Fun for the whole family

New Zealand Political Idol. Voting begins Saturday 23rd April.

The Green list

The Greens' party list is up on Frogblog. The big change that everyone is commenting on is that Nandor has dropped to number seven. But with so many high-performing MPs, there would have been some tough choices about rankings; Keith Locke and Met have certainly been very visible this term (oh human rights and foreign policy, and the foreshore and civil unions respectively), and so I can see how they would have been bumped up. I'm not sure about Sue Kedgley though...

While the change in list ranking means that Nandor may not get in if the Greens only get 5%, I don't think its a serious problem. The Greens have been consistently polling over or close to the threshold, and the election campaign will almost certainly push them over. They also tend to do very well out of the expat vote, which doesn't show up in polls. But if you're worried about Nandor, then there's an obvious solution: vote Green to help reelect him.

Update: Frogblog has more on the meaning of the list...

Police and porn

In the haste to make a scandal out of the police discovering pornography in their email system, something has been overlooked: namely that it's not illegal to look at porn. Sure, it's unwise (not to mention just damned rude) in the workplace, and is likely to get you into trouble with most employers, but unless said porn can be classified as objectionable (involving kids, animals, dead bodies, or extreme degradation), it's not against the law as such. Just a little fact, but one we should keep in mind before leaping to excoriate the police over this.

That said, some of the material apparently is objectionable, and it does raise troubling questions about the ability of the police to deal sensitively with the victims of sexual crime. But something else people seem to be forgetting is that porn or no porn, it would be the same people dealing with these crimes. The problem is with the culture; porn in the office computers is just the symptom. But I think the response to both the police rape inquiry and to this shows that the police leadership is committed to changing that culture. We just have to hope they succeed...

We are experiencing technical difficulties...

Blogspot seems to be redirecting readers of this page to blogger.com. However, you can still see things by pointing your browser at http://www.norightturn.blogspot.com.

Of course, if you can read this, you probably don't need to see it...

And now everyone's doing it...

Closely on the heels of the Greens, both the LibertariaNZ and Alliance will be announcing their candidates this weekend. National and Labour already have a full slate, and United Future has selected over thirty. Which means that the only significant party to still be without candidates is New Zealand First.

But then again, given that candidates must necessarily distract attention from himself, I can understand why Winston might want to leave it as late as he can...

Myanmar's military regime uses chemical weapons

From BBC:

According to accounts from Karen fighters, who have been engaged in a long-running war with Burma's military government, the attack took place just inside the Burmese border, around 16km (10 miles) from the Thai town of Mae Hong Son.

They claim that clouds of yellow vapour began pouring from shells fired at their positions and soon after this many of them felt sick, vomited blood and were unable to walk.

Some later suffered from blisters and acute diarrhoea.

The president of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Australian physician Dr Martin Panter, has since flown to the area and examined five of the men.

He concluded that their symptoms are synonymous with exposure to some form of chemical attack.

At the moment, the government is pursuing a free trade deal with Myanmar as part of a package deal with ASEAN. I think it's time they stopped.

Another retrospective law

What is it with this government and retrospective punishment?

First, we had the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill - which would effectively add to the sentence of every convicted criminal by denying them equal access to the law. And now the government is wanting to ban those convicted of serious crimes from driving taxis. But it's not their goal that's the problem so much as the way they are going about it.

There's an obvious public safety argument that at least serial violent offenders are not the sorts of people we want driving public transport. There's potential for abuse, and it probably is better that we deny the opportunity, just as we forbid child sex offenders from working in schools. The original version of the Land Transport Amendment Bill recognised this by providing for a blanket ban on serious, violent offenders convicted after the bill became law from holding or applying for a passenger endorsement (meaning they couldn't drive taxis or buses). But the Transport and Industrial Relations committee modifed the clause to make it retrospective. While this sounds good in theory, it clashes with both New Zealand and international law. Sections 26(2) 25(g) of the New Zealand bill of Rights Act 1990 bar increasing the punishment of those already convicted and sentenced, or applying a punishment harsher than that provided for when the offence was committed. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has similar provisions, in Articles 14(7) and 15. And this ban exists for a very good reason: a state where the government can arbitrarily increase the sentence of those already convicted or further punish those who have completed their sentence invites abuse for political purposes. If we are concerned about justice, then we cannot allow retrospective punishment.

