New Zealand on. If people understood the relevance, significance and potential of our founding constitutional document we'd be better informed. If people discussed the issues without dismissing relevant perspectives as irrelevant, we`d have a greater understanding of the Treaty and its relevance today. After 170 years, its time to have an open conversation, not an ideological debate.

Update The debate is now online.Franks, while not saying that dedicated seats are Treaty principles(see, it was too early to get up) said they are seen as justified on a constructed version of the Treaty, one that is a "millstone".He also claimed that Maori MPs changed our Electoral Act, changing the definition of "Maori" to one of self-identification, thus potentially bumping up the numbers on the Maori roll, purely because to not do so would have meant that there would be no Maori seats left if you had to be more Maori than Pakeha!

Anyway, here's a great video from Minuit.
.

Give thanks and praise to the Lord

It's Robert Nesta Marley's birthday today......well it would be if he was as much alive as his music. Many people all over the world will be celebrating Bob Marley's birthday today.

Marley was the king of reggae. He was born on February 6, 1945 at 2:30 am and died of cancer 36 years later, on May 11, 1981. His hits included Could You Be Loved, No Woman No Cry, Buffalo Soldier, and the anthemic Get Up Stand Up. Lesser known tracks include goodies such as Three Little Birds and the classic One Drop. Marley was Jamaica's greatest cultural icon. A month before he died he was awarded Jamaica's Order of Merit, the nations' third highest honor, in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the country's culture.

Down here there will be parties celebrating his birthday, as it is Waitangi Day, (or for the colonial, New Zealand Day). In Wellington, as happens every year, there will be an irie reggae party this afternoon, with much skanking and a bit of ganja, one assumes, going down.

For the rest of you, check out some online Marley music from the best reggae had to offer.

You can listen to some vocals and take a listen to this midi track, to get you into the swing of things.

Wai$angi celebration$

The media are being asked to cough up $500 each to cover Wai$angi Day commemorations- guess what the big story of Wai$angi will be, then..

Treasury can't forecast unemployment

In December Treasury said unemployment would peak at a 7%. John Key said that Treasury was being too pessimistic. Figures released shows that unemployment is now 7.3%. The last time it was that high National was in Government, too. But there is one major difference: the 10 years Labour spent getting people off the unemployment benefit ( and off ACC) to sickness and invalids benefits:
[h/t Lindsay Mitchell]

I don't think unemployment has peaked yet - and the Government is silent on what to do about rising unemployment except blaming it on population growth - but 25.5 percent of all job seekers have been out of work for more than 6 months.Anyone know how many jobs the job summit created?

Employment is going to be a key issue at the next election. The question voters will be asking is: Can Labour do any better? I think it can.

I recon the student's virginity auction is a stunt

Like DPF I'm a bit dubious of the student who tried to offer her virginity to pay her fees through the ineed.co.nz site. The NZPA has this report.

Going, going, gone - a New Zealand teenager has auctioned off her virginity to a stranger for over $45,000 to fund her university tuition fees.The 19-year-old Northland student, who listed her virginity on the ineed.co.nz website under the name `Unigirl', said the leading bid was "way beyond what I dreamed".

I smell fish. There's no indication that she is even a virgin and she doesn't want to speak to media. In fact there's no evidence she is even a 19-year-old student - she could well be a 35-year-old once married man who will owe a lot of money in child support, for all I know. NZPA hasn't contacted this person and cannot verify her identity. In other words this story is not able to be verified other than what the journalist read on the website.

The ineed.co.nz site is a little different to Trademe. How do I know - well, I actually rang one of the directors of the site, Murray Arnenson, because I couldn't access the auction. As Arnenson told me, 20,000 other people were on the site at the time to check out this stunt [update: that figure was subsequently found to be false] and the site was taking ages to load. However I can confirm the successful bid amount is stated on the site as I saw it the other day.

But that amount was put there by the seller herself, because that is how the site works. Arnenson has no idea if it is a valid amount - or even if the money has been, or will be, paid. He does not know the person's identity, all he has is this person's e-mail address.

Arnenson claimed not to know about the auction until contacted by the Waitako Times. He considered pulling the auction but decided not to. In terms of bidding, it is a little different to TradeMe, as all bidding is done via e-mail and not directly on site. However once a price has been accepted, the seller can then post that price on the site, which she has done. She also wrote this

Thank you to the more than 30,000 people who viewed my ad and to the more than 1200 offers made

I doubt very much that 1200 offers were made; Arnenson has no idea how many offers were made. He wouldn't,given the e-mail nature of bidding. As a bidder you have no way of knowing what others have bid,how many have done so, or how many times.

