Ex-Act Party MP Deborah Coddington gives the current leadership of Act a roasting in today’s Herald on Sunday

But Hide never did get angry. His mind went to dark places and he could sulk, but current MP David Garrett, for instance, should have been roasted alive long ago, so his sterilisation remarks remained just ideas in a peculiar mind. Now Garrett has destroyed the Act brand.

Because what 21st-century liberal would vote for a party whose caucus supports a man who makes lewd remarks around the office, justifies that behaviour by saying it was okay in Tonga, then advocates bribery and sterilisation as a means to control child abuse and the population of the underclass?

Does Act stop to think that the 21st-century liberal is both an economic and a social liberal? We want low taxes and small government, but we’re not redneck, pro-smacking, tough-on-crime unforgiving mutants.

Why didn’t someone have the forsight to not select David Garratt? For a first term MP he has managed very easily to destroy half a party.

The other half has been destroyed between Hide’s handling of the Auckland Supershitty Supercity and his own contradiction over spending. And do we even need to mention his partner in crime Roger Douglas.

If Act get knocked out at the next election there could be an interesting change in NZ politics. An extreme right wing party is needed to keep pushing National towards the centre. Act represents everything that the majority of NZ doesn’t want and by reacting to that it keeps National from doing stupid things. Without Act there National could easily go further right and this would not be a good thing.

It is not often that I read The Standard (it is a blog that is constantly negative and often wrong)

However, today they have post that is quite concerning.

Powershop is a subsidiary of Meridian Energy, an SOE. It is the most highly rated power retailer by its customers, with 92% satisfaction. On the Powershop website, there’s a blog. On this blog, the CEO of Powershop, Ari Sargent, wrote a post on the Government’s proposed electricity sector reforms. It’s insightful, adroit, politically neutral, and scathing of ironically titled Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee’s reforms. It is called: Proposed energy sector reforms likely to increase electricity prices.

In response, Brownlee launched into a bizarre public attack on the publicly-owned company saying Powershop should “come out from behind Meridian’s skirts. When Powershop manage to achieve a significant presence in the retail domain, they’ll be able to speak with a great deal more credibility and authority.”

More disturbing is what went on behind the scenes and it explains why when you go to Powershop’s blog now, the contents of the post are gone. Brownlee called Wayne Boyd, Chairman of Meridian Energy, and ranted and raved at him for several minutes about the Powershop blog post before Boyd could even get a word in. Brownlee, stepping miles beyond his power as minister, insisted that the post be removed because it didn’t suit Naitonal’s political purposes for the truth to be told.

It is a pity that the media has not picked up on this yet. Typically NZ is a country that avoids political interference in the running of our SEOs however maybe this has changed. I hope John Key tells Brownlee to pull his head in before this turns into a political shit storm.

Switzerland runs a system of direct democracy through binding referenda. This is different from New Zealand’s political system of representative democracy. However, as we have seen over the past few weeks there is a call from some extreme right wing factions within New Zealand who want to implement a simpler system in New Zealand. However, this idea is very dangerous. For instance, in Switzerland they have just banned the construction of Minarets and Mosques as a result of a binding referendum. As David Farrar at Kiwiblog puts it “Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and should not be at the whim of referenda.”

In New Zealand it is primarily the extreme Christian Right who want to implement such a system that imposes such ridiculous restrictions on citizens. However, what happens when a binding referendum is passed which runs against the view of these extreme right wingers? Is that the point they stage a violent political uprising or some other form of so called direct democracy? As much as we dislike all politicians the current representative democracy system that we current have is the most fair to all views and opinions.

David Farrar at Kiwiblog this morning posts that under the new structure for the Auckland council the total number of elected representatives drops from 258 to 147 and then proceeds to say “I’d say 111 less Councillors etc is a good start!”.

How is it that less representation is good?

Currently with 258 democratically elected representatives across the region there is one representative for every 5,426 people (from a population of 1,400,000 people). With only 147 elected representatives this drops to one representative for every 9,523 people.

However, what is worse is the drop in the number of councilors from 109 to 20. In other words from one councilor per 12,844 people to one per 70,000 people.

That is a massive drop in representation.

