Bradford to Leave Parliament

The NZ Herald has confirmed the rumour that 57yr old Green MP Sue Bradford has announced her retirement after ten years in Parliament. She will be leaving Parliament at the end of the month. Bradford will be replaced by David Clendon who is currently at number 10 on the list. She stated in the Green Party's press release, “I’ll always be politically active and Parliament is just one vehicle for political change" - she's absolutely correct, and good on her.

She's not a very popular lady, with 87.4% of Kiwis opposed to her Anti-Smacking law which the Prime Minister continues to support. The majority of MPs are also in disagreement with the law which criminalises good parents who use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children - though they are unable to state this publically. And of course her own colleagues in the Green Party are sick and tired of the smacking issue and want to rebrand and move on to other issues. Refusing Bradford the position of co-leader after the announcement of Fitzsimons' retirement was quite likely a hint from the caucus that it was time for her to pack her bags.

"I’ll be going back to the grassroots”

A few quotes from Sue Bradford...

"The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children" - Stuff, NZ Herald

"Smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn't" - Scoop

"Parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children." - Newstalk ZB

Boscawen to Stall Section59 Ammendment Bill

In a clever move, ACT's John Boscawen has stated that he will be writing to the Clerk of Parliament, requesting that the first reading of his Bill to ammend the Anti-Smacking law be postponed indefinitely. He's pretty much written off any chances of getting a Christmas card from Dear Leader this year, as Mr. Key's intention in his announcement that National would kill the bill at its first reading was that the issue would go away and that he could get on with more important things. Heck, we all want the issue to go away - but the Prime Minister needs to understand that ignoring 87.4% of Kiwis is not the best way to achieve this.

Boscawen will be speaking tonight in Christchurch - all are welcome, details here.

The Herald has the story.

Forum on the Family

Flew up to Auckland early Friday morning for the Forum on the Family. If I had paid more attention to Whale's damning criticism of Jet Star airline, I wouldn't have bothered with them, but as it was they got us to Auckland two hours late, so got to the forum at 10am, without any coffee... Met up with irrepressible fellow blogger Dave Crampton who has done a few blog posts on the forum, Matt and Madeline who are thinking about doing a blog post (now published), and David Farrar who I think would probably print his blog out and eat it before he admitted he was present at the forum ;) Anyway, here's a few comments from speakers and thoughts from the forum...

Political Panel
Ross Robertson (Labour), Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (National), Judy Turner (United Future - list MP, not in Parliament), Gordon Copeland (Kiwi Party - list MP, not in Parliament)

All the politicians wanted to keep prayer in Parliament saying it was a time of reflection, silence - it's part of history of NZ and so important to keep it... It doesn't bother me either way.

On abstaining from voting, none of them were very keen on it - Gordon in particular, however he was the only MP to miss the third readings of the Anti-Smacking Bill and the Electoral Finance Bill. Kind of ironic however by no means the unforgivable sin.

On the best way to get in touch with an MP, they all agreed that bulk/form emails are only useful for gauging numbers in terms of support or opposition to a proposition, however made it clear that it was often very annoying. One of them stated "the Government does listen to numbers" which elicited a wave of laughter from the crowd. Gordon had a spiel about the number of supportive postcards he had received on the subject of the Therapeutic Bill (2006), and beaming told us that he had held the balance of power at one of its readings, choosing to support the bill (61-60 votes for). For crying out loud, if you're a list MP you shouldn't get up there and skite that you held the balance of power - it's a part of the reason why people are so cynical and scared of our electoral system of MMP.

John Angus, Children's Commissioner
John stated accurately that child abuse isn't a child problem, they don't cause it and aren't responsible for it - it's an adult problem. Apparently there's 100,000 incidents refered to CYFS each year (over 300 per day), but of these a relatively small (but horrific) 13,000 are found to be actual cases of abuse. Child abuse costs the country an estimated $2b yearly. John erroneously stated that 8 children die as a result of child abuse each year, however the figure is more like 18,000 when the children dying from abortion are accounted for.

Bruce Pilbrow, Families Commissioner and Director of Parents Inc
"you can complain and moan... no, you should either do nothing or get stuck in and do something"

On the Families Commission he said, six months ago I would have said can it, kick it - but it's not going to go, so let's get involved - we've got a chance and this is it - if we can't do it then no-once can, and then we should kick it. Bruce reckons more money should be funneled into third-party organisations as "they know how to turn $1 into $2, and they have something called accountability" hah, good call.

