Embarrassment turns to spite

Written By: - Date published: 8:15 am, October 4th, 2015 - 40 comments
Categories: activism, climate change, Environment, global warming, Media, Parliament, Politics, Social issues - Tags: , ,

greenpeace banner outside parliament with John Key

‘

Parliamentary Services has marred what might otherwise have been a showcase example of how public protest is treated in New Zealand.

In an affidavit to the court sentencing the Greenpeace protesters for trespass after they scaled the front of old Parliament Buildings, the manager of Parliamentary Services claimed the eight-hour protest had cost the government more than $36,000. Fortunately, the judge paid little regard to that remarkable sum but said he had to take it into account. As a result, last Friday the four protesters were convicted and discharged but each ordered to pay $750 reparation – in total, less than one-tenth of the amount Parliamentary Services claimed.

In effect, the Judge delivered Parliamentary Services a slap in the face, and rightly so. If justice were really to be delivered, the judge would have ordered Parliamentary Services to make a substantial donation to Greenpeace for it having shown up a wide-open security flaw at Parliament.

Alas, maintaining law and order is incidental to justice and, yeah, okay, trespass was committed so, maybe, conviction warranted. Still,  New Zealand has been witness to a great display of how public protest can be successful and how authorities can allow it to happen and do their job.

Greenpeace was creative in its approach, sensible in its application, and successful in getting its message across. How wonderful to also see the Police take a reasonable approach to the situation. Knowing that removing the protesters would put people at risk of injury, the Police secured the scene, entered into constructive dialogue, and took a gentle approach when the protest finished. The sensible approach taken by the protesters and Police was echoed by the equally sensible application of the law by the courts. Hell, even the MSM took a sensible approach to coverage and should be applauded for repeating the Greenpeace message in nearly every account as this case worked its way through from start to finish.

Shame on Parliamentary Services for acting with spite after having been so thoroughly embarrassed with such a public demonstration of its inability to do a part of its job properly. $36,000? Pull the other one, its got bells on.

40 comments on “Embarrassment turns to spite ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lara 1
    4 October 2015 at 8:57 am

    A serious question. Parliament buildings are a public building. How can a member of the public trespass on / in a public building?

    I’m figuring there is a logical answer. I just don’t know what it is. And I would be most grateful if someone who knows the answer would enlighten me.

    Thank you.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      4 October 2015 at 9:10 am

      I doubt you think a Police evidence room should be a public space. Full public access to Parliament sounds nice until government grinds to a halt.

      Parliamentary Services are still full of shit with their $36k contempt of court.

      • weka 1.1.1
        4 October 2015 at 9:25 am

        Which just highlights how thin the veneer of democracy is. Is there anything to stop the government or parlimentary services from deciding that you’re not allowed to protest within 2km of Parliament?

      • Lara 1.1.2
        7 October 2015 at 7:14 am

        No. I don’t think a police evidence room should have full public access.

        I do however think our seat of democracy, parliament buildings, should have public access in most areas.

        I can understand some areas being closed off to the public, MPs offices for example, but the outside of the building? Public space surely. Like the entry and gallery.

    • Ad 1.2
      4 October 2015 at 9:55 am

      Because it has people in it who require a high degree of security protection.

      • Lara 1.2.1
        7 October 2015 at 7:12 am

        Perhaps if our MP’s behaved more decently, and like adults instead of children, we may proffer them more respect and they wouldn’t require security.

        They didn’t in the past in NZ.

    • music4menz 1.3
      4 October 2015 at 10:20 am

      Surely WINZ offices are also ‘public buildings’ in the sense that they are owned and operated on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer. However, after the abhorrent shooting of innocent people at the Ashburton office of WINZ, does anyone seriously believe that, as a result, the public should have unrestricted access to WINZ offices?

      There are now security staff on hand at WINZ offices as there are at many other public buildings such as Parliament for safety reasons. I think you would find few people to support the implication that it should be legal for any member of the public to have unrestricted access into or upon such buildings.