The "student" concerned has told Arnenson, by e-mail - that "the deal was done", but has not confirmed that payment has been made. Furthermore, if payment is not forthcoming,the site does not take action.In other words a successful bidder can pull out ( excuse the pun) and there are no consequences for doing so. They can even relist after rejecting a successful bid.

Now, why can't the MSM find this out?

update One media outlet did contact the site owners, but did not appear to have asked many questions.

Jones wants Māori Party gone: Māori Labour voters want Goff gone

Nearly half Māori voters who vote Labour do not believe Goff is the man to be leading the Labour Party. Just over a third (36%) say he is and just under a half (49%) say he isn't. However, of Labour voters not on the Māori roll the vote was pretty much 50/50 thanks to the expected overhangs..

It’s a pity the pollsters didn’t ask who is the person that should lead the Labour Party. The answer would have been interesting, given that Shane Jones, who wants to get rid of the Māori Party, is the least preferred PM after Key, Goff, Sharples, Turia and Harawira - and even Helen Clark and Winston Peters who aren't even in Parliament.

In fact Māori electorate voters would rather have Harawira as PM than Goff - but they’d also rather have Goff than Jones. Perhaps some Labour Maori voters would rather have Harawira as leader of the Labour Party.

Yep, Jones is at the bottom of the preferred PM pile, and is the only Labour MP in the list other than Goff. The poll of 1001, constituted 68% on the Māori roll and 32% from the General roll - and of those on the General roll, 51% would vote Labour. About a third of those on the Māori roll would vote Labour,despite a proportion of them preferring someone other than Goff as leader.

Why would Māori vote for a party if they want that party to have a change of leadership, and don’t believe that the leader is providing good leadership on Māori issues? Perhaps because a vote for the Maori Party is perceived to be wasted due to an expected overhang.

Phil Goff has said that he will work with a party “if we think that is in the interests of the country”. Personally, I don’t believe Labour considers the Māori Party is in the best interest of the country, purely because it is more friendly with National. That’s an incorrect position to take, because imagine the mess the country would be in if National was in full coalition with ACT, with Roger Douglas as a cabinet minister, and the Maori Party arguing with Labour from the sidelines?

How Bizarre

Pauly Fuemana, who sung " How Bizarre" died this morning., aged 40. It's the second death in the family in recent years. His older brother Phil, also a musician, died in 2005 aged 41 of a heart attack.

Voting in Ohariu-Belmont

Peter Dunne is the MP for Ohariu-Belmont. Has been for more than 20 years. In 2005, Heather Roy also stood for the electorate, missed out and got into Parliament through the coat-tails of Rodney Hide. In 2008 she changed electorates but as of today three other candidates who contested the electorate in 2008 are in Parliament. They are Charles Chauvel, Katrina Shanks, who won the party vote in the electorate, - and now new Green Party MP Gareth Hughes. Should Roy contest Ohariu-Belmont in 2011, and Hide was to win his seat, the eight candidates standing for Ohariu-Belmont would have a 50 percent chance of becoming a MP, purely due to where they were placed on the party list.

The "ordinary New Zealander"

The term "ordinary New Zealander" has been used a bit by Labour politicians lately. Phil Goff has been using it for years. It reminds me when National was using the term "mainstream" New Zealanders, except Don Brash said that excluded homosexuals.

Goff has not defined what an ordinary New Zealander is. I assume it includes Maori, homosexuals and Michael Laws. Probably doesn't include Hine Elder or Clayton Weatherston. But it may well include the Exclusive Brethren leaders.

There are two classes of ordinary New Zealanders. Those who Labour thinks need state assistance and those who don't. Those who do are referred to by Goff as ordinary low and middle income New Zealanders.

Ordinary New Zealanders, according to Goff, are those who pay ACC levies and gets less and less in return. This week, Goff implies that the relationship between Labour and Ratana is working for the ordinary person, and expects Labour to be forming policy for ordinary New Zealanders. He says "I expect our people to be out there working hard on behalf of ordinary New Zealanders, doing their job as spokespeople and starting to develop their policy alternatives."

At Ratana, Goff said

Too often ordinary working families have to carry the burden for others who do not pay their taxes and meet their responsibilities

Perhaps Goff was thinking of those of us who can save, who are well off -but put money in trusts and get more WFF payments, while those who can't save rely on the WFF payments as their incomes are too low.