---

Opposition leader Phil Goff and Prime Minister John Key both addressed the forum, speaking for 40 minutes each but saying very little... Got to give Key some credit for tackling the Smacking issue first off, but of course his comments on the subject were as usual, unprincipled and embarrassing for any National supporters listening. He said that he wanted to make sure that Nigel Latta is comfortable that parents won't be prosecuted for smacking their child. Nigel has been appointed onto the review board for the smacking law. "Nigel voted no!"... wow John, what a concession... who cares how comfortable Nigel is, what bearing does that have on the law? Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 currently classes a corrective smack using reasonable force as a criminal offence, and whether Nigel is comfortable or not, and whether the police prosecute or not it is still bad law, and 87.4% of Kiwis hate it. Anyway, I put the following question on one small aspect of the abortion issue to Phil Goff,

"Currently young girls can have their pre-born baby aborted without their parents' knowledge or consent - what will your party do about this?"

Phil simply dodged the question and discussed the need to prevent conception so that there is no need to abort - said he doesn't want to see a law which would criminalise abortion - because he says that would mean botched up abortions would be done in back alleys. Of course this is incorrect. Prior to the passing of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977, an average of only one woman died from complications in an illegal abortion each year.

Newly-elected president Voice for Life asked Phil if he agreed that more should be done to enable women to make a truly informed decision regarding their pregnancy. Phil concurred, but made the false and emotive claim that if an unwanted baby is allowed to be born, it will necessarily be destined to a life of misery.

---

Overall the forum was worthwhile, preeminently on account of the wonderful networking opportunities which I took advantage of. Heh, the food was a bit ponsy but Dave and I knocked back quite a few cups of good strong coffee.

Voluntary Student Union Membership on the Cards

Had my second TV interview on Monday. The first was with TV3 just prior to election '08, about Jacket-gate. TV3's reporter, Sia Aston covered the issue of voluntary student union membership today, with Roger Douglas's reform bill set to go to its first reading with Government support on Wednesday. She googled "compulsory + student + union", clicked through to my article about the corruption at VUSA, followed it through to my Facebook page and messaged me, asking for an interview.

The interview went well, however Sia took just one of my comments, focusing instead on a confused NZUSA rep, and UCSA president Steve Jukes verbosely defending the current fascist structure of student politics. While I acknowledge that many student associations and their respective execs, (my own at Canterbury included), do a great deal of work on behalf of students, it is clear that there is an unacceptable level of corruption going on, among a list of other undesirable outcomes of having compulsory unions. As I said to the reporter Lachlan,

"Look at the UCSA for example. At the recent student union elections candidates were called upont to submit a photo and a summary of what they stood for, for the student mag CANTA. One candidate didn't even submit anything but still got elected onto the exec. Or the AGM which took place shortly before the election, CANTA advertised "Free hamburgers, sausage sizzle and $5 jugs of beer" for those who attended the meeting. It was held in the casual setting of an outdoor amphitheatre, adjacent to the student pub, with a quorum of 200 students from a student membership of over 15,000. And no surprises as to what was on the agenda: a move to increase the salaries of those on the exec, with the president on well over $40,000 pa. - money taken forcefully from thousands of other students who probably didn't even know this was going on."

I will say more about the University of Canterbury Students Association in the future, but the above is a sumamry to give you an idea of why I and so many others throughout New Zealand are glad to see the VSM bill before Parliament, and to see the all-too-often anti-democratic National government pledging to support the bill to it's first reading and the select committee process.

The Abortion of a Pro-Lifer

Jim (James Lawrence) Pouillon, 63, of Owosso

On 11 September 2009, Jim was murdered as he sat outside an abortion clinic, protesting the injustice being carrried out behind its doors as he had been doing for many years. The president of the pro-life group Jim was a member of described him as, "just a nice, elderly gentleman who was disabled, used an oxygen tank and wore leg braces." The murderer shot Jim several times to kill him - a comparatively quick and painless death when compared with the slow and brutal methods of killing unborn babies he was standing up for. Jim has saved many babies' lives and many women from the harm of abortion - but finally paid the ultimate price, something he had said he was prepared to do long before. Read more.

What a legend.

Smoking Harms Unborn Babies... Really?

Was surprised to see this smoking warning from the Australian Govt. on a pack of cigarettes. The warning reads,

"Smoking during pregnancy reduces the flow of blood in the placenta and limits the oxygen and nutrients that reach the growing baby. This increases the risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, complications during birth or the baby having a smaller brain and body."

