Referendum File 3: Kiwis Might Fly

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy
Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?

Reading between the lines of the latest email update from the Campaign for Democracy (previously "The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy"), it is clear that the petition to bring in binding referendums has hit the brick wall of public apathy to this issue. The petition question reads,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

The question was approved by the Clerk of Parliament on 17 December, 2009. One year from the initiation of a citizens initiated referendum, the signatures will be required and will be counted by the Clerk's office. The office has a period of three months in which to do this. If the number is found to be insufficient (10% of the voting population, approx. 300,000), the Clerk will allow an additional three months for signatures to be collected, and then re-submitted. Tack on a further three months for the Clerk to tally up the new total, and hey... it's September 2011 already. Two months out from New Zealand's general election.

The update, put out by Larry Baldock (also leader of the Kiwi Party) states,

Yes, it has been a while since you heard from me [Larry Baldock] and the Camapaign4Democracy. Winter is over and the weather much more conducive to signature collecting. Many thanks to those who have faithfully been sending in a few signed petition sheets over the last few months... Please send in any completed forms to P.O Box 9228 Greerton, Tauranga 3142 and I will be able to give an update on totals in the next update."

It sounds like Baldock wants to pull in the last few signatures in the five or six weeks he has left, and then submit them to Parliament, making a public statement about the number collected, and how significant it is to the issue of whether NZ should adopt binding CIRs or not.

The question then is, will he leave it at that and say - "we got 20 or 30,000 signatures calling for binding CIR - the Govt. should act on this... The Kiwi Party is the only party that will introduce a bill which would bring in binding CIR" - or will he attempt to somehow pull in another 270,000 signatures in the extra six months he knows is up his sleeve?

Click here for more info and articles on the Kiwi Party and the referendum.

The Kiwi Party and Abortion

The Kiwi Party has made itself known as a "Judeo-Christian Values Party" - although upon a cursory glance of their website I couldn't find any reference to this. The party's leader is ex-United Future List MP, Larry Baldock. He is backed up with fellow ex-United Future List MP, Gordon Copeland now serving as Party President, and More FM Radio celebrity, Simon Barnett. The party is strongly pro-life, and I have huge respect for their opposition to abortion. The Kiwi Party has just recently adopted Gordon Copeland's "Abortion (Informed Consent) Amendment" bill.

I am absolutely in favour of what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to take an incremental step forward through the provision of information through counselling before the mother makes a final request to be considered for an abortion in accordance with the current Abortion Law. Below is a diagram of the change the amendment would make.

It's a great bill, and you can read an excellent short summary of it here. However, it is not going to go anywhere. In another document entitled "Abortion Law Reform in New Zealand; a Political Strategy", the Kiwi Party outlines its strategy for reforming New Zealand's abortion law for the better by passing the informed consent bill. Coincidentally, the strategy involves getting the Kiwi Party into Parliament. However neither the Kiwi Party, nor any of its candidates will ever enter Parliament again. This is because they are incompetent and unprofessional.

Baldock's referendum to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act (subsequently adopted by the Kiwi Party) was a thinly veiled bid to build the platform necessary to get Larry Baldock back into Parliament in 2008 with the newly formed Kiwi Party. It failed in this objective. Baldock's 2011 Election Bid was to run a referendum seeking to amend New Zealand's law on referendums so that they would be binding. The question read: “Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?” Confusing, huh. Anyway, this referendum also failed in building a strong platform to get Baldock back into Parliament. Last I heard it was 280,000 signatures short of completion, and with only a few months remaining. So what new strategy from the desk of the Kiwi Party? A policy to make a significant improvement in New Zealand's abortion law.

Let's be clear. The law would not restrict any abortions. However through the improved system of counselling, it is strongly likely that the number of abortions in New Zealand would drop significantly. (over 10% I think).

Earlier this year I wrote Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy and Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?, outlining a critical lack of wisdom and integrity in the Kiwi Party. I will be writing further "Referendum Files" shortly. One of the party's key policies embodies the Socialist ideal of wealth-redistribution through an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. There are also major issues with the party's Law and Order policy which I have written about here.

In their political strategy document, they write:

Therefore progress can not be made unless the Kiwi Party or some other Party which is prepared to commit to this issue, is elected to Parliament. The Kiwi Party already has a high recognition factor in New Zealand with an independent poll indicating that 8.7% of voters would “likely” vote for the party if they were confident that it could achieve either 5% of the party vote or one electorate seat, thus ensuring its presence in the next parliament.