Community boards simply do not cut the mustard when it comes to representation. The reality is community boards are designed to feed a majority view into the council. However it is only a view, and only a majority one. They are essentially nothing more than people with good intentions who unfortunately will have the majority of their good views railroaded by the superiority of the much more powerful council. This is hardly good democracy.

The call for one united Auckland council was primarily focused around reducing bureaucracy rather than mucking about with the representative democracy. It is unfortunate that the National Government has overrun this process and turned it into a farce by playing politics with the biggest city in New Zealand. Pathetic.

My jaw dropped this morning when I read this information posted by a friend this morning on facebook.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/10/22/1245ce3b9622

Primary schools have been told that art, PE and science are to take a back seat to the three Rs.

The Ministry of Education has told schools they will get no extra help next year to teach subjects other than reading, writing and mathematics.

The ministry says support services for schools that it funds through various advisors will now focus on a smaller number of critical priorities, including literacy and numeracy, as well as help implement the Government’s national standards policy.

Teaching groups say the move is short-sighted, and the first sign of how national standards will affect schools and children.

This move is going to a major affect on the intelligence of our young people. Yes you need Reading, Writing, and Mathematics they are fundamental skills in being able to engage with the world. For instance you are currently reading a blog, that I have written, and when you go to the shops later today you will need mathematics to know how much money you can afford to spend. You use these three primary skills in every situation of every day.

However, you also use PE, Science, and Art just as much. And they are equally as important to a child’s intellectual development. PE lets students explore the world, learn how to run, catch, and have fun, it promotes good exercise and living a balanced healthy life. In the process it gets much needed oxygen into the body, and the poisons from the foods we eat out so that we can focus better and all round be a lot healthier. Without PE we are not going to learn inside the classroom very well.

Art. One of the defining characteristics of our generation is our individuality. And we primarily express that through art. Art is not about painting, drawing or scribbling, it is about expression and gaining a cultural understanding of the world around us. Through art our society changes and improves. Art allows us to photograph the past so we can learn from our mistakes, it allows us to plan, think, and see things before we actually have them in real life, like plans for a building. Art is a key part of a child’s development it enables them to mature. Forget about writing for a second, if a picture is worth a thousand words we should be able to read that to.

Finally science. Where do I start, science is the key to the world. Mathematics may be the fundamental language of the universe. But without science mathematics is simply numbers with no meaning or context. Science gives numbers meaning it explains how things are related. It explains how we came to be, why things are the way they are, and can even predict the future. For instance if I know a car is traveling at a certain speed and it needs to stop at a certain point, and its brakes are not powerful enough to stop it from that speed in that time then I can tell you now through science, physics, and the use of maths that it will not be able to stop.

Reading, Writing, and Mathematics are primary skills our children need to learn, but there is no point in giving child the skills and the tools to do things, without the context within to use them. What is the point of learning algebra if you are not going to be given any real life situation (through science) of its application.

The majority of people learn best through example, demonstration, and hands on learning. The government is sending us back to the dark ages where what is said is absolute truth, you rote learn everything, and never challenge the absolute truth. This is a sad day for New Zealand education.

Labour MP, Grant Robinson blogs on the continued use of urgency in Parliament (with a nice pun as the blog title) to ram through laws without following due process:

http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/10/21/a-state-of-urgency/

Parliament is now in urgency. That would be the fifth Parliamentary week in a row that we have gone into urgency.Perhaps its time to rename urgency as normalcy if this is the approach National is going to take. In all seriousness, while there is a place for urgency, and (before the right begin to howl) all governments have used it, this is getting beyond a joke.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the complex the hearings on the Emissions Trading Bill are taking place from 9am to 9pm each day, with some submitters given only a few hours notice of needing to submit and then being given a very short time to state their cases. It appears from media reports that National even tried to get the committee to agree to having all 184 people who wanted to submit in public put through in one day.

The excessive use of urgency and the rushed select committee processes should be of concern to all New Zealanders.  Apart from being anti-democratic, they open the door for bad and poorly considered law. There will necessarily be simple drafting errors but more than that Select Committees are either not getting a say or not getting enough time to properly scruitinise the Bills.