And again today, Goff said.

Labour would be working hard "alongside ordinary New Zealanders" to ensure they would get their fair share out of the recovery and the likely tax changes

So what is an ordinary New Zealander?

For Ruth Dyson ordinary New Zealanders are overweight people who should be getting funding for stomach stapling operations.

However, National has a different view of what is an " ordinary New Zealander'

“For ordinary New Zealanders, we’re particularly keen to ensure that our tax system rewards effort, encourages savings and helps families to get ahead.

I wonder what proportion of ordinary New Zealanders have enough income (after paying taxes the mortgage and bills) to actually save. Perhaps the kind of ordinary New Zealanders that vote National, put their savings into a trust and collect Labour's WFF payments that are targeted at ordinary low and middle income New Zealanders.

Ratana wants four Labour list seats

In the 1940's the Ratana Church had four seats in parliament. All we aligned to Labour, all were Maori seats, all its representatives joined the Labor caucus. Most of them didn't do much, a bit like some of the unionists that have got list seats in recent years. Some, like Matiu Rata, joined Labour and became more effective.

Now that the Maori Party has most of the Maori seats, the church knows it cannot win most of the Maori seats: to do so would mean it would have more Maori seats than the Maori Party. It knows it can't get any Maori seats off Labour. So the church has publicly asked Labour for four safe list seats to be aligned to Labour in parliament. The Maori Party has never had a list seat. If the Catholic or Presbyterian Church made such a request, they'd be laughed at.

It was a strange request, particularly as Ratana Church Minister Joe Everett earlier told John Key "In the short time that you have been in power you've done so much more than what others have done for the ... Maori people."

Ratana should take its support elsewhere. Most if it already is.Its current leader supports Labour but many of those in the church, particularly the younger ones, support the Maori Party.

Phil Goff's Ratana speech is here Ratana is no longer relevant as a political force.

Three strikes law

I have one of my answers on the three strikes law if professor Greg Newbold is correct.

An offender who committed two assaults and a murder - in that order - would be locked up for life, because the maximum sentence for murder was life imprisonment.

But the new law would mean that someone who committed murder and then two assaults would only serve the maximum penalty for assault, a sentence length that varies depending on the attack and not a life sentence.

If you're doing life without parole, why wouldn't you kill a prison officer? What's to stop you? What would you lose by killing a prison officer?"

If this is correct, the message for criminals is this: Make sure you do your worst crimes first. The message for prison guards is this: be wary of those who do their crimes in the other order.

The Herald has also said that this law is backed up by empirical evidence from the US which found that homicide rates increased in cities with "three strikes" laws when compared with those without such laws. Yet in some of these states, these "strikes" are for minor offences, like shoplifting, quite different to what is being proposed here.

The easiest way to set up a blog

So, you read blogs. You'd like to set up your own blog. Or you have a blog and you want to migrate it or back it up. Check out Posterous.com It is now as easy as sending an e-mail.

Here's how it works. You write your blog post. You send it (hotmail or g-mail) to post@posterous.com and hey presto, you have a blog. You can then change the e-mail address you want posts sent from, add another blog, and if you want to syndicate to Facebook or Twitter you can do that, too. You can also group blog; you register members who simply send posts to an e-mail you provide. You can also post videos and pix as well. If you don't like your post, just delete it and e-mail another one over.

It's that simple.[ h/t jonny.baker.]

Three strikes is back

Simon Power is the Minister of Justice and is fronting the sentencing and Parole reform bill. Today, three Ministers - Rodney Hide, John Key and Judith Collins - announced that the government had reached agreement on a three-strikes policy that will ensure the worst repeat criminals receive the maximum allowable sentence.

So why didn't Simon Power contribute to making that announcement, given that this agreement is going to be incorporated into his bill?

The three strikes aspect to the bill means repeat serious offenders get the maximum allowable sentence, meaning more people will be behind bars for longer. I`m not sure what exactly counts as a strike, in terms of sentencing - what if your third strike was an historic crime done before your first strike? What if your second strike was overturned and your are in jail for your third strike -does your sentence get reduced, or do you get compensation? I'm not allowed to have a say on that at select committee as I didn't do a submission to the initial bill.

The two Ministers of the Maori Party are unhappy and have introduced a new term that should get wide usage: "hide-bound". The party says the proposed 'three strikes legislation shows the government is hide-bound by political rhetoric on crime and punishment that has no factual basis.