This 8.7% figure, obtained through "independent polling" is old news. The Kiwi Party used it at the last election... and I have no idea who the independent pollsters were, but they didn't quite get it right did they... In the 2005 election Baldock received 3.67% of the vote in his electorate of Tauranga. However you have to get roughly over 40% to win in this electorate. In 2008 he received 5.11% of the vote. That election, the Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the party vote, even with their platform, repealing the Anti-Smacking Law being one of the key election issues. How well are they going to do at the 2011 election where neither abortion nor smacking will be key election issues?

I will be writing more shortly about The Kiwi Party; why they should not run at the next election, and why you shouldn't waste your vote on them.

Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?

In Referendum File 1 we looked at the claims and the logic found in a letter which was sent by Larry Baldock to his supporters. In Referendum File 2 we are going to take a look at the petition itself and ask the question, "Can we trust the Campaign for Democracy with the personal information they are collecting from people around New Zealand?"

The petition is a vast improvement on Larry Baldock and the Kiwi Party's last petition sheet which had two petition forms on one A4 sheet, one asking for a referendum on the legality of corporal punishment, the other asking for a referendum calling for a Royal Inquiry into the wider causes of domestic violence. On 17 December, 2009 the phrasing and format of the new petition which asks,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

was approved by the clerk of Parliament. It is clear to see that the petition layout has borrowed a lot from the UNITE Union's current petition for a Citizens Initiated Referendum which was launched on 11 June 2009, seeking to have the minimum wage raised to $15 per hour. (The $15/hr minimum wage is also a policy of the Kiwi Party). Instead of squashing 20 signatures onto each page as was the case with Baldock's last petitions, the new petition has space for ten signatories. "If they can't read it, they won't count it!" is written in bold capitals at the top of the sheet - something left off the last petitions, and which Baldock subsequently requested petitioners to say to people as they signed. Illegible signatures were a real problem when collecting, causing between 2 - 5% of the collected signatures to be disqualified by the Clerk. A freephone 0800 number, website address, and logo of the organising group have been added at the bottom of the sheet - all similarities with the UNITE petition which preceeded it.

bottom, right-hand-corner of petition form

The most notable difference between the last petition sheet and the new one is the Optional Contact Info section on the right-hand-side of the form. This again, is a direct adaptation from UNITE's petition which has the same thing, with almost identical wording. In the bottom right-hand-corner, the following claim is made,

"This information is to keep you informed about our campaigns. We won't give your details to anyone else."

The UNITE petition makes the same promise to signatories. And while Baldock's last two petitions did not bear this reassuring privacy information, Baldock instructed petitioners (myself included) to inform people signing, that their details would not be passed on to a third party, and that the only people seeing their signatures would be the Clerk and those assistants who would help count the signatures. I draw your attention to this claim made by the Campaign 4 Democracy, because, quite frankly, I struggle to believe it. Because in the lead-up to the 2008 general election, the Kiwi Party cast aside the assurance it had given to signatories, and breached their trust by emailing out photocopied petition forms to Kiwi Party supporters, asking them to post Kiwi Party promotional material to the signatories in an effort to increase their Party Vote. Below is my summary of this incident which I wrote shortly before the 08 election at the ChristianVote website.

Letter to be sent to 300,000+ who signed petition. In a staggering breach of trust, The Kiwi Party have announced that they intend to send an individual letter (click here to read the letter) to every single person who signed the petition calling for the wider causes of child abuse and family violence to be addressed (click here to read the email they sent out). I and many others have personally assured many hundreds of people signing the petition that under no circumstances will they receive any mail, and that the address is purely for the purpose of establishing that they are who they say they are. And now The Kiwi Party is sending out PDF documents (click to view an example) containing between 200 and 1,000 home addresses to its members, so that they can then send out letters calling for donations and a party vote for the Kiwi Party. "You can help guarantee the referendum is binding by giving your Party Vote to the Kiwi Party." the letter erroneously claims. The Privacy Act states that "An agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose shall not use the information for any other purpose".

Pro-family advocacy group Family First which had backed the petitions the whole way promptly responded to the actions of the Kiwi Party with a press release in which they stated,

"Family First NZ is distancing itself from attempts by the Kiwi Party to write to the more than 300,000 people who signed the anti-smacking petition, encouraging them to vote for the Kiwi Party at the upcoming Election... Family First... is concerned that NZ’ers who signed the petition may not want to be personally contacted by a political party and did not provide their information for this purpose. But then again, they’re not the only political party using private addresses to push their case.”