But who cares? The Aussie Govt. sure as heck doesn't. Look at Victoria where they've removed the right of doctors to be able to choose to have nothing to do with abortions for conscience' sake, and have decriminalised abortion up to birth. Or Queensland where in 2007 alone, 19 babies over 20wks survived an abortion attempt but were left to die, refused life-saving help.

Hypocrites.

Blossom

I'm in Sydney, Aussie for two nights for the Liberty & Society Conference. Sitting in the departure lounge at Christchurch airport I pulled out the iBook G4 (thanks Lyd!) and pulled a scrap of paper out of my wallet. During the fairly stolid Local Govt. lecture that morning I had started writing a poem. Hammered it in and kept working on it. Finished it off on the train (they're double-deckers here in Sydney!) to St. Leonards which is in North Sydney. Caught a glimpse of the Opera House too, hope to get a better look at Sydney Saturday or Sunday. Anyway, here's the poem - admittedly pretty sentimental but it was just as spontaneous!

Blossom

half-past midnight; it's dark out here,
blossom petals floating through the air -
defy gravity, time and space;
the warm breeze blowing against your face

dewy grass, my jandals slippery,
holding hands, we walk very quickly.
stars come out in a cloudy sky,
the moon is shining for you and I

forever young I want to be,
walking forever; just you and me.
we need no sleep, we'll talk all night,
thinking out loud til' the sun is bright

we speak of doubt; uncertainty,
and if what's happening is meant to be
we can talk our problems away -
and everything's gonna be ok.

you've got to go, i understand,
things never happen the way we'd planned
lifting my head I see again,
blossom petals floating down like rain

Move to Amend Barbaric UK Premature Birth Law

baby Jayden, 21 weeks, 5 days

Baby Jayden was born halfway through pregnancy at 21 weeks and 5 days old. Despite the doctors' declaration that the child would be born dead with his skin peeling off, young Jayden was instead born alive, healthy - albeit extremely premature. Devestatingly for Jayden and his parents, UK law states that babies under 22 weeks are "unviable" and therefore not eligible to receive assistance if born alive. After two hours of life, and refused basic medical assistance, baby Jayden passed away. His heart-broken mother Sarah shares her story here.

Sarah has set up a Facebook group, Justice for Baby Jayden which has over 260,000 members calling for a change to the barbaric law that allowed this attrocity to take place.

The Daily Mail reports,

"When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over," said Miss Capewell.
"A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat and described him as a 'little fighter.'"
"I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, 'They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him.'

baby Jayden's mother Sarah, 23

Are you disgusted? I am. This tragic case is ultimately no worse than the 46,000,000 other abortions which will be committed place this year. However what makes this case really stand out is that the (a) the law is terrible, and (b) the doctors were so heartless as to stand by and refuse to attempt to help the young child. Sarah makes mention of one little girl, Amillia Taylor who is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days - just one day older than her poor son

I acknowledge the value in debating the morality or necessity for legalised abortion. However it is absolutely crucial that all those taking part in the debate have an objective understanding of what it is that we are talking about. Was baby Jayden to have been killed within his mother's womb, advocates for legalised abortion would not have batted an eye-lid. However when his environment changes (he is placed outside the womb), suddenly the story that he was killed by being refused essential medical attention becomes an international story. In the video below, Scott Klusendorf explains the SLED theory - well worth a watch.

hat-tip: Jill Stanek

Distinctions in Killing

Philosopher Alexander Pruss briefly discusses a question for proponents of abortion.

If you hold that abortion is not immoral because a foetus has no future-directed desires (e.g. no desire to live), would it then follow that it is not immoral to kill an adult who has no future-directed desires?

That's my simplified, summary - but here is Pruss's proposition...

According to some defenders of abortion, what makes it wrong to kill an adult but not wrong to kill a fetus is that the adult has future-directed desires while the fetus does not. But now imagine an innocent adult who has only one future-directed desire: to die. Nonetheless, it is uncontroversially wrong to kill this adult without her consent (it's wrong to kill her with her consent, but that's controversial). Thus, it is wrong to kill this adult without her consent. Why? Well, on the theory in question, it's wrong because she has future-directed desires, or, more precisely, a desire. But the desire is a desire not to be alive. It is absurd that the presence of that desire is what makes it wrong to kill her.