What really stinks is that, like the prisoner compensation policy, this is so obviously a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived crisis. As the Herald notes,

Several taxi drivers have faced charges for sex attacks on passengers in recent years. Three Wellington drivers arrested within a month of each other in the middle of last year are before the courts.

But this law wouldn't have prevented any of those crimes. It would, however, add to the punishment of those convicted, allowing the government to claim it had "done something". But legislating for specific cases tends to make for bad law, and I think this example rather proves the point.

So, how could the government achieve its public safety aims? It would be perfectly acceptable for this section of the bill to be passed in its original form. But OTOH, I'm not sure that a blanket ban is entirely suitable either. Most murderers in New Zealand don't reoffend, and so pose no risk at all to the public. More generally, a blanket ban punishes both rehabilitated and unrehabilitated criminals alike - and in doing so provides an incentive against rehabilitation (and we have enough of them already). A better policy may be to require anyone wanting a passenger endorsement to meet a "good character" requirement, much as we do for a firearms license. But OTOH, I'm not sure that being a taxi driver is such a position of public trust as to make that necessary.

Green candidates

The Greens will reportedly be announcing their candidates on friday. I'll start surveying them when the list goes up...

Belich vs Hill

It's refreshing to see Kim Hill back on TV, and also refreshing to see her open in a less combatitive style than usual. Rather than a verbal slugfest with the politician d'jour, we were treated to a rather gentle discussion with historian James Belich. It was reminiscent of her excellent interview with Michael King just before his death, in that rather than being about Hill, it was actually about the views of her subject.

As for the views themselves, there was some discussion of why we would choose to celebrate Anzac Day when the Gallipoli campaign was such a bloody disaster, and about appropriate national days (I've been clear in my preference for Waitangi Day, but I like the symbology of declaring our republic in the centenary of our becoming a Dominion. Unfortunately, I think it'll take a little longer than that). But the most interesting part was on the kiwi sense of egalitarianism. (Pakeha) New Zealand was settled by people who wanted to escape the stultifying class structure of Britian, who wanted to leave deference and heirarchy behind - and they succeeded. We used the power of the state to strangle our would-be aristocracy at birth, allowing us to create a society where no-one was considered better (in the sense of having greater moral worth) than any other. This is one of our great achievements, and something we ought to celebrate. But Belich also spent some time bemoaning the "kiwi curse" - a "mutant egalitarianism" which conflates moral worth with talent, in that it insists that no-one is more talented or skilled than anyone else - except on the sports field. This is fairly clearly a defence mechanism against those who seek to claim greater moral worth on the basis of greater talent - but it's a defence mechanism which buys into the very belief it is supposed to protect against. Egalitarianism is far better served by denying any linkage at all, and insisting on complete moral and political equality for all, regardless of talent or the lack thereof.

Justice for the disappeared

A former Argentine naval officer has been convicted in Spain of crimes against humanity for his role in Argentina's "dirty war". Under the 1976 - 83 military dictatorship, thousands of unionists, leftists, and other political opponents of the regime were "disappeared". Some were tortured; others were drugged, stripped naked, and thrown from aircraft into the Atlantic Ocean. Adolfo Scilingo participated in two of these flights, in which 30 people were murdered.

He is only one man - but it is a start, and a salutory warning to those engaged in human rights abuses: one day, justice will catch up with them.