      • weka 1.3.1
        4 October 2015 at 11:07 am

        “However, after the abhorrent shooting of innocent people at the Ashburton office of WINZ, does anyone seriously believe that, as a result, the public should have unrestricted access to WINZ offices?”

        I do. I think they should take the guards and entry requirements away from most offices. There are other ways of responding to what happened in Ashburton that don’t involve furthering a surveillance and pro-violence state. The way it is, they’re upping the ante.

        However, that’s not unrestricted access. Before Ashburton, there were still rules about access, they were just way less visible. WINZ could have someone removed for instance.

        • Grindlebottom 1.3.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 12:52 am

          They won’t want to take away the security they have in place for their offices now. The harsh way Work & Income staff are required to operate these days, with the psychologically stressful and desperate financial situations they sometimes put people into, the risk of another incident like Ashburton is too high. The security is there as a (hopeful) deterrent. I wouldn’t take the security job. I wouldn’t regard it as very safe.

  2. savenz 2
    4 October 2015 at 9:15 am

    Embarrassment turns to spite +100

    Good on Greenpeace.

    It’s sad when a peaceful protest results in a fine and prosecutions, but the government is happy to spend millions providing corporate welfare on prosecuting Dotcom including allegedly proving a 2 billion guarantee from NZ taxpayers even though Sony lawyers pulled out, bully investigative journalists like Jon Stephenson and Nicky Hager, and give millions to Sky City and Sheep bribes to Saudi officials.

    I think the judge should have discharged with zero fines. Not only should protest not be criminalised but Greenpeace did the added service of showing what terrible security there is in parliament. Whoever is in charge of NZ security is probably too busy spying on innocent people and arresting people for the FBI and organising reality TV shows, to actually have some sort of effective plan for security for NZ government.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      4 October 2015 at 9:39 am

      Why do they deserve security when they can’t maintain state houses? Don’t answer that 🙂

      If there were genuinely no penalty, the next lot up there will be Monsanto, Coke and McDonalds.

    • RedBaronCV 2.2
      4 October 2015 at 12:44 pm

      Back in the day for defamation Judges/juries would award damages of $1. No finer way to say “you too are an idiot so pull your head in”.

      If there had to be a fine then $1 would be the level and the Green peace costs paid

    • BLiP 2.3
      4 October 2015 at 4:34 pm

      ‘

      The protesters were convicted and discharged without fines. The $750 each protester was ordered to pay was for reparation, and the only reasons reparation was ordered was because of the claim by Paliamentary Services.

    • James Last 2.4
      7 October 2015 at 11:00 am

      Savenz, could you please provide me with a link to where I can find out about the millions of dollars the government has given to sky city? Because I wasn’t aware the government had given those guys a penny, but I could be wrong.

  3. maui 3
    4 October 2015 at 10:59 am

    36 grand does seem a little steep considering they only broke one padlock, and got a free coffee and an escort to the toilets by security while they were up there. Were extra staff needed to be called in? I doubt it.

    • Richard Christie 3.1
      4 October 2015 at 12:41 pm

      OIA request required, let’s see the costs itemised.

    • Tracey 3.2
      4 October 2015 at 1:13 pm

      perhaps they added all the hourly rates of the people who stopped their work inside to watch?

    • RedBaronCV 3.3
      4 October 2015 at 1:33 pm

      That’s an entire years work for one person on a minimum rate. Pull the other one . They deserve to be mocked severely for that one.

    • b waghorn 3.4
      4 October 2015 at 4:51 pm

      My feeling when I read about the $36k is that it was to secure access to the site which probably should of been done long before green peace people got in. So they’re just shifting the blame for their own cockup to the protesters.

      • Grindlebottom 3.4.1
        5 October 2015 at 1:10 am

        I imagine the judge got a breakdown of what the $36K covered, seeing he only ordered $750 reparation each. I wonder if the defence got an opportunity to make submissions? Might be possible to get a copy of the judgement if anyone was really interested.