So what makes it wrong to kill her? I see two answers: The first is that she is being deprived of future life. And that future life is valuable even if she does not recognize it as such. The second is that the killing is a destruction of a human body.

It is important to realise that Pruss is not here comparing abortion with euthanasia, but rather with the non-consensual killing of an adult who has absolutely no desire to continue living - something generally accepted to be an immoral action.

Why I Oppose Legalising Marijuana

a marijuana/cannabis leaf

On 2 July I discussed Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei's bill to decriminalise marijuana for medicinal purposes. A couple of weeks later I posted an exclusive interview I took with a marijuana user. Today I will explain why I oppose legalising marijuana but support its decriminalisation for both medicinal and recreational use. However I will make it absolutely clear that I am opposed to and would discourage people from using marijuana for recreational purposes.

First I need to clear up my intentionally misleading title and perhaps confusing introduction to this post by drawing a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in society that the government should specifically legalise, as such an action implies that the government has the inherent authority to permit or deny a particular thing or activity. For example, what would you wish to happen if it were currently the case that the possession, trade and consumption of bread was illegal? Should the government pass a law legalising bread - or would it be better if they instead decriminalised bread - on the grounds that the state has no jurisdiction to legislate for or against it? What about your very existence: should living be legal? The government has no authority to specifically permit the continuation of the life of an individual. Such a decision can surely only be made by the individual. So in the case of marijuana, it should either be either illegal or simply not ruled upon at all. Refraining from making a ruling on something allows for individuals to make decisions unaffected by an assumed belief that the government has endorsed it by actively legalising it. It is preferable to passively permit a harmful activity (such as bungy-jumping) or substance (such as marijuana) than to actively permit it as would be the case if marijuana were legalised.

I could employ the argument that the use of marijuana is justified for the purpose of pain-relief and then follow on from this that it therefore has a legitimate use, and subsequently question the justification of a statuatory line of distinction between medicinal and recreational use. Alternatively I could take the line that marijuana is far less harmful to the body than glue-sniffing or methamphetamine for instance, and should therefore not be legislated against as these other harder drugs are. Again, I could compare the adverse effects of the recreational abuse of marijuana with the destructive effects of drunkeness, concluding that if alcohol is not legislated against then neither should marijuana be. However useful these arguments may be, this post will support decriminalisation from another angle.

The issue of whether an action or thing should be permissible or not is usually blindingly simple. If it does not adversely affect a third party against their will, then the law has no place in the matter. Although I hold that our very bodies are a gift to each of us from God, and that we should value and care for these "jars of clay", the government does not have jurisdiction to force us to be good. The question of how far this principle is to be taken is fundamental to the euthanasia/suicide debate. Should people have the right to choose how to end their own lives - and in what circumstances? But this is an issue for another post.

But what about when marijuana harms innocent bystanders such as children living in the house of a marijuana user, or neighbors upset with the odour wafting over the fence in the evening? First I must demonstrate that this question is baseless as it directs blame at the medium of the damage instead of accusing the perpetrator of the damage. If, on the subject of loud music I asked, "What about when loud music harms innocent bystanders...", it is generally accepted that it would be an incorrect response to ban music. Instead, people should be free to play music so long as it does not adversely affect others. Music played too loud is harmful to the ears and is therefore should not be imposed upon anyone without their prior consent. If certain people wish to enjoy such loud music and knowingly damage their hearing, then that is their prerogative. The government has no mandate to legislate on acceptable decibel levels for music when nobody's hearing is being damaged against their will. Our frustration and anger at loud music played at night by the neighbors should not be targeted at the music itself, but at the immature idiots who are abusing it. They are welcome to either turn down the volume, plug in headphones or drive out into the country and crank up the stereo, but it is unacceptable to harm others against their will.

The question should then be rephrased, "What about when marijuana-users harm innocent buystanders..." The subject then becomes the perpetrator of the harm rather than the medium. Marijuana use is detrimental to the human body, and it is therefore unfair to subject young children to its smoke as they do not have the ability or knowledge to know how to handle such an environment. The solution is clear: people who are unable to give consent (children), or who do not give consent to be affected by others using marijuana in their environment - must not have the same imposed upon them. Since we have already found that the problem is not the medium but the perpetrator, it is clear that either the perpetrator or the bystander must be removed from the environment. An example of this would be where marijuana users find some place else to smoke their weed so that harm to bystanders is significantly reduced or completely removed.

