And why they’re not the same

Justice, Parliament, and the public sector

Members of parliament, rangatira, and cultural background reports

Members of parliament

In July 2009, the media revealed that Bill English, a member of parliament, was receiving about $900 a week as a housing allowance for ministers, but was living in his own Wellington home. On 27 September 2009, the auditor-general’s office said that it was making preliminary enquiries into parliamentary housing expenses. On 29 September 2009, Bill English stated that he had paid back all the allowance he had received since the November 2008 election, a sum of $32,000.

In November 2003, Donna Awatere Huata, a member of parliament, was charged with fraud. It was alleged that she took $82,000 from the Pipi Foundation, a government-funded charity. She was convicted in August 2005 and sentenced to 2 years 9 months imprisonment in September 2005.

In November 2007, Taito Phillip Field, a member of parliament, was charged with corruption as a member of parliament. It was alleged that he helped get work permits for Thai nationals who worked for discounted rates on properties he owned. He was convicted in August 2009 and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in October 2009.

Bill English, once warned of an investigation, was given the opportunity to pay back the money he had taken. It is not known whether Donna Awatere Huata was given the same opportunity.

Donna Awatere Huata and Taito Phillip Field are the only New Zealand members of parliament to be imprisoned for any offence. Taito Phillip Field is the only New Zealand member of parliament to be imprisoned for corruption as a member of parliament.

Bill English is Pakeha, Donna Awatere Huata is Māori, and Taito Phillip Field is Samoan.

Rangatira

In July 2013, Lorraine Skiffington and Dr Love were charged with fraud. It was alleged that in December 2006 they had taken 2 payments worth $1.5 million from the Wellington Tenths Trust, which Dr Love chaired. The payments were in exchange for showing favour to the Redwood Group, a property developer wishing to develop Wellington Tenths Trust land.

Lorraine Skiffington contracted cancer. In August 2015, she was granted a permanent stay of proceedings. She was 57 years old. She died in September 2017.

Dr Love contracted dementia (R v Love [2016] NZHC 2046, para 35). In August 2016, he stood trial. He was convicted in September 2016 and sentenced to 2 years 6 months imprisonment in October 2016. He was 78 years old. He died in October 2018.

Lorraine Skiffington lived for 2 years after the stay of proceedings, a period that included Dr Love’s trial and his first 11 months in prison.

Dr Love was sentenced to a period of imprisonment that would have seen him die in prison if he had not been paroled in October 2017. When he was paroled, he had compromised mental functioning and declining physical health.

Lorraine Skiffington was Pakeha and Dr Love was Māori.

Cultural background reports

New Zealand’s criminal justice system has recognised formally since the mid-1980s that an offender’s cultural background may be taken into account in sentencing (Criminal Justice Act 1985, section 16 Offender may call witness as to cultural and family background, replaced by Sentencing Act 2002, section 27 Offender may request court to hear person on personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background of offender).

It is not known whether cultural background reports were prepared in the cases of Donna Awatere Huata, Taito Philip Field, and Dr Love. They had all had advantages in life and were people of status. Donna Awatere Huata is the daughter of Colonel Arapeta Awatere DSO MC; Taito Philip Field is the paramount chief of Manase in Samoa; Dr Love was the descendant of paramount chiefs of Te Ati Awa and also had the title Sir Ngatata Love. It may have been thought that a report showing a background of privilege would not have helped in their sentencing.

However, there has been a relevant development in the use of cultural background reports. In a judgment in August 2019, Justice Christine Gordon QC said of the offender that his report showed that he had “not been particularly disadvantaged” in life. She went on to say “In many ways, you have lived quite a privileged life but one factor that is common with just about any other person in prison: you are Māori. You were disheartened by your inability to secure finances for what you wanted to do. You thought it was because of the colour of your skin; you thought your white friends did not have the same disadvantage. [It was] not simply about making fast money through the drugs trade, it was about disadvantage brought about by culture.”

Something does not feel right about the treatment of Donna Awatere Huata, Taito Philip Field, and Dr Love. The judge’s recognition that being Māori, even if privileged, is in itself a disadvantage may be a hint about what the “something” is.

Could there one day be justice?

2020

Judges and inappropriate decisions

In 2016, Judge Rebecca Ellis in the High Court allowed a pornographer to be discharged without conviction.