  4. Rosemary McDonald 4
    4 October 2015 at 11:33 am

    @ Lara

    You’d think that the grounds of Parliament would be a public space, and providing one is not disruptive or doing anything illegal…

    Not so. I got a 24 hour trespass from parliament grounds back in 2009 for handing out flyers to passersby in the morning rush hour. Names and address were taken and official piece of paper handed to us, and we were escorted out of the grounds.
    There was nothing in the flyers to incite riot or unrest…merely information.)

    (We resumed our activity the next morning, just outside the gates on Molesworth St.)

    Subsequent visits to Parliament (where we have simply been sitting on that low wall on the edge of the forecourt) have led to plenty of attention from the uniformed security staff, and on occasion the goon squad.

    Once they have your name…

    • Lara 4.1
      7 October 2015 at 7:17 am

      Thank you for a calm measured response which does not include snark.

      Yes. I would have thought that we could protest on Parliament grounds, and in the “public” areas of parliament buildings, as long as nothing illegal was done and protesters were not disruptive.

      I also thought that the installation of solar panels was a nice positive message from greenpeace. I like a positive protest. Much nicer and more effective than just being violent I think.

      • Rosemary McDonald 4.1.1
        7 October 2015 at 8:18 am

        “… also thought that the installation of solar panels was a nice positive message from greenpeace. I like a positive protest.”

        They were literally “demonstrating”.

        I like that too.

  5. Srylands 5
    4 October 2015 at 12:01 pm

    There is much misinformation here. The parliamentary precinct is not public land. I don’t know what a “public building” means. The control of parliament is vested in the Speaker. The Speaker has all the rights of a property owner to exclude visitors from parliament under the Trespass Act. In fact that right is explicitly set out in the Parliamentary Services Act. That right was included specifically to deal with threats such as the Greenpeace stunt. The provision was included in 2000 under Helen when Jonathan Hunt was Speaker.

    Greenpeace are communist thugs.

    • Stuart Munro 5.1
      4 October 2015 at 2:18 pm

      The speaker works for the people – unless he is a treacherous abuser of his authority who should be in prison – like the incumbent.

  6. RedBaronCV 6
    4 October 2015 at 12:55 pm

    Well if I am correct Lockwood Smith didn’t get charged for his cows on the steps and Shane Ardern got away with the tractor oin the steps.

    “The National Manager of the Police Prosecution Service, Superintendent Graham Thomas advises that in the Wellington District Court today the police withdrew the charge of disorderly behaviour against Mr Shane Ardern, MP, and instead have formally warned him in relation to the incident.”

    Charges withdrawn

    So why charges this time from the cops.

    Surely higher standards should apply to MP’s as protestors

    • Tracey 6.1
      4 October 2015 at 1:15 pm

      Slylands will be along shortly to describe the differences.

      • RedBaronCV 6.1.1
        4 October 2015 at 1:34 pm

        In his personal railcar from Waikanae? Am I correct in thinking that this handle has not been around for a while then suddenly reappeared?

        • Tracey 6.1.1.1
          4 October 2015 at 1:36 pm

          You are correct, but he is singing the same old song. Although this time he is showing an intricate understanding of who owns land and buildings on parliament grounds, which is interesting for a tax-type chappy or car park attendant in downtown Wellington

          • RedBaronCV 6.1.1.1.1
            4 October 2015 at 5:34 pm

            Maybe we need a biography post of “Srylands”. He’s had such a varied career so must be several hundred years old

  7. reason 7
    4 October 2015 at 1:09 pm

    Srylands is showing his ugly nature again sith his green peace comments ……

    It’s people like Sabin who John Key promoted who are the thugs sryland …….

    Cameron slater the lost sole who you donate money to could also be considered an internet thug …………………

    Good on Greenpeace …………… they are far better than you

    • Lara 7.1
      7 October 2015 at 7:21 am

      I don’t see what exactly is “thuggish” about installing solar panels on parliament buildings.

      Maybe my definition of thug is different….

      And as for communist. I see that word bandied about liberally by many, usually people in the USA. And most often they seem to have no idea what it means. They seem to apply it to anyone advocating for social justice or any form of socialism. Which are not the same as communism

      As far as I know Greenpeace do not advocate full state ownership of all land and methods of production.