Lets decriminalise marijuana for both medicinal and recreational purposes and allow New Zealand to move forward into the 21st Century on this matter.

Australian Abortion Mills Born Alive Horror

Is there no justice in the World? the state of Queensland in Australia has approximately the same population as New Zealand. In 2007 alone, 19 babies are on record as being born alive as the result of botched abortions: and left to die, wrapped in cloth on the cold hard steel bench in the abortion mill.

It defies imagination and boundaries of cruelty - I can make no further comment, but below are excerpts from the article.

A growing number of induced babies are born alive following failed late-term abortions.

New Queensland Health figures show 19 babies were aborted at 20 weeks or more in 2007, but rather than dying at birth as intended, the newborns were able to breathe unaided.

The babies, some as advanced as 26 weeks, were aborted using drugs to induce labour. Once born, no medical help was offered and they died soon afterwards.

"If babies are born alive after this they are likely to die within a few minutes, although it can take up to half an hour," she said. "We can only keep them wrapped up warm. It is up to the parents whether they want to see the child."

Some were life-threatening, but they also included cleft palates and club feet.

I lol'd

Scrubone can be relied upon to dig up a good joke - here's one he posted today.

A man, who smelled like a distillery, flopped down on a subway seat next to a priest. The man’s tie was stained, his face was plastered with red lipstick, and a half-empty bottle of gin was sticking out of his torn coat pocket. He opened his newspaper and began reading.
After a few minutes the disheveled man turned to the priest and said, “Say, Father, what causes arthritis?”
“Mister, it’s caused by loose living, being with cheap wicked women, too much alcohol, and a contempt for your fellow man.”
“Well, I’ll be jiggered,” the drunk muttered, returning to his paper.
The priest, thinking about what he had said, nudged the man and apologized.
“I’m very sorry, I didn’t mean to come on so strong. How long have you had arthritis?”
“I don’t have it, Father. I was just reading that the Pope does.”

Self-Confirmation

Was chatting with a friend online when I used the term "self-confirmation", imbued with the concept of seeking to confirm one's own self-worth to one's self. However context and facial expressions don't travel so well over Facebook chat, and I wasn't sure at all that I was using the right term, which is to say that I had come up with it on the spot. Anyway, googled it - it appears to be a psychological term which the below excerpt from this article discusses.

The tremendous fear and publicity right now about swine flu is out of proportion with the actual number of deaths (however sad these individual cases may be). Apparently, during the 1990s approximately 36,000 people died each year due to the flu in the United States. So the current number of deaths, which is in the low hundreds, pales in comparison.

“Self Confirmation” [is] where we ignore data that does not support our fear, and only embrace data that does back our contentions. A good example would be the failure to think about the greater number of people who die from normal flu outbreaks instead of the swine flu.

Thought it was pretty interesting as the word is tied in with the (not so current) panic over swine-flu.

Motivation of Govt. Advertising Questioned

An article over at MercartorNet takes a look at Government advertising in the States - is it aimed at informing, or controlling?

Mornings on radio in the United States are filled with advertising. From the time we wake up until the time we fall asleep, it seems the advertising never ends. The jingles, catchy and appealing, sometimes want you to adopt a child or to pony up for National Parks. Sometimes they pressure you to wear a seat belt or to use a booster seat (4.9 is the magic age for using a booster seat -- according to the ad brought to us by the Department of Transportation). For its part, the Department of Health and Human Services wants us to adopt a teen. And so on, and so on…

Of course, they are all good ads with clever jingles and cute lines. At least they seem that way the first few times you hear them. And, obviously, listening to such ads is the price we pay for hearing the news or the music, or whatever the radio is offering. What is surprising, though, is the reversal that has taken place in radio sponsorship. Once the domain of private enterprise, it is now increasingly becoming the voice of government. Our own tax money is put to work to convince us of something politicians and bureaucrats think we ought to do...

...Once again, the messages do promote good causes. We all agree that people can eat too much or guzzle too much gas. And it is certainly a good thing to adopt a teen. But, what are the ads really selling? Why should citizens be urged to use more services which make them more dependent on Uber government? What is the real goal? To have us grateful for all the hovering government? Is this an effort to have federal and state governments dispense all goodies to a grateful populace? To me, that type of government has an overreaching, imperial ring, like the rule of the Caesars or Louis XVI or Czarist Russia.

Click here to continue reading.

Just Say No

...to National.