Earlier this year National put through the bill creating national standards for literacy and numeracy without a select committee process. In other words without giving parents, teachers, experts in the field the chance to have a say. Inevitably Anne Tolley has now had to delay the whole process to try to deal with issues that have come up since the Bill was passed. These could have been dealt with in a Committee.

This is completely unacceptable for a Government. Urgency has its place. When laws need to be passed urgently. Not as a political tool to stifle debate or the views from the government. I forgot to note in my earlier blog that the Benzodiazepine Ban was also passed under urgency in addition to inserted at the last possible moment. Tea Party time anyone?

Duncan Garner from 3News blogs today on Chris Carter’s travel costs:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Politics/DuncanGarnersBlog/tabid/1135/articleID/124372/cat/934/Default.aspx

Opinion: Chris Carter’s Globetrotting – $131,000!

Title says it all doesn’t it. $131,000. It is not a little bit of Money is a huge amount for one MP to spend.

It seems Chris Carter as a Minister had a total disregard for the public purse.

Yup.

We now know it was more than $131,000 in just six months. And that’s just the international travel!

So let’s look at where Carter went, who he took and what it cost.

In January 2008 he went to the UK between the 7-9 January and Spain from the 15-17 January. He took his partner Peter Kaiser. Airfares cost $7246.00. Other costs, like accommodation and meals came to $9,969.92. Did he have a European holiday in between appointments? What did he do on behalf of the NZ taxpayer? Who paid?In April he went to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and China for 11 days. Again he took his partner Peter Kaiser. He also took his press secretary Michael Gibbs. Airfares cost $28,696.00 Other costs totalled $28,712.22. All up – that’s more than $57,000. I never knew South-East Asia could be so expensive.

To be fair Carter was representing the Prime Minister at the 2008 Asia-Pacific Interfaith Cooperation for Peace and Harmony Conference in Cambodia. He then went to China to join Helen Clark and Phil Goff for the signing of the Free Trade Agreement in Beijing. I was there too. I covered it. Why Carter, Kaiser and Gibbs were there continues to beat me. There were a lot bags to carry though. He and his party then went to Thailand and Vietnam for bi-lateral and portfolio visits.

He went to Australia in April for two days. No big deal right? But how come flights for him and a staff member cost $4526.00? Try and get a flight across the Tasman for that amount? Is he taking the piss? Did he hire the plane out? Who books this stuff?

Then in June Carter, Kaiser and his press secretary went to Chile and Peru for the week for the APEC Education Ministers’ meeting. The three spent more than $38,000 on airfares to get there and just short of $10,000 on expenses. $48,000 all up. But $38,000 on airfares is phenomenal. I do remember covering APEC myself in Peru at the same time – we flew economy class through the US to cut costs. We looked at flying direct, but going through the States was cheaper and we were in the middle of a recession and this was the only cost effective to do it. We actually had to take three flights – a leg through Miami on the way back to cut costs. The return flight cost TV3 just under $3,000.

So Carter’s bill tops $131,000. It is embarrassingly large, no one is questioning that.

Labour is doing only a half-arsed job defending him as well. There’s a lot of disquiet in the Labour caucus about Carter. He hasn’t been labelled the Minister for Overseas Travel for nothing. But I guess this just shows that Carter, and perhaps those who made his bookings, had a total disregard for the public purse. Perhaps it’s systematic within Parliament. If it’s someone else’s money, then who cares – that seems to be the prevailing attitude around here.

Parliament and Ministers and their staff need to get serious.Ordinary taxpayers work bloody hard for their wages. An overseas trip for most Kiwis is a privilege. Carter and all his colleagues across the board need to be reminded of that.

$131,000 in just six months is two and half times the average wage.

So when staff and Ministers are booking their next flights, remember who is paying.

Duncan sounds really pissed off towards the end of the article. And so he should be. He is the political news editor for 3News he sees these politicians much more than any other regular member of the public sees them. And good on him for being outraged. It is our Money that is be wasted on these trips. There are far cheaper ways to travel, sure MPs need to go overseas for events, but wasting thousands of dollars in the process is simply reckless. If an employee of a company did this they wouldn’t be an employee for very long.