Baldock of the Kiwi Party then responded in an email to supporters, denying any wrongdoing:

“What I [have] in my possession are the petition forms in my name which asked the question, “Should the Government give urgent priority to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ?” Unfortunately although we collected just over 300,000 signatures, the Clerk deemed there were insufficient to trigger a referendum and the forms were returned to me, their legal owner. In keeping with sound legal advice, I will ensure these addresses are not used for any purpose other than the original intent, namely to repeal the ‘Anti-smacking’ law and address the real causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse. Most of the signatures on this second petition were also signatories on the first and are interested in both objectives.
...I believe most will look at our final objectives and accept our sincere motives.

Baldock's line of reasoning is unsound, pragmatic and highly reprehensible. In his original email to supporters in which he asked them to volunteer to receive photocopied petition forms and then send Kiwi Party promotional material out, Balock wrote excitedly, "We have over 300,000 names and addresses of the people who signed the petition and our goal is to write to every one of these concerned Kiwis..." I don't know about you, but I find his attitude towards the full names, signatures, residential addresses and date of births of 300,000 New Zealanders to be unacceptable.

Even Baldock himself stated that he told signatories that the peition would not be used to send them mail. Below is an excerpt from a rebuttal written by Baldock, in response to my report on the Kiwi Party's actions (download here):

Whenever I told people that they did not have to worry about the petition being used to send them mail said it there was usually in the context of someone concerned about the Government getting access to the names of who signed the anti-smacking petition. That is what people were concerned about. A few were concerned about the possibility of receiving junk mail as a result which does happen. The letter we are sending could not be considered marketing junk mail since it is consistent with the purpose of the petition.

Again, here is the pragmatism coming through strongly again. Baldock first acknowledges that he told people that their details would not be used to send them mail, then he attempts to justify the decision to send them mail by saying that it "could not be considered marketing junk mail since it is consistent with the purpose of the petition". The Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the vote at the 2008 general election. I believe that if they had have been considered a more major player, gaining say, 5%+ of the vote, that the media would have held the spotlight to the Kiwi Party, and exposed these dubious activities.

It must be made quite clear that the group that is running the Campaign for Democracy is the same group that organised the last two petitions. When the Campaign was first launched it was named the "Kiwi Campaign for Democracy". The word "Kiwi" was dropped from the campaign name several months into preparations for the campaign launch. In the first few months of the build up to the campaign launch, a large proportion of the material on the Campaing for Democracy website was simply cross-posted from the Kiwi Party website. And incidentally, you'll notice that the colour-schemes for both the Kiwi Party and the Campaign for Democracy are essentially identical.

In summary, we come back to the initial question: "Can the organisers of the petition be trusted with the information they are gathering?" I would love to think that we can trust them. However, I don't know. What I do know is that I will not be signing the petition.

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy

Larry Baldock of The Kiwi Party

The StarStuddedSuperStep blog will be following the progress of the Campaign for Democracy, bringing updates to our readers and visitors. Background to the campaign, details on those behind it, and further information will be presented in future Referendum Files. Our readers from New Zealand will be aware of the apparantly unsuccessful citizens initiated referendum to overturn the Anti-Smacking Law. The man behind the petition for that referendum, Larry Baldock has responded to the outcome of that referendum, with a new petition for a citizens initiated referendum on the question,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

The implications of this question will be discussed in later posts, but there's a quick summary.

On 28 Jan 2009, an ally of the Campaign for Democracy, Better Democracy NZ published an article in which they reproduced a letter from Larry Baldock to his supporters. An excerpt from the letter follows,

The results were very encouraging with 500 signing the petition in 3 hrs on their way in to the BBB event. Considering there has been very little publicity as yet about the new petition we found that approx 7-8 out of ten were prepared to sign...

The letter states that 7-8 out of ten people were prepared to sign. I can't challenge this figure as I have no first-hand knowledge of what took place, however I can say that, having collected approximately 10,000 signatures myself on the last petition, that 75% is a very high ratio. Whether this figure relates to the number of people who made contact with the campaigners, and subsequently signed, or the number of people walking past who came over and signed, it is still an unusually high ratio - particularly given the lack of publicity, as Baldock commented.

...The conversation generally went like this.

