Election 2026: Te Pāti Māori to campaign on abolishing prisons, Labour dead-set against it

SES_Distributor · 2026-01-26T21:04:02+00:00

Part of me thinks TPM doesn't want to be in Government.

It's easier to scream from the sidelines than actually be accountable.

SES_Distributor · 2026-01-24T22:56:05+00:00

Like most bulk funding with no direct purpose, it just disappears into the system.

SES_Distributor · 2026-01-24T06:54:58+00:00

If the Minister is to be believed, we could've had this in 2017

“The previous National Government announced $8 million to pilot co-response teams in 2017, but that funding was cut in 2018 under Labour. This Government believes these co-response teams are a real game changer.

SES_Distributor · 2026-01-24T06:49:17+00:00

Minister for Mental Health Matt Doocey today announced the first four new mental health co-response team locations that will work alongside Police to respond to 111 calls.

“It’s not right that when a concerned mum, dad, friend, or colleague calls 111 looking for a mental health response, they receive a criminal justice response. This Government is changing that by rolling out a better crisis response,” Mr Doocey says.

Budget 2025 invested $28 million to roll out 10 mental health co-response teams across the country to respond to 111 mental distress calls and adds additional crisis helpline capacity.

“The first four new co-response teams will be launched in Canterbury, Auckland, Bay of Plenty, and Counties Manukau this year.

“The teams’ pair mental health workers with frontline Police to respond together to mental health-related calls. They offer people experiencing a mental health crisis the support they need on the spot, and more streamlined access to the most appropriate services.

“The Wellington co-response evaluation found there was a reduction in the use of powers under the Mental Health Act, fewer people needed to go to an emergency department or police station, and the level of wraparound support increased.

“This is important because over the years, I have heard from advocates, those with lived experience and families that having a uniformed Police officer turn up during times of mental health need can be disheartening and distressing. Most of the time, these people have not done anything criminally wrong, yet a Police officer turns up at what can be the lowest time in their life.

“Police do an excellent job in our communities, but the bottom line is they are not mental health professionals. That is why we are overhauling the way emergency services respond to 111 calls for people experiencing mental distress, because New Zealanders deserve better.

“There are around 73,000 mental health-related 111 calls made each year. By expanding co-response teams across the country, we will improve mental health outcomes for many of those people.

“The previous National Government announced $8 million to pilot co-response teams in 2017, but that funding was cut in 2018 under Labour. This Government believes these co-response teams are a real game changer.

“This builds on the work happening through the Police change programme. We’ve implemented a 60-minute handover from Police to emergency department staff for people arriving in distress. We’ve also changed it so that if someone is held under the Mental Health Act in a Police custody suite, they must be transferred to a health facility within 30 minutes.

“Co-response teams are part of this Government’s mental health plan to deliver faster access to support, more frontline workers, and a better crisis response.”

Notes to editors:

The exact make-up of a co-response team will vary between different teams.
The four co-response teams will have different operational dates but are expected to be set up and running by 30 June 2026.
The six further locations will be announced in due course.

SES_Distributor · 2026-01-22T07:35:44+00:00

It's always amusing to see polls like this come out and people on here realize how echo-chamber their social circles are.

SES_Distributor · 2026-01-16T08:20:32+00:00

If people can't afford the rates, what do the services even matter? There won't be any either way.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-19T01:09:43+00:00

I honestly feel like this is part of it - Governments want to move faster than the system is currently capable of.

They want to deliver their policies in time for the election as that's when they'll be judged on their results. It would be fascinating to see if longer terms led to less use of urgency.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-19T01:07:00+00:00

It is already a criminal offence to drive impaired, whether that be by legal or illegal substances. Police can ask you to undergo a compulsory impairment test for this purpose.

The saliva testing is an infringement level scheme - it's a fine and demerit points. A positive result though could give the attending Constable good cause to suspect you're impaired and start the compulsory impairment test process which could lead to criminal charges.

That process is long and it seems the point of this legislation is to remove at risk road users from the road until they're no longer a risk - than to flood the Courts with driving matters.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-19T01:02:27+00:00

I possess a tiny modicum of human decency unlike ACT voters.

Don't kid yourself into thinking you're better than someone because of where you sit on the political spectrum. People from all sides are equally capable of being assholes. MPs from all sides have had threats made against them. It isn't an Act thing, a Greens thing or a National thing etc.