This must be one of the best political posts I have read in a while, read the full version here: http://poneke.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/away/

NZ’s political leaders want to destroy us with despair. Where is their confidence in our country? No wonder Australia beckons for so many

In Australia, where I have had the opportunity to have travelled about these past few weeks, everyone except the media (which anywhere, always, promotes doom and gloom) is constantly upbeat about the state of the economy and the country’s outlook. The Polyannas include not just Kevin Rudd’s Labor Government but also Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal Opposition. Yes, of course, the Opposition in Australia constantly attacks and carps on about the Government, but it does not attack and carp on about Australia.

Numbingly, in New Zealand, it is our Government that is constantly attacking New Zealand and running down its fortunes and prospects at every opportunity. Chief among the Jonahs is the dour Finance Minister, Bill English, who constantly claims we face a “decade of deficits.” Even worse, at the New Zealand Herald’s annual platform for corporate greed, he said all we can look forward to is a “demoralising trudge”.

And then people were surprised that New Zealand’s still very strong economy was immediately put on credit watch. If your finance minister so publicly and continually rubbishes your country and takes as much delight in company closures and layoffs as this one does, then the ratings agencies will sit up, take notice and act.

I would not try to argue that the grass is always greener elsewhere, especially the grass in Australia, which is almost non-existent in some places I have been, thanks to the usual droughts which that huge desert continent experiences.

But, my god, there is no constant running down of Australia’s prospects by its political leaders, who are united in their determination to keep unemployment low and the economy ticking along very nicely thank you. You do not hear Australian cabinet ministers boasting how many public servants they are sacking.

New Zealand went into this world recession – caused by the corporate greed which some people in New Zealand think is admirable – with among the lowest unemployment and public debt in the developed world. The latter was thanks to former finance minister Michael Cullen’s determination to use his budget surpluses to repay debt rather than splurge on the tax cuts loudly demanded by National through all of Labour’s term. Cullen’s Scroogeness meant New Zealand can afford the modest deficits that would be expected in such an international downturn. Instead we are back to the slash and burn of 1991, when unemployment hit 11 per cent amid similar applause from the same cheerleaders.

Australia entered the world downturn similarly low in public debt – though with slightly higher unemployment – and there is little talk there of a decade of deficits. In fact, Australia is yet even to experience technical recession, as there has been just one quarter of negative growth, not repeated, since the Greed is Good parasites destroyed the world’s financial system.

I fear for a country being as constantly bad-mouthed by its government as New Zealand is, for the constant denigration is likely to bear the fruit that could be expected, as demonstrated by the negative credit watch, which the cheerleaders applaud from their tax havens in Geneva and elsewhere.

I fear for this country not for myself but for my children. All three of them constantly talk of moving to Australia for work and education. Even from a distance, the allure of a country whose leaders do not constantly denigrate it is apparent to them. Having had a good look around a lot of Australia in recent times, I can understand that allure.

New Zealanders are not a bunch of losers, but many of our political leaders give more than the impression that losers are how they see us and a failed state is what they want us to become. Maybe they should piss off to North Korea and invite a few people with confidence to take us boldly and confidently into the future that so scares them.

And one wonders why so many of us go off to Aussie. Can someone remind me why I should stay when I finish my post-grad studies at the end of this year?

Hat tip to Whale Oil and a number of other sites on both the left and the right for this.

The video is very slick but I have to ask the question of the real power behind it. Showing what Labour delivered in the past is not going to get us into the future. Especially given all the things highlighted National have kept. So your real point is?

(oh and I hope Kiwibank go after them for copyright breach like the electoral enrollment centre did over the orange man.)

This wasn’t handled well by either side, but wow what a temper tantrum on leaving.

It was refreshing to get up this morning and see a politician on TV saying it how it is. No spin, or PC bullshit, just straight opinion.

http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/q-hone-harawira-interviewed-guyon-espiner-2755040

GUYON Sure but you’ve got, I mean last time you were protesting about Labour’s actions, this time the Maori Party is actually in government essentially, and it’s the same result, doesn’t it show that no matter what’s tried they’re not listening to Maori?

HONE I think what it shows is that clearly the Maori Party is an independent voice, doesn’t really matter whether Labour’s in power or National’s in power, if we have something to say on behalf of Maori we will say it, regardless of our relationship with government, regardless of whoever’s in Opposition.