The problem with the process of these changes is that only the people who have made submissions to the select committee on this bill will be given the opportunity to make submissions on this new aspect of the bill, a limited subset of "the public" as stated in the government's media release.

Given that National's confidence and supply agreement with Act meant that Acts "three strikes " policy was to get a fair hearing at select committee, perhaps these latest proposals should have been in the original bill before submissions were called for.

The select committee is due to report in March.

Making a police complaint: Safer communities together.

I attempted to make a minor complaint to the police today. I don't often complain. I can't think of a time when I last did.

So I looked at the police website to see how to make a complaint. It said to ring or go to your nearest police station. Nobody was at my nearest police station so I rang another one. They said I had to go and make a complaint and speak to a person in a certain section of the police in person. When I informed this young boy that he was in the section that he told me to go and see, he said, I still had to come down, even though the police website said I could make a complaint over the phone.. He then asked if anyone's life was in danger. I then said that I didn't think anyone's life was in danger (actually it is near impossible for anyone's life to be in danger for such a complaint) and I asked why the question was asked, and if that would make a difference as to whether I could lay a complaint.He said " Well the Mungrel (sic) Mob could be after him or something".

After that response, I wondered why I bothered to try and make the complaint in the first place. Next time I'll ring the Mongrel Mob.

Quote of the week

Labour MP Kelvin Davis, commenting about Hone Harawira's comments about raping and pillaging of land, and his purported views that a repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed legislation will assist in solving problems.

We are generally dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant than any other group of people in New Zealand. We know the problem, but what's the solution? Well let's repeal the Foreshore and Seabed and put the F&S into Maori title. We can be dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant at the beach. That'll make all the difference.

Has the Herald on Sunday breached name suppression?

Just got back from a week offline, and am still catching up with the news slowly. But from reading the Dom Post while I was away I learned that Cameron Slater ( who is extremely happy that he had 54,000 unique page views on his blog the other day) has been posting, in binary code on his blog, the name of a former MP who is up on charges of indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

Now, I don't know much about binary code, so I quickly found out by other means who this person was, and then saw an article in the Herald from Carolyne Meng-Yee, who loves to write about celebrities - and I`d be surprised if she understands most of the laws surrounding suppression. From that article I could narrow this man's name down to two possibilities. He is a former MP, has a partner, he is not the father of the girl, and is a " thoroughly decent bloke". The girl's mother is this former MP's partner. But it was another sentence in that article that narrowed it down somewhat for me.

The Herald On Sunday has arguably published information that has led to the identity of the alleged offender, as it led with the man's former occupation with the implication that he has links to more than one political party. The article is also in a more accessible form than Slater's. In addition, another article on the same website the same week provided another piece to the jigsaw, which narrowed it down to one.

If a blogger provides clues that breach name suppression on one post, is that any worse than an online newspaper doing the same thing, but on different articles on different days? Particularly if both articles are available on the one page. Whatever, even if Slater posts clues to the multiple people who have suppression, as he has done, the Solicitor -General has said that he is not in contempt of court.

John Key has waded into the debate saying that Slater is not allowed to break a law he disagrees with. But the PM himself has advocated that it is fine to break the law if you want to smack your kids, whether you agree with the law or not.

Name suppression blogger back from court

Cameron Slater is feeling pretty pleased with himself. Just after Christmas he told me that he got 20,000 hits on his blog on Christmas Day - just after he got served with the summons. Today he was in court as he was alleged to have broken name suppression on his blog. He was always going to defend the charges, and he`ll be doing that on 14 January. An interesting part of his defence appears to be that the Law Commission has recommended that the sections that Slater is to be charged with should be repealed.

Some have commented on the recent high-profile name suppressions with reference to the Entertainer (who is a musician), the Comedian, who is not very funny and appeared in court the same day as Slater on sex charges; and the Olympian, who Slater identified on his blog.

So the Blogger is in court on the same day as the Comedian, for veiled attempts to out the Entertainer and the Olympian, but did not out the Comedian, who is not really a comedian at all. The Entertainer is actually a Musician, and the Olympian is a well known Criminal. But now the Entertainer is also a well -known as a Criminal, being the Musician that the Blogger has identified. Now the Blogger may well end up fined, but not for outing the Comedian, but for outing the other two who are convicted Criminals. So the only two who are not convicted Criminals to date are the very two people who appeared in court the same day: the Blogger and the Comedian he did not identify.

Was Foster even entitled to an advance?