This was a case involving thousands of victims. Every child portrayed in the pornographic images was a victim. The accused’s wife was a victim. His 2 children were victims.

The person who created these victims got no penalty whatsoever.

In 2020, Judge Stephanie Edwards in the District Court allowed a sexual assailant to be discharged without conviction.

The assailant stalked 3 women and inappropriately touched them. He carried out these actions because assaulting women is one of the tasks required of gang prospects and he wanted to join a gang.

There were hundreds of victims in this case – the 3 women he assaulted, women in the community who now know that gang prospects can assault them with impunity, and women in gangs who once again get the message that no-one will protect them from violence.

The person who created these victims got no penalty whatsoever. And why was that? Because a criminal conviction on his record would hinder his dreams of becoming a gunner in the army and travelling overseas to play rugby.

How do these cases equate to justice?

2020

Bullying in the public sector

Martin Matthews’ handling of complaints against Joanne Harrison made me think about my experience of bullying in the public sector when I worked at IRD from 1999 to 2004.

Between 2014 and 2016 several staff members complained to Martin Matthews about Joanne Harrison. He did nothing about the complaints, which left Joanne Harrison free to force the whistleblowers to leave the ministry more quickly than they otherwise would have done.

Because Joanne Harrison’s conduct was criminal, Martin Matthews was eventually forced to act against her. Those of us who were victims of workplace bullies, who complained to our senior managements, and who had no option except to leave our jobs will never get the satisfaction of seeing senior management act against our tormentors.

The colleague who bullied me at work was not satisfied when I took the only path open to me and left the job. She continued to bully me after I left, concocting a story that I was sending her malicious mail. She complained to her employer at the IRD (our former joint employer) who hired a private investigator to inquire. The investigator wrote a report for the employer saying that I had sent the mail but that there was no evidence of my doing so. Soon after the investigator submitted the report, the employer gave the investigator the job of IRD’s Corporate Security Manager and he stayed at IRD for 8 years and 5 months.

I was bullied in 3 ways-

1. by my colleague, who bullied her workmates in her jobs at the IRD, Law Commission, and Butterworths because she felt threatened by her own inadequacies;

2. by my immediate supervisors, all males, who took no action over the bullying because it was just girls being girls;

3. by the employer, who gave a job to the private investigator because he wrote the report that the employer wanted in order to end the matter.

How was this justice?

2017

Gender bias in the public sector

I had an unsuccessful career as a public sector lawyer from 1975 to 2015. I say that my career was unsuccessful because I contrast it with the careers of the 4 male public sector lawyers with whom I started out. By the time the 5 of us retired, the men had all received the recognition of a title – and the salary that a title brings. I alone retired unrecognised – and on a lower salary.

My career is a perfect illustration of the gender pay gap in the public sector.

In this article, I am going to-

state the facts

apply to myself the standard reasons offered for women failing to be successful

set out my public expressions of belief in the fairness of the public sector

reach a conclusion.

The facts

In the 1970s, 5 lawyers began working in the Law Reform Division (LRD) of the Department of Justice. They were, let us say, Bill, Frank, Hugo, and John, plus me.

In the 2010s, Bill, Frank, Hugo, John, and I retired. At the time we retired,-

Bill was an Acting Chief Executive

Frank was a Team Leader

Hugo was a Principal Adviser

John was a Deputy Chief Executive.

I was nothing.

The standard reasons offered for women failing to be successful

1. Women are not as competent as men

My competence can be judged from the facts in my Linkedin profile .

I describe here 4 of my major achievements.

1976 – Matrimonial Property Act

In 1975, the Hon Martyn Finlay introduced the Matrimonial Property Bill to Parliament and, in 1976 after the change of Government, the select committee began its consideration of the Bill. As a Justice Department Legal Adviser, I was one of the 3 officials assisting the committee.

The Bill was very unpopular with men because it provided for the equal division of matrimonial property between a husband and wife. A well-known male lawyer called R L Fisher published a scathing attack on it in the New Zealand Law Journal. I published a response, entitled The Matrimonial Property Bill – Misguided Chivalry? ([1976] NZLJ 438). Dr Finlay said in his second reading speech-

“The proposal as a whole, the concept as such, and the manner in which it was explained in the Bill certainly attracted some criticism … that was dealt with in an article I was glad to see published in the New Zealand Law Journal. The article was written by one of the advisers to the Department of Justice who had sat through the proceedings of the committee.” (NZPD 23 November 1976).