Campaigner: "Will you sign our petition Sir/Maam?"
Passer by: "What's it about?"
Campaigner: "Making referenda binding upon parliament. Do you remember the anti-smacking referendum last year when 87% said no and Parliament has ignored it?"
Passer by: "Sure do. It was ridiculous. What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!"
Campaigner: "Exactly, that's why we must now collect signatures for another one to make Parliament listen."
Passer by: "Sure I agree with that, where do I sign?"

The example of the typical conversation outlined in the letter is astounding. The passer by asks, "What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!", to which the campaigner agrees and then encourages them to go ahead and take part in the referendum anyway. There is no progression of logic here, simply a desire to rectify the government's shameful rejection of the results of the last non-binding referendum - by having another non-binding referendum.

Baldock's 2011 Election Bid

Petitioner, Larry Baldock in 2007

The petition asking "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" was put forward by Focus on the Family employee Sheryl Savill, however it was the initiative of ex-United Future list MP, Larry Baldock. The petition was signed by over 390,000 Kiwis and was supported by people from a wide range of backgrounds and political parties. However as the 08 election got closer, questions began being asked about what the petition was all about. This is covered in more detail in my Christian Voting guide for the 08 election but in summary involved a new political party forming on the back of the petition, followed by an unprecedented breach of privacy of the personal details of the signatories to the petition. Then on 5 September the Kiwi Party announced their second petition, this time calling for referendums on a law change to be binding. This is not only a knee-jerk reaction to the National Government's ignoring the 87.6% No vote response to the smacking referendum, but also an attempt at creating a platform from which to relaunch the Kiwi Party into the '11 election - and this time it's even more blatant. The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy website and the Kiwi Party's own website contain identical articles, not to mention a striking similarity in the name - and this despite Larry's denial at a recent Christchurch meeting that the campaign was being run by the Kiwi Party.

However today the Legislation Advisory Committee which is headed up by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has come out saying the petition must not be allowed to go ahead as it would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, which provided for non-binding referendums - NZ Herald. Petition initiator and Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock fairly responded, "they're trying to shut down democracy". Simeon Brown of NZ Debate observed that "if they have a right to veto it, we should have the right to veto parliament". The fact of the matter is, there are no legitimate grounds on which to prevent the petition from going ahead. The CIR act was established to ensure that citizens could have their say if they thought they were being ignored - on any issue apart from one which had been the subject of a prior referendum question. The Committee raises many very good points as to why the aim of the petition is at conflict with the way New Zealand's electoral system works. Palmer states that, "It is doubtful that Parliament contemplated that such a referendum could be held under the authority of the Act". However if this were the case, why does the law specify various prohibitions for what petition questions may relate to (Section 4), but neglect to rule out questions relating to the operation of the CIR process itself? He comments further on in the Herald's article,

"The second question that arises is what does binding mean? Does it mean that the content of the referendum is capable of displacing or amending an Act of Parliament directly? As a matter of legal drafting, that cannot be the case. It seems quite impossible for a citizen's initiated referendum to contain professionally drafted amendments that would be legally effective.

Palmer here identifies one of the key problems with the Kiwi Party initiative to amend the CIR Act. A simplified petition question can firstly, not adequately address the plethora of issues surrounding a proposed law change, and secondly, acting on the results of a binding referendum would be extremely difficult as referendum questions never specify the exact changes that should be made to a particular law. As such, referendums are at their best, valuable tools for gaining an accurate gauge on public opinion on a specific issue. According to the guidelines around obtaining a referendum, the Clerk of Parliament has until about 14 Jan to come to a decision on whether or not the petition will ultimately be able to go ahead. The public have had their opportunity to make comment (in the 28 days from 16 Sept to 14 Oct), and we are now in the three month period during which the Clerk may deliberate on the final wording of the question with input from the key parties concerned.

Larry Baldock on the Question

Larry Baldock cuts through the confusion and misinformation with an explanation of how the petition question came into being. Below are a few excerpts from his must-read article on the NZCPR.

The original question we submitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives back in early 2007 was “should a smack in the context of positive parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?”

Larry and the 390,000 signatures

As required by the CIR Act 1993, the Clerk published the question in the Gazette and advertised the question in all major papers with an invitation for anyone to submit their opinion on the wording of the question over a 28 day period.

Only two submissions were received. One from a couple who stated their opinion that a smack should never be a criminal offence, and the other from the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry’s submission raised four concerns that were considered by the Clerk in consultation with myself and anyone else the Clerk wished to take advice from as required by S9 of the Act. We eventually agreed to change the wording by replacing “in the context of positive parenting” with “as part of good parental correction.”