There was a few things I took issue with this morning with the interview. The Maori party is the voice of the people who voted for it, not all Maori, in fact more Maori did not vote for the party.

GUYON Okay, I’ve heard Ministers including Rodney Hide say look they want Chinese representation, they want Indian representation, and Maori representation on this Super City, I mean how well understood do you think that the concept of tangatawhenua is in the general population, and even in the government?

HONE First of all, Rodney Hide talking about Chinese representation and Indian representation, is just a red herring quite frankly, he’s just trying to muddy the waters.  What we’re talking about here…

GUYON But that argument though – sorry to interrupt Hone – that argument does seem reasonable to many people doesn’t it, that you have different ethnicities and that they should have different levels of representation on a council along with Maori.  I mean your argument presumably is well you have a tangatawhenua status, I’m just asking you how well do you think that that is understood?

HONE I don’t think it is very well understood, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be pushing for it.  Now this isn’t about us not supporting Pacific representation particularly, Asian or anybody else, but as the First Nation People of Aotearoa, and as the tangatawhenua, as the people who have been giving land for the settlement of Auckland for two hundred years, there’s an obligation on the Crown to recognise the right of Ngati Whatua, and Tainui, and all of the hapu and iwi around this area, representation on this council.

GUYON Is it as simple as that, is it as simple as saying…

HONE It is, actually it is that simple.

Exactly. It is that simple.

GUYON Is it as simple as saying I have certain constitutional rights because I was here before you were here?

HONE No, I don’t think it’s certain constitutional rights, because we don’t have a constitution, but…

GUYON But they are constitutional rights to have specific representation on the Auckland City Council, or to have specific Maori seats of which you hold, that is a certain constitutional right isn’t it?

HONE At the moment we have Maori seats in the national parliament, that works fabulously well because now for the first time in 150 years of parliamentary democracy in this country, we actually hear what Maori people think regardless of whether Labour’s in power or National’s in power, we finally hear what Maori people have to say.  It’s an intelligent voice and it’s an independent voice and it’s a very positive voice.  Now we think that if it can work at a national level it can certainly work at every other level.

GUYON And why don’t you think that the National Party gets it?

HONE Quite frankly I think the National Party does get it, and that’s the reason why John Key decided to buddy up with the Maori Party, I think they get it, I think that they’re under pressure from rednecks and others to try and stop it, but at the end of the day I think they get it and I wouldn’t be surprised if John Key goes along with it, on the basis that he went along with the flag.

This is where Hone pulls the first punch. National are spread too thin and trying to please everyone.

…HONE We are the tangatawhenua, that gives us rights according to the Treaty, we never dreamed up the Treaty somebody else did, but it gave us rights, one of them was partnership, that partnership was never meant to be just at one level or at another level, it was governance right across the country.  Now what we’re saying here is that in the same way that the Maori Party’s presence in the House is creating a new dynamic, and a vibrant dynamic, it can happen here for Auckland, and if we genuinely want Auckland to be the Super City alongside Sydney, New York, Paris, London, Rome and everywhere else, let’s build on that dynamic, let’s give Maori those seats, that’s number one, and then I genuinely would love to see about give years down the track, us seriously consider how we are going to include the Pacific population at that Council as well.

GUYON Okay we talked a little bit about whether Pakeha are understanding the Maori world, let’s just flip this around and see what sort of attention you pay if any to the Pakeha world view.  You said in 2004 and I quote you here – ‘the only people who are going to vote me into parliament are going to be Maori, what’s Pakeha think that’s something that Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples are gonna have to deal with.’  Do you care what Pakeha think?

HONE I do care what Pakeha think, but I’m the MP for Tai Tokerau, I’m very realistic about my role in the party and that is to promote the Maori world view as often as I possibly can.  The day I stand for a general seat is the day I’m six feet under quite frankly.  I stand for a Maori seat, I stand for the seat of Tai Tokerau, the only people who are gonna vote me in are Maori, so I try to get strength out of understanding what it is that Maori want to achieve and then try to translate it into an environment that you and I can live with.

Being honest to where your roots are is a good thing. Local loyalty first, plus you can’t please everyone.

GUYON The Maori Party didn’t stand a candidate in Mt Albert, why not?