1993 – Privacy Act

The Privacy of Information Bill was introduced in 1991 and was passed as the Privacy Act in 1993. As a Justice Department Senior Legal Adviser, I was the official who saw the Bill through from start to finish.

The Bill was greatly disliked by both the public and private sectors because it required them to handle personal information in a principled way. I stuck with it and, by the time the Minister of Justice, the Hon Douglas Graham, gave his third reading speech, he was able to say of the new law and me-

“It is a great credit to … the officials… in particular, if I may say so, Margaret Nixon, who has become regarded as an expert in almost every facet of the subject.” (NZPD 5 May 1993).

2004 – Income Tax Act

The project to rewrite the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) in plain language began with the passage of the ITA 1994. This Act replaced the Part structure of the ITA 1976 but carried forward all its convoluted wording. The IRD’s Rewrite Unit of 3 full-time staff was then supposed to produce a Bill turning the convolutions into plain language. However, the years 1995 to 1999 went by and nothing emerged.

I became a Parliamentary Counsel at the start of 1994 and went to the IRD’s Rewrite Unit at the end of 1999. I immediately realised that the existing members of the Unit had not produced a rewritten ITA because they knew nothing about law drafting. However, I did, so I got going.

The Rewrite Project was regarded with derision by tax lawyers and accountants because they considered that departmental officials could not possibly know anything about tax. Despite having to put up with the scorn of the tax industry, I managed to get the ITA 2004 passed.

The ITA contained not only 6 rewritten Parts but also a rewritten definition section and innovative features intended to maintain plain language tax drafting. The new features are described in an article I was asked to write for Clarity magazine, Rewriting the Income Tax Act (2004) 52 Clarity 22

Having rescued the rewrite project, I left the IRD and went back to the PCO.

2015 – End of Life Choice Bill

I retired from the Parliamentary Counsel Office at the end of 2012 but in early 2013 was asked by the Chief Legal Adviser of the Legal Team at the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives to go and work there. I did so, and stayed until the Clerk of the House disestablished the Legal Team in 2015.

One of the functions of the Legal Team was to draft Member’s Bills. The last Bill I drafted was the End of Life Choice Bill for David Seymour MP.

These are just 4 of my achievements. There are many more examples of significant Acts that I worked on as a departmental official – such as the Human Rights Act 1993 – or as a law drafter – such as the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. The titles of the Acts and Bills I have mentioned illustrate clearly how much my work as a public sector lawyer over 40 years has contributed to the New Zealand of today.

I believe that my work record establishes that I was at least as competent as Bill, Frank, Hugo, and John.

2. Women are not as confident as men

As mentioned above, I worked on contentious matters as both a departmental official and a law drafter. I could not have survived in these roles for 40 years if I did not have confidence.

I also showed confidence in a completely different realm. Having been a member of Toastmasters since 1980, I agreed in 2007 to run Toastmasters groups for prisoners, first at Rimutaka Men’s Prison and then at Arohata Women’s Prison (where I volunteer to this day). Journalist Matthew Lo Ho-Sang attended Toastmasters when he was a prisoner in Rimutaka and subsequently wrote an article for Capital magazine in August 2013. This is what he said-

“Nixon admits she felt apprehensive before meeting the prisoners when she first went through the Rimutaka labyrinth of gates and doors. But despite facing a group of convicts whose crimes Nixon didn’t know … it wasn’t the thought of being abused, intimidated or even attacked that fazed her. ‘I didn’t want the men to think we were do-gooders who were being patronising’, she says. ‘But they didn’t have that attitude – from the start we got together as fellow human beings and got on with it.’”

(At the time, I did not know that the man who was to rise the highest among the 5 of us was the only one of us with a criminal conviction. It is a pity I was not able to pass along this encouraging fact to the prisoners.)

I believe that both my work and volunteering records establish that I was at least as confident as Bill, Frank, Hugo, and John.

3. Women do not apply for the roles that are available

I applied for the Chief Parliamentary Counsel role in 2009. Four of us from within the PCO applied, 2 men – Bill and, let us say, Geoff – and 2 women – Catherine and I. Only Bill and Geoff made it to the short list. Catherine and I contacted Mark Prebble, the State Services Commissioner, and insisted on being included on the short list and being interviewed for the position.