The CIR Act requires that the Clerk of the House ultimately determine that the wording;

(a) Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and
(b) Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.

At the time the Clerk of the House was David McGee QC who was widely acclaimed as the most experienced and qualified Clerk in the Commonwealth. Upon his retirement as Clerk in 2007 to assume the post of Ombudsman he was given many accolades by MPs for the diligent way he performed his duties.

Surely it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister, Leader of the opposition and Sue Bradford to now be insinuating he did not do his job properly. Especially given that they did not bother to take the time to participate in the submissions on the question when they had every opportunity to.

The words “as part of good parental correction,” simply set the context of an appropriate smack, (reasonable force) rather than the kind of hitting or bashing that might be administered in an abusive (bad) parental situation...

The obvious intent of the question surely is that in the context of good parenting where a smack is not abusive, should a smack be a criminal offence?

Another reason for our use of the word ‘good parental correction is that politicians supporting the new law have constantly been saying that this law was not going to affect ‘good’ parents. They had nothing to worry about.

The real purpose of the law was being hidden as much as possible during the whole debate, and as a result confusion exists amongst the general population about what the new law actually does. The real purpose of the ‘Bradford law’ was to completely abolish any form of physical discipline, for the purpose of correction. This, in addition to smacking, also includes taking a child, against their will, to time out. That is clearly contained in the purpose clause of the new Act, “…by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

Click here to read the full article.

Hat-tip: Constant Joy
Related articles: Deception from Anti-Smacking Brigade, Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading

Endangered Species to Run for Mt. Albert

The Kiwi Party have announced that they will be running a candidate for the electorate of Mt. Albert. Helen Clark was the MP for Mt. Albert, but once she left for her position at the UN, the electorate is up for a by-election.

"The Kiwi Party has today completed its candidate selection for the Mt Albert by-election and chosen Simonne Dyer. In the 2008 elections she was no. 5 on the Kiwi Party list... No other candidate in this by-election will be speaking about the importance of returning our nation to its foundational values. Labour, National, Act and the Greens have all played a part in passing legislation in Parliament that has undermined the 'timeless values' that have made our nation great in the past." - Kiwi Party

In it's current form, The Kiwi Party will not enter Parliament at the 2011 election. While the "Christian values" parties of New Zealand are unable to, or refuse to work together, it is folly to throw away your vote on any such party. At the last election the Kiwi Party wasted 12,755 party votes which would have otherwise likely gone to ACT or National - thereby strengthening the current Government.

Simmone had far better enjoy her retirement years and visit her 23 grandchildren rather than fight this lost battle for the electorate of Mt. Albert.

Related Reading: Christian Vote 2008 - my sypnopsis of the 5 parties Christians were likely to vote for at the 2008 General Election. The article includes extensive insight into the problems with the Kiwi Party.

Just What NZ Didn't Need

...Yet another Christian/family values party. In February 2007, Taito Phillip Fields was expelled from the Labour Party after allegations of fraud. He re-entered Parliament as an independent MP. And now, tonight, in Auckland and with 37 criminal charges to his name, he has launched his long-promised party "The Pacific Party".

I'm sorry, but Taito is a fool. I have heard from a friend of Tatio's that he is squeeky clean, and that the charges are groundless. I'm not so sure. Leaving aside the possibility that Mr. Phillip Field is a criminal, he is acting in a way which many would view as immature. Another Christian/Family values party, The Family Party, has been campaigning very hard in the Mangare electorate. It is one thing for two Christian/Family values parties to essentially compete against each other in a general election. However, it is another thing entirely for them to compete for the same electorate!

We already have The Kiwi Party, formed seemingly on the spur of the moment, on the back of the Anti-Smacking bill, and with an MP leaving another political party, turning independent, and then being declared co-leader of this new party. This party claims to hold to Judeo/Christian values, however one of it's core policies is raising the minimum wage to $15. They reckon that they can take Tauranga, but this is highly unlikely, and I will write about this soon. Three Christian/Family values parties, all campaigning for what is essentially the same vote. Tragic.

Taito, we don't want your party. Get on a boat and go back to Samoa.

---

Related reading: TVNZ, Field Launching 'Pacific Party'

Save the Farmers

...keep 1080 

At Question time in Parliament yesterday, the issue of the use of the pesticide 1080 was raised by Independent MP, Gordon Copeland.  Below are some comments the MPs made, taken from Hansard.