HONE Oh, actually we’re enjoying sitting on the sidelines and having a laugh at what everybody else is doing over there, making fools of themselves over the Waterview criminal bypass and a few other activities that they’ve got planned over there.

Hehe… Waterview criminal bypass.

GUYON I guess I asked the question though because do you want Pakeha to vote for you.  If you look at your electorate results, you did very well in the seats obviously but you don’t get a lot of party votes.  Do you see as part of the future of the party, Pakeha voting for the Maori Party?

HONE Oh thousands of Pakehas do, but our first obligation is to Maori.  Once we’ve cleaned out the whole seven seats, once we hold them all what will happen is a lot more Maori are gonna see what possible by us being in parliament, and they will flood back to the Maori seats, we will grow those seats to about ten, once we get to about ten, and once we are firmly entrenched as the independent Maori voice in parliament, we can then look to be all things to all people, but if we tried that now we would die tomorrow.  We have to be very clear, we  have to be very focused about being the Maori voice in parliament and providing an opportunity for the rest of the country to see how positive that can be.

10 Maori Seats… personally that is a scary thought because I do not believe in the need for race based seats, however because of the silly 5% requirement they are necessary. And yes as a Pakeha I would consider voting for The Maori Party, like The Greens they are honest about what they stand for.

GUYON Before I move on to some of the specific things you have and haven’t achieved in parliament, can I just ask you – Trevor Mallard famously said that he was an indigenous Pakeha from Wainui O Mata, do you think that Pakeha can ever be indigenous in New Zealand?

HONE And I think Pat Hohepa said just because a cat is born in a banana box doesn’t make it a banana.  I have no issues whatsoever with Trevor Mallard feeling indigenous, that’s up to him, and congratulations to him, and if he’s part and parcel of this culture such that he thinks that way that’s great, but there can only ever be one tangatawhenua, that’s Maori.  We are the bananas, he’s the cat.

Exactly. I am 5th or 6th Generation NZ (can’t remember which), I have no connections to anywhere else in the world, however, Hone is correct in stating there is only one tangatawhenua.

GUYON I’ll take your word on that.  I just want to take you through some of the things that you wanted to achieve before the election and let’s see how you’re going.  You wanted to take GST off food, you wanted to wipe taxes for those earning under $25,000 – you wanted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, I mean none of that’s got a remote chance of happening has it?

HONE We also wanted a review on the Foreshore and Seabed Act, we also wanted to try and get the Maori flag recognised, we also wanted a constitutional review and we’ve got all of them.

GUYON So you think you’re doing alright?

HONE No, we could be doing a hell of a lot better, but in terms of where things are at, and the fact that in 150 years there’s never ever been an independent Maori Party in the House.  I think we’re doing okay, you know it’s only six months, six months on after 150 years of nothing – we’re not doing too badly.

Exactly.

GUYON Tazers – you bitterly oppose those, we’ve  just heard this morning that the government’s gonna spend ten million dollars rolling out tazers and the Police Association wants a tazer in the hands of every cop in the country, is that a good thing?

HONE Did you see that cop that they tazered on TV?  He was screaming, and when he fell down he landed on a mat.  Now just imagine if they did it right here, fall on the side of that he’d crack his head open, he’d probably die.  Now is that a good thing?  You put it into the hands of every Police Officer in New Zealand and you know what a crap bunch some of them can be, do you really want to put that in the hands of people who are going to use it as standover on different populations?  It just so happens to be that those other populations are going to be Maori and Pacific Islander.

GUYON So you see that as a race issue – tazers?

HONE Well no, not so much as a race issue but I think it’s certainly an issue about torture, and I think it’s an issue about trying to deal at that end of the problem instead of back at this end.  If you want to deal with crime, you deal with the causes of crime, you deal with poverty, you deal with the opportunities that people don’t have and you create avenues for the whole country to move beyond what we are at the moment.

Exactly.

GUYON You talked about that constitutional review that you’ve secured with the support agreement, what do you hope to come out of that?