Neither Bill nor Geoff was appointed because Mark Prebble felt that an Englishman must be better than any local, male or female, at leading New Zealand’s law drafters.

I applied for the Deputy Chief Parliamentary Counsel position twice. I applied in 2010, when Bill was appointed, and again in 2011 after Bill became the Acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel.

The Team Leader and Principal Adviser positions that Frank and Hugo held were not advertised. Instead, the Chief Parliamentary Counsel gave the roles to them and the Acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel confirmed them.

I believe that these facts establish that I applied for the roles that were available in the sense of being advertised.

My public expressions of belief in the fairness of the public sector

In 1980, I was interviewed by Megan Richardson for a study called Women in Law, which was published in The New Zealand Law Students Handbook, 1981. This is what I am quoted as saying of my prospects in the public service-

“There is no question that because she is a female she should not get the job or be promoted.”

In 2008, the Pay and Employment Equity Review Case Study of the PCO needed a photo of 2 female staff members to demonstrate what a fair employer the PCO was. The Chief Parliamentary Counsel asked my secretary and me to be in the photo. I agreed, because I like being helpful and it did not occur to me to question whether the PCO was, in fact, a fair employer.

Conclusion

How did my belief in the fairness of the public sector work out for me?

I was at least as competent and confident as Bill, Frank, Hugo, and John and I applied for the roles that were advertised.

But Bill, Frank [deceased 2024], Hugo, and John [deceased 2025] succeeded – they got the titles and the salaries – and I, the only woman in the group, did not.

How was this justice?

2018

And whose side the Dominion Post is on!

In December 2019, I had a letter published in the Dominion Post. It said-

“I was pleased to see Ian Powell (Letters, Dec 4) drawing Jim Rose’s attention to the facts on gender pay gaps in the medical profession. I wish to draw Jim Rose’s attention to an example of gender pay gaps in a different professional area in the public service: 5 lawyers starting work around the same time and all retiring around the same time 40 years later. For ease of reference, we will call them Bill, Frank, Hugo, John, and Margaret.

When they retired, who do you think had the titles and the commensurate salaries? Jim Rose would say that the woman did not have these things because her ‘strong desire for work-life balance’ caused her to take time off to raise a family. But, in fact, she did not do this; she slogged unremittingly through her 40 years at work without having a family. Jim Rose would also say that the woman’s ‘strong desire for work-life balance’ caused her to not apply for management jobs. But, in fact, she applied for the jobs that were advertised – and then given to her male colleagues – and she was available for the roles that were in the gift of management – and were given to her male colleagues.

In brief, the contributions that Bill, Frank, Hugo, and John made in the workplace were recognised; Margaret’s were not. What reason could there be for this? How about we heed the wisdom of Sherlock Holmes – ‘Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth’.”

Later in the same month, the Dominion Post published another letter of mine, which read-

“Alessandra Nixon (no relation) is quite right (Letters, Dec 21). There are not and never will be Virtual Assistants called Mark, John, or Frank or even Bill, Hugo, or Ross, for that matter. The clue is in the job title – an ‘Assistant’? A chap being called anything so lowly? When Virtual Assistants are renamed Virtual Chiefs or Virtual Leaders or Virtual Principals, then we can expect male voices.”

These letters raised a serious issue and a number of women congratulated me on them. However, the Dominion Post could not see the issue; it was concerned about something quite different. Gina Crampton, News Director, sent me an email saying-

“Hi, Margaret Nixon,

Thank you for supporting our letters page with your correspondence.

However, it has been brought to our attention that twice recently you have used several what seem to be random male names in letters that are in fact the names of former colleagues (including managers) from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, so identifiable to quite a large number of (former) public servants.

We would ask that you avoid doing this in future.”

I sent her an immediate reply saying-

“Dear Gina Crampton

This seems to me an example of shooting the messenger, rather than listening to the message. Fortunately, in modern times, people with something to say need not rely on pleasing the editor of the Letters page. I will heed what you say by cancelling my subscription to the DomPost and turning to social media instead.”

The Dominion Post will surely fold one day soon, and then there will be justice!

2019

Back To Top