Gordon Copeland (Independent) to the Minister of Conservation: Will she undertake a comprehensive review of her department’s use of aerial 1080 drops, following the news that seven kea have died after eating that deadly poison?"

and a little later on in the debate...

Eric Roy: How can the public possibly have any confidence in the Minister and the Department of Conservation, when in one week its officers shot a takahē, mistaking it for a pūkeko, and in the next week we learnt that seven kea were killed in a botched poisoning operation?

Hon Steve Chadwick (Minister of Conservation): In reference to the first part of the question, the Department of Conservation staff are devastated by the outcome of that experience, and I reject the assertion of that member opposite. He was in a party that did nothing for 10 years about 1080 poison. If the members think they knew the risks about it, why did that member not speak to his Minister at the time and say that that operation should have been stopped. They did nothing because they knew the benefits."

Doesn't it strike you as pretty darn pathetic that our 120 representatives in Parliament are sitting back in their green leather chairs, discussing the death of a takahē?  Or the fact that seven Keas (native birds, but not endangered) bit the dust.

Peter Dunne (United Future Leader) refered to the deaths as "indigenous avian genocide", while ex-United Futre MP Larry Baldock, now leader of the Kiwi Party made the following comment in a press release,

"The Minister further confirmed her ignorance of the real dangers of 1080 when she stated that it broke down safely in water. The tests done to confirm that were carried out with water at 21 degrees C. Perhaps she could please advise which of NZ rivers are flowing at that nice warm toasty temperature so we can all go and have a hot swim completely safe from 1080 poisoning, said Mr Baldock."

However, the Department of Conservation website states that "1080 operations are usually conducted in winter and spring when wetter conditions assist rapid breakdown.", and also "1080 baits are dyed green and flavoured with cinnamon to make them less attractive to birds.  Individual birds may be poisoned but these numbers are exceedingly low."

The death of seven Keas and one Takahē is  nothing compared to the much higher threat to native birds from such pests as possums and ferrets, which the pesticide is so effective against.  Instead of a typical knee-jerk reaction, banning 1080, why don't we instead do some research into how it can be used with minimum adverse effect to our native and endangered wild-life?

But what about the farmers? Is anyone standing up for the hard-working farmers who form the backbone of New Zealand's economy?  Or are we so blinded by our desire to not let a few little birdies be accidentaly killed, that we will ban the pesticide which is currently the cheapest and most effective on the market?

"Another season of low wool prices means escalating pest control costs will take their toll on farming families. The financial limitations mean that a cheaper alternative to large-scale aerial 1080 poisoning is needed if farming operations are to remain viable at today’s commodity prices."
- from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry website

It would bother me far less that a handful of birds were killed by 1080, than that a farming family had to sell up due to yet one more unrealistic and unfair regulation imposed upon them.  And why can't our members of Parliament spend their time discussing important issues, not aruging out of their lack of experience, on subjects that they do not understand.

Kiwi Party Law and Order Policy

The Kiwi Party has just released their law and order policy, which I have copied below, with my comments in blue. Click here to download the policy. As you can see, we hardly see things the same, though there are areas where I can agree with their policy.

Law

• Return the minimum drinking age back to 20.
It has been a mistake to lower the legal drinking age while simultaneously increasing the availability of alcohol. It is time to reverse this social experiment and work on reducing the access young people have to alcohol while imposing tougher sentences on parents and others who supply alcohol illegally to minors.
Nope. There is nothing wrong with alcohol, it is when people misuse it that we have a problem. Harsher sentencing for drunkeness in public, or crime committed while under the influence would be a far better move than the far-too easy option of simply criminalising all young people.


• Those convicted for murder and the manufacture and sale of Class A drugs should be locked up for the course of their natural life.
No parole should be considered for a minimum of 20 years and then only if the public safety is not threatened by the prisoners release due to confirmed rehabilitation within the prison system or old age.
I'm not sure if selling drugs should necessarily be a criminal offence. But those convicted of murder - and where there is crystal clear evidence, including witnesses should be put to death. Parole is just a joke, and as for the public being safe from prisoners out on parole, well just take a look in your newspaper for evidence why this does not work.