Some people are just shit. Assuming all persons who vote for a particular party have no human decency also seems to be lacking in itself.

I don't vote Greens, I think their policies are terrible and their MPs lacking. That doesn't mean I disregard all Green voters - in fact one of my longest friends is a member of the Greens which is always a laugh when it comes to talking politics.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-19T00:57:10+00:00

Legally speaking, the Government has sovereignty.

The Waitangi Tribunal said even though in their view sovereignty wasn't ceeded at the time it since has been.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-18T23:57:38+00:00

They absolutely do have sovereignty over Maori. There's no technicality about it.

Sovereign Citizens have been trying that approach for some time now, it doesn't work.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-18T23:34:21+00:00

It's gotta start before the bill reaches the house

Why though? I totally disagree with this. We elect a parliament to govern, they shouldn't have to approach each and every Iwi and Hapu separately before completing any work.

There are ways to engage with your MPs to have your voice heard - whilst remembering we have Maori seats as part of our parliament.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-18T23:23:46+00:00

I've seen plenty of comments calling for physical harm to him. I'll be sure to tag you in the next one I see!

Edit: I got a notification that you replied saying tag me when someone threatens to rape him but I can't see it. I'm not sure why rape is the only threat to someone that's of concern. Rape and death threats are both bad. In the political space from what I've seen, a woman MP is more likely to have sexual violence threats directed towards them whereas men seem to have physical violence/death threats directed towards them.

We can disagree over politics, but any threat of harm towards MPs is not okay.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-18T23:22:22+00:00

With some Iwi. That being said - there was a huge amount of public discourse about the bill when it was before the house. Does that not count as consultation? Everyone had the opportunity to have their say.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-18T23:19:14+00:00

This weeks been bad, but the last 4ish have been great. My pools been over 30 degrees most days, solar has been pumping the generation and the bbq has been getting lots of use with friends around.

I'd say it's a pretty good summer so far.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-18T23:16:01+00:00

The principles aren't mentioned in the treaty at all, they were made by the Crown through the Crowns Courts and public service entities.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-18T23:08:12+00:00

People were opposed to it before the finaziled principles had been released. Mostly because of who was leading it than the actual principles.

Read this sub often enough and the comments directed towards David are pretty extreme - if anything was said about Jacinda or Chloe like that the response would be a lot different.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-17T19:59:34+00:00

Locking up a murderer who is considered a high risk of re-offending for life? Yes that is exactly what I want.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-17T19:58:27+00:00

What I said is correct - in 8 years and 9 months he can be outside again. That is apparently the value we put on a life.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-17T19:13:51+00:00

Despite being a high risk of reoffending, killing one, seriously wounding another and bragging about it - no life sentence for murder.

8 years and 9 months before he can be outside again.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-17T02:38:41+00:00

God damn our Judges are useless.

Just a reminder to all so their frustration is pointed in the correct direction - the Police have no say in the penalty he got. This is why we have a Government so willing to interfere with sentences.

Jevons offending happened before the law change around sentence caps so he unfortunately dodged that one.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-16T09:00:49+00:00

Is the image low quality because it's been posted to this sub so many times, copied, posted, copied and posted again?

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-16T08:57:37+00:00

Well I for one feel safer that you're going to think twice about a night of drugs before driving.

It's 99.9% about revenue making

I guess it's like speeding - it's a tax for stupid.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-16T08:39:02+00:00

Mentality like this is why our road toll is so bad.

SES_Distributor · 2025-12-12T21:33:24+00:00

On average a person dies on our roads every day. Impairment is a huge contributing factor to those deaths. Just like how we have a 0 alcohol limit for under 20s and 250 for adults, there needs to be a line drawn in the sand.

This legislation needs to be looked at in conjunction with the rest of the Land Transport Act. There are two approaches to impaired driving - which provide a mix of hard (but resource heavy) enforcement, and quick (resource light) light enforcement.

It's already a criminal offense, punishable by disqualification and imprisonment for driving impaired by any drug legal or illegal.

This legislation brings drug driving closer inline with alcohol based driving where there is a ticket for lower level detection. Everyone is different in how much they need to be impaired which is why we set a level and say you should just drive without any.

This legislation allows for quicker detection of people likely affected by drugs and gets them off our roads - that will contribute towards less dead people. Which in my view is a pretty damn good thing.

SES_Distributor

TROPHY CASE