Too close for comfort

We can all rest easy - Asteroid 2004 MN4 probably won't hit the Earth on Friday, APril 13th, 2029. Instead it will miss us by 20,000 - 40,000 kilometres. But that's still far too close for comfort - only four to seven earth radii - and anything which passes inside the orbit of the moon is a real worry. Worse, it will be back for another shot - and the influence of the Earth's gravity makes it unpredictable exactly where it will go. So as early as 2034, somewhere could be getting 1000 Megatonnes of rock dropped on it...

What can we do? A first step would be to tag the asteroid with a transponder, so we know where in the hell it is. The data from this could be used to refine its orbit, and make a more accurate prediction of where and when it might hit. We also need to start thinking about how to move this cosmic traffic hazard somewhere safer - ideally before its too late. And we need to start finding other similar objects. We didn't notice this one until last year, when it seemed to be on a direct collision course; what if there's another one out there?

If we don't start doing this, then one morning we're going to wake up and find that Venice or New York or where-ever has been vaporised, or that San Francisco and Tokyo have been drowned by an asteroid-induced tidal wave. And while that's not the end of the world, it's certainly unpleasant enough to justify further action.

Second response

From Philip Howison, the LibertariaNZ candidate for Hutt South:

If you could ensure the passage of one act on one issue in the next Parliament, what would it be?

This is a difficult question because parts of the Libertarianz agenda have to stand together - for example, privatising health and education would be unjust unless supported by massive tax cuts, and abolishing tax while not privatising would leave health and education without funding. Given that, I would pass a bill allowing freedom in education, but leaving education funding in government hands until I'm allowed to pass another act! The parents at Orauta School in Northland would benefit, as would all other parents who care about their children's education and want more choice. Basically we would hand the keys of each state school to the individual Boards of Trustees.

Education is a particular concern of mine especially since I sat the NCEA a couple of years ago and I know how stupid it is. That's one of the reasons why I chose to stand against Education Minister Trevor Mallard in Hutt South.

What three other electoral candidates or sitting MPs do you think are most similar to you in their political views?

Rodney Hide (Act)
Bernard Darnton (Libertarianz)
Stephen Berry (Libertarianz)

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?

Rodney Hide, as in the previous question. He is a strong libertarian though not in a libertarian party. Libertarianz policy is not to support coalitions, however. We will not compromise on matters of principle but will support any law change that increases freedom or rule of law (including the principle of equality before the law).

Do you support or oppose:

...raising the drinking age?

Oppose.

...legalising marijuana (or pharmaceuticals based on it) for medical use?

Support.

...decriminalising or legalising marijuana for recreational use?

Support

...allowing same-sex couples to adopt children?

Support.

...amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry?

Support, because of the principle of equality before the law. But ultimately the Marriage Act should be repealed. Keep the government out of my bedroom!

...allowing voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide?

Support.

...state funding of integrated schools?

Oppose. But it's unfair that people who pay for private education are taxed for public schools. While public schools and taxation are phased out over 2 or 3 years, Libertarianz would give these parents tax breaks.

...the retention of sedition as a crime in the Crimes Act?

Oppose. The government must maintain the rule of law, but violating freedom of speech won't help it achieve that goal. Throwing an axe through a window should be illegal because it's vandalism, not because it's the Prime Minister's window.

...the retention of blasphemous libel as a crime in the Crimes Act?

Oppose.

...further restrictions on hate speech?

Oppose.

...the use of indefinite detention without trial for those subject to a security risk certificate?

Oppose.

...restoring the death penalty for serious crime?

Oppose.

...Georgina Beyer's Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill?

Oppose. I don't agree with gender-identity discrimination personally but if other people want to be bigoted that's their own business. The government, though, should never discriminate - equality before the law.

...Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill?

Support. Freedom is nothing without the right to own property

...entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as supreme law?

Oppose. We need a bill of rights, but a constitution, perhaps based on the US constitution, should be our starting point, along with the English common law.

...New Zealand's participation in the International Criminal Court?

Oppose. The court is toothless and this sort of international organisation is pointless in my opinion.