HONE Well we don’t have a constitution in this country, and I’d like to see come out of it a constitution, that’s gonna take ten years, at least ten years, then everybody in the country’s gonna want to participate, but I want to see in there clearly the status of the Treaty protected once and for all, not in this bit of legislation, but not this this this and the other thing, but that the Treaty is protected and adhered to by all level of governance in this country, that’s really what I want to see achieved, and I think it’s very easy to do.  I think all it takes is a bit of courage, a bit of vision and a bit of positivity.

Bring on the republic.

GUYON You said earlier – I mean the main thrust for the Maori Party has been though on the repeal of the Seabed and Foreshore, you called it racist legislation at the top of this interview.

HONE Absolutely, filthy racist piece of legislation, I’ll tell you why.  If this is a hundred percent of the foreshore and seabed in this country, this much of it here is owned by private New Zealanders, the Foreshore and Seabed only applies to this bit here, the bits that Maori are after, so it’s a racist piece of legislation, it doesn’t apply to the whole of the foreshore and seabed, only the bits that Maoris want, racist piece of legislation, it’s gotta go.

GUYON And what are you hoping to achieve out of this review, I mean have you got a replacement?

HONE I think at the moment the numbers in terms of the review going all round the country talking to Maori and Pakeha is 90% for repeal, 8% for partial repeal, 2% don’t repeal, so it’s to repeal.  The trick is what we put in its place and that’s gonna be the big issue and we’re gonna be running a series of wananga before legislation comes into the House, to try and identify if we got rid of this what would we rather have, so that we go to the next stage in terms of legislation with a more positive view that’s going to – one, guarantee that title to Maori – two, make it inalienable so we can’t ever sell it, so it’s not about profit for Maori, and three, so it guarantees access to all New Zealanders.  Those are the three issues really, and I think that we can all live with that one Guyon.

I do not know that much about the issue, but the whole way it was dealt with was wrong.

GUYON Would you like to lead the party one day?

HONE Ah no, because leadership of the party requires a measure of diplomacy and tact I simply don’t have the talent for.

Hehe, Hone for PM.

This is only part of the full interview check out the link at the top for the full thing. Well worth watching.

From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10565592

Not one of the 423 prisoners serving life sentences would have been stopped by the proposed “three strikes” law, official information reveals.

The Department of Corrections has released information that shows none of the prisoners would have been “struck out” before the offence that earned the life sentence.

The information is based on the definition of a “strike” in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill – one of a list of violent offences where the offender has been given a sentence of five years or more.

Corrections said that under the current definition none of the 423 prisoners serving a life sentence had three qualifying sentences for serious violent offences (or strikes) before their most recent life sentence.

Corrections also said that neither RSA killer William Bell nor samurai sword killer Antonie Dixon would have “struck out” before their crimes.

The information was provided under the Official Information Act to Rethinking Crime and Punishment’s Kim Workman, one of the biggest opponents of three strikes.

Mr Workman said the information showed claims by Act and its hardline MP David Garrett that 77 lives would be saved by three strikes was wrong.

To be fair to Act they have stated that the change in numbers is a result of the change of definition of what constitutes a strike. However as it currently sits we now have a bill which is in violation of the bill of rights, would in its new form save no one and lock no one up, put forward by an MP (David Garrett) who has not “time or respect” for anyone. Wasn’t this new government one that was meant to be stopping time and money wasting. It seems that a lot of time and money has been wasted on a bill that is dead in the water as it does absolutely nothing.

Good on Colin Espinar. Very funny.

From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5068743.ece

Cleverer children are more likely to vote for the Green Party or the Liberal Democrats in a general election than other parties when they become adults, research suggests. The study, by the University of Edinburgh and the UK Medical Research Council and published in the journal Intelligence, indicates that childhood IQ is as important as social class in determining political allegiance. The IQs of more than 6,000 subjects were recorded at the age of 10, before any secondary schooling. Twenty-four years later they were asked about their voting habits.

Finally some sense in the world.

I would be very reluctant to support the notion of Civil Unions but given how the world is heading and human rights and all that I suppose I would.

However not Marriage.

It is about the terminology. The words. The wording.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

A Civil Union can give you the same rights if you want. But it is the words that matter. They are sacred.

Just my two cents anyway.

Saw a show earlier tonight and quite funnyly I would probably be in general principals closer to Republican than Democrat. However at the sametime I consider myself left. A conservative leftie? Is there such a thing?