• Criminalise the buying of the services of a prostitute on the street and re-criminalisation of ‘living off the proceeds of the prostitution of others’.
Studies prove that legalising prostitution has not solved the social issues it creates. Cities like Amsterdam famous for liberal sex trade laws are now reverting back to criminalizing the sex trade.
Since the Prostitution Reform Act was passed in 2003, the number of prostitutes does not appear to have increased in New Zealand. Individuals should be free to make agreements between each other, and the State probably does not need to interfere at this level. As for soliciting on the street, at the very least, prostitutes should have to aquire a license as do other street vendors. And even then, licenses should be granted only in certain situations and vicinities.


• Hold a binding referendum on New Zealand’s attitude to the sale of sexual services.
A nation’s law should reflect the will of the people. A referendum will reflect the values and will of the people, which government must respect.
A referendum probably wouldn't hurt. Legalising something such as prostitution may result in that thing becoming normalised. However there is a huge different between a potentially harmful activity being legalised, and that activity being actively endorsed as a viable career option. It's a real tough one.

Policing

• Change drug policy from harm minimisation to harm elimination.
A multi-pronged strategy is needed to overcome a problem that has its roots in social orientation but ends in crime. Research shows that faith based and community centered models run by those with experience and neighborhood connections deliver the best results. The Kiwi Party would promote successful community coalitions, drug testing within workplaces and schools, screening and intervening to interrupt the cycle of drug abuse, providing quality drug treatment services and establishing drug treatment courts.
We can't eliminate harm, we can only ever attempt to minimise it. Drug-use in public, in schools or in the workplace is obviously innapropriate. Government funding of community initiatives which encourage people to give up their drug-habit would definitely be a step in the right direction.


• Introduce separate identification of police and traffic safety officers.
While acknowledging two forces share some common concerns and so need to retain strong connections, with regards to public perception and police effectiveness, the Kiwi Party would initiate differing uniforms and patrol cars.
Sounds like a good plan. Seperate the two jobs and privatise the traffic policing for a start.


• Establish a special task force to address the rising level of gang related criminal activity.
The Police Association has been calling for this task force for several years. The Kiwi party fully supports this.
Sounds fine.


• Establish a uniformed voluntary policing force.
Establishing a uniformed voluntary policing force of retired persons similar to Maori wardens to help support police by attending to routine work and also assisting in being the “eyes and ears” in every community. We support communities who take initiative to care for themselves.
Sounds fine.

Corrections

• Increase the number of addiction recovery and detox facilities.
It is estimated that 27% of our youth over 15 years of age are using drugs. Many good parents are eager to place their children into programmes but cannot because of a lack of facilities. While it is difficult to rehabilitate a drug user who does not want to change, anyone convicted of a crime committed while on drugs should first be required to undergo treatment that completely eliminates drugs from their body and maintains them in a drug free environment for a period of time. Those then choosing further help on the road to recovery can be referred to appropriate services. Those refusing treatment may find themselves in prison as a consequence.

It is imperative that our prisons become drug free. If the Government run Department of Corrections cannot achieve this, the Kiwi Party supports establishing a task force to investigate how this can be attained through the transfer of our prisons management to private contractors as has happened in other nations with circumstances similar to ours.
Compulsory drug-rehab for prisoners sounds like a good plan.


• No home detention and no parole for those convicted of serious violent crimes.
Society should not risk the re-offending of those who have committed heinous crimes. A system of recognizing and rewarding a prisoner that is making progress in rehabilitation and overcoming their violence should be established within prison walls before release and not in the community.
Of course! Serious and violent or not - if you do the crime, you do the time.

Justice

• Establishment of night Courts.
There is a huge backlog of cases that could be heard and processed by night Courts. Criminals need to be confronted with efficient and rapid convictions for their behaviour rather than spending months and years going through the revolving door, being charged, then released on bail thus creating the possibility for re-offence before they are sentenced. Also the lives of the innocent are put on hold before they are acquitted of false charges. Night courts would also avoid the disruptions to work and other commitments of those involved.
That sounds like ACT policy, released about two months ago. Good policy.


• Ensure there are powers for Judges to pursue truth.
The goal of our justice system should be to reveal truth. A criminal should not be allowed to get away with a crime through hiring a lawyer with an ability to abuse a loop-hole or the short comings of a defence attorney with an overloaded schedule. If common sense deems it feasible to further investigate a situation, a Judge should have the means to do so.
That sounds a bit draconian, pragmatic. Common-sense is a dangerous term.