...lowering MMP's threshold from the present 5%?

Support. Obviously this would benefit the Libertarianz, but we believe having a threshold is undemocratic, too. Minor parties have a place in the system and they should not be excluded if they have significant support but it falls below an arbitrary level.

Finally,

With the benefit of hindsight, how should the government have handled the Ahmed Zaoui case?

Sent him back unless he was prepared to undergo a fair trial for his alleged crimes - which are serious. He was convicted of associating with the terrorist group responsible for killing several people in the Paris subway bombings and hijacking an airliner which they threatened to fly into the Eiffel Tower. Those charges may not be true, but they should have been publicly investigated before we let a suspected terrorist into the country. Holding the man without trial for so long, however, was a terrible violation of the principles of justice and the rule of law.

Anyone without a serious conviction should face no obstacle in immigrating - the Libertarianz believe in open borders.

So, I wonder who else is going to come forward...

My fifteen minutes of fame

I'm being interviewed by Russell Brown about my candidate survey on 95bFM's The Wire sometime between 12:20 and 12:50 today. If you're not in Auckland and can't tune in, you can listen to the streaming feed here.

Cultural insecurity

Colin James' column in the Herald this morning focuses on cultural insecurity as an election issue. But while he talks about National's efforts to exploit it for political advantage, he totally glosses over the reason for this insecurity - which is a shame, because its quite illuminating. IMHO most of the big political debates at the moment - the Treaty, civil unions, the greater cultural and political influence of Maori - are symptomatic of generational change, with National on the side of the old, and Labour on the side of the young. New Zealand has changed dramatically over the past thirty years - and for the better, IMHO - and now National is trying to turn the clock back on that change. While economically they look back to the 90's, culturally, they look back to the 50's, when the country was run by and for Dead White Males, we had "the best race relations in the world", and Maori were a little brown ministral show we trotted out for royal visits.

The problem for National is not just that we have moved on since then, but that an awful lot of New Zealanders have grown up in a society which is open, tolerant, and inclusive, where the Treaty is regarded as our constitutional bedrock, and where Maori culture is something for us all to be proud of. And we're growing more numerous. Meanwhile, the people National is trying to appeal to - the Dead White Males - are dying by the day. Which means that in the long-term, their cultural project is doomed. To paraphrase Kruschev, demographics is on our side, and we will bury them - literally, in many cases. In the meantime, though, they're not quite dead yet. And they may still have the electoral power to fuck up the future so they can spend their golden years untroubled by the fact that things have changed. Only time will tell...

Uncomfortable

Well, I didn't know that: Tony Blair is being challenged in his own electorate by Reg Keys, the father of a British soldier who died in Iraq. And a member of Blair's own electorate committee has resigned and gone to work for him. While I don't expect them to win, hopefully it is making Blair at least a little uncomfortable...

Electoral funding

Today's big topic seems to be the Electoral Commission's allocation of broadcasting funding to the parties. The general consensus is that NZ First got ripped off, and I agree. At half the size of National, they should be a tier above the other minor parties when it comes to funding but instead they're left to languish on the same funding as the Greens. I guess this was the National rep on the commission's quid pro quo for his party getting less money than Labour - stomping on the fingers of its closest competitor.

But there is an unfortunate contradiction at the heart of our electoral broadcasting laws: we think money can buy elections, so we ban parties from using their own money for TV advertising and instead fund it out of a common pool. But then we rig the funding levels so as to favour those parties currently established - effectively perpetuating the status quo. And it doesn't help that the allocations are in part set by representatives of the two major parties, who share an interest in preventing anybody else from challenging them. It's a deeply unsatisfactory system, and one which cries out for reform - though not in the direction desired by the free marketeers. The outright corruption seen in the US (driven by politicians' and parties' need to raise ever larger war-chests to meet the costs of the advertising arms race) is not something I want to see here. Instead, it would be better to retain state funding, but divide the funds and time equally between parties so as to create a level playing field. Or at worst, use a two-tier system, differentiating between those who make it into Parliament or have a certain number of audited members or poll close to the threshold, and those who don't. It should be the voters who decide how well each party does - not the handicappers at the Electoral Commission...