The National Party under John Key has determined to ignore the result of the referendum - 87.4% of Kiwis voted No to criminalising smacking, but John Key says "the law is working". John Boscawen's bill to amend the law to allow light hand-smacking was drawn from the ballot on Wednesday, but John Key says "the law is working", and subsequently has determined that National will vote against the bill at its first reading.

The Prime Minister states that if parents are criminalised for a light smack, then he will change the law. The law specifically bans smacking for the purpose of correction, which means that parents are criminalised if they give a corrective smack. "But they won't be prosecuted; the police have discretion," retorts Dear Leader.

The Prime Minister states that if parents are prosecuted for a light smack, then he will change the law. It follows that he believes that until parents are prosecuted for a light smack, the law is working well. However the law is not working well - it is simply a case of a bad law (which John Key has admitted to), which the Govt. has instructed the police to ignore or adhere to at their discretion.

I'd expect more sense from a three-year-old at the pre-school down the road. However it's 1am and I expect the pre-school down the road is closed. So my brother Nathan's debut in political blogging shall suffice. Forthwith, an excerpt...

So a few months back old Larry drove his kiwi party caravan up to the B-hive, and loaded off the box's...and box's...and box's of signatures. Yeah!!! Score....but hey what do you know...uh oh suddenly, whoops, Labour decides to have the referendum at another date...hmmm interesting...another $9,000,000 later, and it comes round. Most people vote except for those who found the multi choice YES or NO quite confusing...

heheh, quite clever.

Have you made "The Pledge" yet?

John Key has ignored 88% of New Zealanders who voted No in the referendum, and in response Trevor Loudon is encouraging people to make "The Pledge". I think it's a good idea and encourage everyone else who feels strongly about this to also make the pledge.

I, Andy Moore will never vote for the New Zealand National Party, or any National Party candidate, in any future General Election in my lifetime, until the right of parents to responsibly smack their children is legally restored

To make the pledge, simply copy and paste and insert your own name.

Abortion Case Goes Back to Court of Appeal

Prolife NZ has responded to the news that Right to Life and the anti-life Abortion Supervisory Committee are set to head back to the Court of Appeal early next year.

"Prolife NZ is today welcoming the news that Right to Life will again be representing the unborn in the Court of Appeal. On 20 August 2009 The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against Justice Miller’s 9 June 2008 judgement. Right to Life will once again cross-appeal on behalf of the unborn children in New Zealand who are unable to speak for themselves.

In his 9 June 2008 judgement, Justice Miller stated that ‘There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants,’ and ‘The [ASC] has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law.’

“Why is the ASC so desperate to reject the Justice’s judgement in a bid to retain what is essentially abortion on demand? The ASC was established by Parliament to ensure that New Zealand’s abortion law is carried out as it was originally intended.”

Click here to continue reading the media release. The ASC is intent on ignoring Justice Miller's damning June 2008 judgement of their poor record at ensuring the proper application of abortion law. Not only are they concerned at the implications of the Justice's findings, but they are upset that Right to Life is set to be awarded costs (aprox $40,000) for the case so far. Right to Life on the other hand is welcoming this second Court of Appeal hearing as "an opportunity to represent their case for the legal recognition of the unborn child from conception as a human being".

87.6%

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? New Zealand says NO. While an average of polls taken since 2005 indicate a 82.9% level of opposition to the law, tonight's preliminary response blows those polls out of the water. It's official, 87.6% of Kiwis believe that there is a difference between a smack and child abuse. Preliminary results here. Family First is calling on the Government to immediately repeal the law: something Prime Minster John Key has already stated is all but inevitable.

Dave Crampton says,

more people 1,420,959 - voted No than those who party voted all parliamentary parties other than Labour in the 2008 election.

And Scrubone observes,

No wonder the “Yes Vote” were so bitchy about the victory party – they simply had no hope of having one themselves.

And high-profile blogger and pollster David Farrar comments,

1,622,150 votes cast which I think is a 54% response rate. That is higher than most local body elections and pretty good for a referendum not held with a general election... A massive victory for common sense.

Click here to download an Excel spreadsheet with detailed information of the response in each electorate. Prior to the results coming out, I was projecting a modest NO vote between 70% - 80%, however Simeon said he thought it would be 86%. Good on ya Simeon, and thanks for all your tireless work without which this referendum would never have come about.