Judges should also have the power to award against the Crown, the costs of a person charged and found not guilty. Otherwise our justice system is creating victims of those being wrongly accused.
Absolutely.


• Victims rights before criminals rights.
All victims of property crime should be entitled to full restitution and the awarding of costs along with an appropriate apology. This is natural justice.
Not just full restitution, repayment should be made two-fold or three-fold. As for the apology, it's not up to the state to force people to apologise to each other.


• Imprisonment for property offending should be confined to a small number of the most serious cases.
Imprisonment costs the taxpayer around $90,000 per annum and removes the capacity of the offender to recompense the victim – and adds costs to the State if the offender’s family requires welfare.
That's why prisoners should pay their way through prison. Why should the taxpayer be hit with the bill?


• Compulsory DNA testing for all those convicted of crimes.
It has always been accepted that a convicted criminal be fingerprinted and records be kept for future identification. Advancement of technology has made DNA samples an improved alternative.
No problem with this.


• No bail for those being charged with serious violent offences.
Of course not.

Minimum Wage Must be Lowered

A recent Kiwi Party press release set my teeth on edge. I sat up straight, stared at the screen and then held my head in my hands. "No, not this". Yes, the Kiwi Party wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour...

"...the Kiwi Party backs a policy which would raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour.” The party leader said.

Mr Baldock’s suggestion to Government would be to offer a tax credit to employers which will offset the extra cost, thereby making the policy fiscally neutral to business. The increased wage will then be inflation adjusted.

“The Kiwi Party’s policy is to uphold New Zealand’s tradition of all workers rights. We want to see the people of this nation being paid a fair wage. This is a huge step towards creating a stable living environment for all Kiwis”

When the minimum wage is raised to a level above what employers on a whole are prepared to pay their workers, then it becomes artificial. At some point, that higher pay-rate will come back and hit the employee in the stomach like a sack of spuds. Because if the employer is not truly getting his $15 per hour worth of value out of his employee, then he has to soak up this extra expense somewhere in the business, and he will most likely accomplish this by raising the price of his goods.

Whether the Government reimburses the employer or not is irrelevant, because it's not their money to give - it's the money they stole from the employer in the first place.

What is meant by these terms "fair wage", a "stable living environment", and "worker's rights"? A wage can be determined to be fair if the employee and the employer are agreed on it. A stable living environment - at the end of the day, why should the employer have to make sure that his employee has a "stable living environment". Of course I completely agree that worker's have rights, and these must be upheld. But, ahem, where is the mention of the employer's rights?

Why is there this fascination with the Government running our everyday lives? How can it be a good thing for them to force employers to pay their employees $15 an hour, and then (mind the red tape), offer them a tax-credit.

Patricia Schnauer, Justice Spokeswoman for ACT and Member of Parliament talks some sense in the article ACT's Approach to Employment Law (1999). Below are a few comments relating specifically to the concept of a minimum wage from her article...

"...You cannot help workers by legislating for a minimum wage, compulsory unionism, or a national award system. Such policies increase unemployment and reduce living standards because workers and employers are prevented from coming together to make deals that suit them best.

Minimum wages impact particularly negatively on low-skilled workers, since it is these workers who are often denied a chance in the workplace as a result of the mandated minimum. The huge number of Maori in our dole queues is in large part due to this misguided policy."

"Income adequacy is far more effectively addressed through the tax-and-benefit system than through a minimum wage. Consequently ACT supports repealing the minimum wage, thus providing a major boost to job creation."

"...Mainstream economists have long recognised that a minimum wage costs jobs: no employer will hire a worker if the extra value produced by the worker is lower than the mandated minimum."

While I strongly disagree with a minimum wage as high as it is at the current time ($12.50 per hour), there is a place for a minimum wage, but it should be set far lower, perhaps around the $7 per hour mark. This would be for the sole purpose of ensuring that workers were not persuaded, forced, or left with no option but to work for a ridiculously low pay-rate, for instance $2 per hour.

With a nice low minimum wage ($7 per hour), Employees would be empowered to get the best possible job at the best possible pay. Because if they were putting in the effort - and their employer was not rewarding them for this by paying them at a good rate, then the employee could simply move on.

And from the other side, with a low minimum wage, the employer would be able to afford to pay his workers what they were truly worth. Instead of having the slack eighteen-year-old and another hard-working, long-serving and trusted employee on the same (or very similar) pay-rate, the employer could reward each worker accordingly.

Performance-Based-Pay is the only way.