Graham Foster's story in the Sunday Star Timesdoesn't tell the full story. He was refused a Work and Income grant to pay for a $50 pullover and a $140 pair of shoes. Instead he got an advance for the amount which he has to pay back at $3.00 per week. Any advances are supposed to be paid back within a 52 week period. But not this one. Still, Foster spent two years fighting the government through the courts, costing the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The Benefit Review Committee decision of 2008 appears to be here, and was itself appealed. (The Court of Appeal's recent decision is here). Foster wanted a lump sum non recoverable payment and reviewed a decision to advance the payment. His excuse for applying for these items was that his old jersey had a hole in it and as he sometimes suffered from mild bronchitis he didn't want to catch a chill. He said he needed to wear specially constructed inner soles and good quality shoes and he said he needed to purchase Hush Puppy shoes " that better fitted the odd contours of my feet".

His budget indicated a deficiency of income over expenditure of $49.98 per week - and budgeted more than $87 a week on food . That's in 2008. We have four in our family and don't even spend double that each week. He also brought the Listener each week instead of reading it at the library for free. Although he wanted free shoes, the Social Security Appeal Authority noted that there is no specific provision in the Special Needs Grant programme for shoes. As Foster admitted that the items were needed due to to wear and tear, this was not an "emergency" as it was not unforseen. Clothes are expected to wear out, eventually. The authority said:

We are surprised to note that the appellant spends [$30 - inserted] per week on communication, apparently for cellphone, internet and fixed line charges. This seems particularly high for someone sharing accommodation. The appellant has not explained what his need for a cellphone might be. An allowance of $15.00 per week ought to be sufficient for telecommunications. We also have questions about the appellant's allowance for transport, optometrist and newspapers. It is surprising that the appellant can afford to buy the Listener and pay for an internet connection but cannot budget for [shoes]. We are not convinced that the appellant has a deficiency in his budget of $49.98 per week. We accept that the appellant's budget is tight but we consider that the appellant could have been expected to make provision for [shoes] in his budget.We are not satisfied on the basis of the evidence available that an emergency situation existed in this instance

But they did think it was fine for him to get an advance payment, even though he was able to make provision for it. In other words, the Committee considered that as Foster had an "immediate and essential need" he should be given a loan for the shoes and jersey, even though no emergency situation existed, and WINZ had no idea if he needed them because they apparently didn't ask if he had other jerseys and shoes he could wear.

So how did they know that Foster had an immediate and essential need?

Woman named as journalist Helen Bain

The name of the woman who was swept away in a Wairarapa river while riding her horse is out now, and it is journalist Helen Bain. Bain worked at Parliament, was an award winning journo at the Dominion, and was the communications manger for Forest and Bird. She was well-known and someone who I held in extremely high regard.

Bain wrote some great stories. She even got John Tamihere (her former boss) on record opposing the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. That annoyed Helen Clark so much that Mike Munro(Helen Clark's Press secretary) immediately issued a media statement retracting the comments.

Ahmed and Jane Hussein are thrilled to announce the arrival of their son Al Qaeda

Who on Earth - well in Masterton anyway - would be nutty enough to name their kid Al Qaeda?

Name suppression breacher off to court

A blogger is off to court for breach of name suppression on 5 January, the same day a certain comedian, who has his name suppressed, faces sexual assault charges. I wonder if they`ll exchange pleasantries - and I wonder if the blogger will ask for name suppression :-).

The blogger has also been asked to take the offending images off his website to prevent a 'continuing offence'. If convicted he could be fined up to $1,000.

Another blogger has identified this blogger in his own blog by identifying the recipient of the court summons. In doing so he has provided a link enabling people to find the identity of the unnamed offender.

Two questions:

Why has the blogger removed the images, after sending out a media release saying that he wouldn't? The offending images are still available on the cache as I write.

Why didn't the police press charges when he breached suppression in the same way the first time?

update Probably won't get name suppression then. I have been advised that he will be pleading not guilty on all counts - including two of three breaches of suppression on his blog, one of which remains.

Police attacks

Judith Collins has been thinking aloud. She wonders whether people who are convicted of attacks on police should be given harsher sentences as such attacks are attacks on the rule of law. On that reasoning, attacks by the rule of law - police officers who rape people while on duty, or offer sexual favours in lieu of issuing fines, or who drive home drunk in their police cars or beat up people while arresting them - should also be given harsher sentences. I wonder if the Police Minister would likewise agree and tell journalists.