First response

I've had the first response to my candidate survey, from Hamish McCracken, the Labour candidate for East Coast Bays. His full response is below (questions in bold):

If you could ensure the passage of one act on one issue in the next Parliament, what would it be?

I would like to see a range of public health measures promoted to encourage healthy eating among school age and pre school children. This would range from support, education and labelling regimes to help parents and a set of guidelines about what foods should and should not be available in public institutions such as schools and hospitals. There is strong evidence that this would have positive long term implications for both quality of life and costs in the health system.

What three other electoral candidates or sitting MPs do you think are most similar to you in their political views?

Lynne Pilay, Tim Barnett and Russell Fairbrother.

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?

Matt Robson

Do you support or oppose:

...raising the drinking age?

No I would advocate public education rather than legislative change.

...legalising marijuana (or pharmaceuticals based on it) for medical use?

Yes

...decriminalising or legalising marijuana for recreational use?

Decriminalising yes, legalising no.

...allowing same-sex couples to adopt children?

Yes

...amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry?

Yes

...allowing voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide?

Yes

...state funding of integrated schools?

Unsure

...the retention of sedition as a crime in the Crimes Act?

This needs to be reviewed.

...the retention of blasphemous libel as a crime in the Crimes Act?

This needs to be reviewed.

...further restrictions on hate speech?

Very cautiously yes. I would want to pay very close attention to the wording of any legislation that might reduce the freedom of expression we enjoy.

...the use of indefinite detention without trial for those subject to a security risk certificate?

Yes

...restoring the death penalty for serious crime?

No

...Georgina Beyer's Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill?

Yes

...Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill?

Unsure

...entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as supreme law?

No but more because our entrenchment procedure lack any real teeth making the process a waste of parliamentary time.

...New Zealand's participation in the International Criminal Court?

Yes

...lowering MMP's threshold from the present 5%?

No

Finally,

With the benefit of hindsight, how should the government have handled the Ahmed Zaoui case?

The government acted on the best advice available and should always do so as a matter of course. What is important is that we live in a country where people have the right to challenge the government in court and win.

Hopefully it will be the first of many...

Update: Added question 3, on coalitions.

Not just the Maori seats

Following its high polling in the Maori seats, the Maori Party will now be contesting as many as 32 general seats as well. This can only be a Good Thing - it will show that the Maori Party is not solely a product of the Maori seats, it will increase electoral competition and the options available to voters, and it may very well give Labour a run for their money in a few places.

Still, there is one down side: it means I'll have to send out more candidate surveys...

Sacrificing justice to expediancy

When the government put forward its Criminal Procedure Bill, I objected to the provisions allowing majority verdicts and retrials when the police fail to do their job. But it seems I missed something: Phil Goff wants to axe the right to a jury trial in cases where defendants have been suspected of jury tampering. Instead, these cases would be heard by a judge sitting alone.

This is simply appalling; the right to trial by jury is absolutely fundamental, and exists to ensure that the facts are properly examined and that people are not convicted as a result of one person's prejudices. The proper course of action where jury tampering is suspected is to protect the jury while bringing the full weight of the law to bear on those attempting to subvert the system. But the government is unwilling to do this - it is not "cost-effective", and would involve the police having to do work. Instead, it's far easier simply to stack the legal deck, rather than do the hard work required to pursue justice.

Everyone deserves a fair trial - even the "crims" and gang-members this bill is targetted at. Yes, this requires work - but that is what makes it a justice system rather than one of arbitrary punishment. We should ensure that the government does that work, rather than taking the easy way out and sacrificing justice to expediancy.

New Fisk

Our presidents and prime ministers are poseurs. Where are the Great Men of today?