From Kelvyn Alp, Manurewa candidate for the New Zealand Direct Democracy Party:
If you could ensure the passage of one act on one issue in the next Parliament, what would it be?
It would be Binding Citizens Initiated Referendum.
Reason: It is easy for a few politicians to be compromised by vested interests when contemplating major legislative changes, however, it is very difficult to compromise a nation in the same manner; therefore any major legislative changes made would naturally reflect the combined will of the people. What three other electoral candidates or sitting MPs do you think are most similar to you in their political views?
All Direct Democracy candidates are of similar political views as I; this is the very reason we have combined to present a real alternative and not just another off-shoot of another Party.
MMP is about coalitions: What sitting MP who is NOT in your party do you think is most similar to you in their political views?
MMP was never meant to be about the focus of coalitions, the point of MMP was for everyone’s views to be represented before any legislative changes were made, however this has been hijacked by main parties fragmenting and then coming back together after the election.
The person most similar to the Direct Democracy Party political view would likely be Winston Peters.
Do you support or oppose:
...raising the drinking age?
I personally oppose raising the drinking age and believe that if the politicians had of listened to the people before doing what they wanted regardless; we would not have the problem we now face.
The problem is not in the age limit of 18, it is the lack of education of those 18+ year olds in self-discipline combined with the fact that there are serious consequences for adverse results when drinking.
However, such a major social issue should be decided by binding referenda as after all is it not society that suffers any ill-effects.
...legalising marijuana (or pharmaceuticals based on it) for medical use?
Yes, where medical use has been scientifically determined to be of medical benefit to the user.
...decriminalising or legalising marijuana for recreational use?
A clear line must be drawn between beneficial medicinal/remedial use and that of recreational use. I feel there must be open and thorough research undertaken to provide all of the evidence in which to determine the appropriate course of action.
All evidence and facts on which to make an informed decision should be presented to the public via binding referenda; after all it is the people that must ultimately live with the outcome of any decision made.
...allowing same-sex couples to adopt children?
The role of the State is to ultimately protect and serve the people, not to control and dictate; therefore as the happiness of all those concerned is the primary focus, there is no viable reason with the appropriate safeguards in place, why same-sex couples would be prevented from adopting children.
...amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry?
Again the role of the State is to ultimately protect and serve the people, not to control and dictate; therefore as the happiness of all those concerned is the primary focus, there is no viable reason (outside of society’s current moral boundaries) why same-sex couples should not have the right to a happy and fulfilled life.
Of course my own opinion dictates that until society can deal with the reality of what it will bring, I am personally against it.
...allowing voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide?
Yes; where there is no hope for a quality of life for the patient, and assisted suicide by a qualified Doctor would end any longstanding suffering, then I am in favour of such a practice.
There would have to be checks and balances in place to ensure that such is the will of the patient, or would be, should they be able to communicate such.
...state funding of integrated schools?
Yes, however this would be better answered by creating a publicly funded education system that is the best possible, its time to fix the problems in this area so there would not be a need for private schools, unless said private schools were dealing in specific areas of education not covered by the public school system.
...the retention of sedition as a crime in the Crimes Act?
No, such an Act has only ever served to hinder many truths being told and should be abolished.
...the retention of blasphemous libel as a crime in the Crimes Act?
No, the origins of the Act itself is limited to Christians and said to be a common law offence. The ancillary powers to seize any material in violations of it are what the Acts confers.
Ones indoctrination to an interpretation of faith can not hold others in abeyance of it and therefore the Freedom of expression in all areas of our lives is paramount.
...further restrictions on hate speech?
No, unless such speech is specifically designed to knowingly insight a violation against any person or property. Free speech shall always be maintained.
...the use of indefinite detention without trial for those subject to a security risk certificate?
No, there is no transparency in this at all; too often it is justified by so-called evidence that can not be disclosed due to the laughable ‘National Security’ diatribe.
Unless there is factual evidence that a suspect is in fact a danger to this Country, they should be no detention. If there is suspicion, then let a Jury decide based on all of the facts and evidence presentable.
...restoring the death penalty for serious crime?
Yes, I would lean toward the re-introduction of the death penalty for proven cases against vicious rapes, serious child abuse and premeditated murder primarily. - The problem we have is simple, what if we get it wrong just once?
This would have to be beyond ALL doubt.
...Georgina Beyer's Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill?
The right to choose is paramount. Every man Woman or Child has rights should be held inviolate.
...Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill?
Property rights are a common-law right; however Government and have usurped this from us yet tell us they are protected - yeah right, tell the people whose houses are bulldoze for some ‘works act’ that they are protected; the action proves beyond doubt that they are not.
Legislation can not be made to transgress these rights if they were protected, yet we have land access issues, so where are those rights again?
...entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as supreme law?
No, this Country needs an all encompassing ‘Constitution of New Zealand’ that enshrines and protects the rights and freedoms of all people and limits the Governments power to interfere; and such should be decided by the people that would ultimately have to live under it.
...New Zealand's participation in the International Criminal Court?
No, the International Court is a joke that relies on the integrity of governments; therefore it will never accomplish its intended purposes. As with many other similar organisations, only those that feel they will benefit from its use will ever appropriately participate.
...lowering MMP's threshold from the present 5%?
Although we must work with what we have, my personal opinion (and vision) would be to rid this Country of party politics for good, have say 80 electorates only and each person voted in must work for the betterment of the electorate. Those elected can decide who takes on what portfolio responsibilities, but the people would elect the Prime Minister and the Deputy from those people.
We dare to dream.
With the benefit of hindsight, how should the government have handled the Ahmed Zaoui case?
The Government should have either proven the case against him immediately, or if he was deemed undesirable for entry into New Zealand, put him on the next plane out of the Country. - The common law was once again violated in this instance and is becoming an all too familiar an occurrence.
As usual, Kelvyn's opinions are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the Direct Democracy Party.