I lol'd

An Australian joke this week, as told to me earlier this evening by a friend named Mark Sadler. Mark had popped round to drop off a book for me entitled The Birth Controllers. Had a quick flick through before and notice that the book contains discussion of the ideas of Thomas Malthus - a name I came across when researching on Obama's controversial new appointment as his science advisor; compulsory-abortion advocate, John Holdren. I hope to conduct a second exclusive interview on Star Studded Super Step with Mark sometime soon, as he has some intriguing points of view on such subjects as population control and abortion. Anyway, back to the joke.

Bruce and Blue were two good mates that went way back. It was a nice sunny day and they were playing a 9-hole game of golf together. They had reached the 9th hole and Bruce was just getting himself lined up for the final putt. Just then, out on the main road alongside the golf-course came a slow-moving funeral procession. All the cars had their headlights on and the big black hearse leading the way. Bruce laid down his golf-club, bowed his head and raised his hand to his chest. "That's pretty sentimental of you isn't it?" asked Blue. "I lived with her for 15 years," Bruce responded tersely. "A mintue of silence isn't to ask is it?"

Real Resource Management

Reading through a few of the 3439 submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and came across one from the Centre for Resource Mangement Studies (CRMA), dated 21 July. The CRMA brings to the commitee's attention the relevance that changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) has to the restructuring of the proposed new Auckland Super City. The RMA is a law in New Zealand with the stated purpose of "promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources." You can read the CRMA's submission here, but below are a few excerpts which just scream out freedom and progress.

Last week the Rodney District Council declined an application by a Maori-based joint venture to develop a luxury resort on Te Arai Beach, near Mangawhai.

This was celebrated by many as a ‘victory for the community,’ although we can presume that this ‘community’ does not include many of the unemployed tradesmen in the area, or the young people who might have found employment in the 180 chalet complex.

Some months ago another proposal for a luxury resort on the Te Arai point was ended when the ARC bought the property, for a Regional Park, from the project financier – leaving the developer, and the resort operator I was negotiating with, high and dry.

A third resort project, also in Mangawhai, is teetering on a knife-edge, dependent on whether the Kaipara District Council will process the application to expand the facilities to meet the needs of the US operator as a non-notified application. It has taken two years to get the present proposal through the system. If the additions are notified the investors may have to wait a further two years – and they simply will not do so.

So one small town on the East Coast of Northland faces the prospect of three resorts being abandoned because of the RMA process – even though all these resorts were intended to be ready in time for the Rugby World Cup...

...Any RMA decision-maker is required to finally assess any application against Part 2 of the Act, and, given the present wording of the Act, the ecosystems or natural character, will almost always trump economic development and job creation.

Luxury resorts are naturally built in locations of great beauty and natural character. That means they cannot get built in New Zealand because the protection of that natural beauty and character almost always trumps economic development and employment. The current wording of the Act says economic growth and development are not matters of national importance, or indeed of any importance at all. The developer cannot compete with the national importance accorded to the natural and physical resources of the environment...

...We are in a time of crisis and the ordinary people are expecting Government to provide a stimulus to economic development, productivity and employment. But Government cannot fund this activity – it does not have the cash and cannot borrow more. Our credit rating is vulnerable.

The key is to remove these obstacles and mop up the unemployed in privately funded construction projects and the downstream activities they generate.

The Centre believes these extraordinary times legitimise a major re-write of Part 2 of the Act.

The submission follows this introduction with the proposed re-write; I have included a few of these below,

Section 6 (b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. 

Pedantic legislation on the protection of landscapes can be vague and extremely detrimental to proposed investments in an area. Such legislation often takes the form of opposing windmill farms or deforestation.

Section 6 (g) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, and in particular –

(i) the use of market mechanisms to promote their efficient allocation.
(ii) the need to promote this efficient use by reducing transaction costs to a reasonable minimum.
(iii) by councils collecting data bases relating to previous applications so that applicants do not have to provide information already provided by previous applicants.
(iv) The need for communities to have access to locally sourced mineral aggregates for construction purposes.

The Act also states that regard must be given to a number of things including,

• Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources,
• the effects of climate change, and
• the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.

To which the CRMA suggests the Committee read Julian Simon, strike out the reference to climate change and ask what benefits there are from using renewable energy. Love it.

I was interested to note that ACT MP Sir Roger Douglas, ex-Leader of the National Party, Don Brash  and highly-successful businessman and ACT supporter Alan Gibbs are all trustees on the board of the CRMA.