New Govt identity verification system

This is an interesting new concept which I am sure could be developed further to enable us to cast a vote online. Would surely make the process for general elections and referendums more cheaper, quicker and easier. For more info click here

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Swiss democracy at Federal and Cantonal level

Examples right now of Swiss democracy at Federal and Cantonal level.

Here are my brief translations of the three Federal referendums taking place tomorrow in Switzerland, and also a Cantonal one for the people of the Canton of Vaud.

On Sunday, 29 November 2009, the Swiss people will be voting on these referendums:

1. Special financing for air traffic projects
Currently, the tax revenue on the fuels used in aviation benefits both the general funds of the Confederation and the road transport fund. The Federal Council and the Parliament propose to modify article 86 of the Constitution so that these receipts can from now on benefit both the general funds of the Confederation and the aviation transport fund.

Do you accept the federal decree of October 3, 2008 on the creation of special financing for air traffic projects?

The Federal council and the Parliament recommend you vote yes to this question.

The National council adopted the project by 124 votes against 63 with 4 abstentions, and the Council of the States by 33 votes against 7 with 3 abstentions.

2. Popular Initiative «For prohibiting the export of weapons»
This initiative aims to prohibit the export of weapons and requests that the Confederation encourages international efforts in favour of disarmament and for the control of armaments. The Federal council and the Parliament reject this initiative.

Do you accept the popular initiative “For prohibiting the export of weapons”?

The Federal council and the Parliament recommend you reject this initiative.

The National council rejected the initiative by 131 votes against 63 without abstention, and the Council of the States by 35 votes against 7 with 3 abstentions.

3. Popular Initiative «Against the construction of minarets»
The intention of the initiative is to prohibit the construction of minarets in Switzerland. The Federal council and the Parliament reject the initiative without putting forward any opposing project because it violates basic rights and does not solve any problem but creates new ones.

Do you accept the popular initiative “Against the construction of minarets”?

The Federal council and the Parliament recommend you reject this initiative.

The National council rejected the initiative by 132 votes against 51 with 11 abstentions, and the Council of the States by 39 votes against 3 with 2 abstentions.



On Sunday, 29 November 2009 the people of the Swiss Canton of Vaud will also be voting on this Cantonal referendum topic:

Advance notice from the Canton of Vaud regarding the request made by the BKW FMB Energie SA Company to remove the limiting date on the use of the nuclear power station at Mühleberg.

Are you in favour of removing the date limit or against?

Background:

This relates to the fact that the Canton of Vaud receives 25% of its electricity supplies from nuclear power, much of it from that site which was first commissioned in 1972. This nuclear power station is subject to date limits for its exploitation, the latest being 31 December 2012. In 2005, the energy company running that power station formally asked the Swiss Federal authorities to lift that date limit, basing its request on similar successful requests for three other nuclear power stations.

The Cantons of Neuchâtel and Fribourg have already voted “No”. The Canton of Soleure proposes extending the date-limit to 2025, and the Canton of Berne has said that the power station can continue in operation whilst it remains both profitable and safe, but that it should eventually be replaced by a new power station.

According to a paragraph in Article 83 of the Constitution of the Canton of Vaud, any advance notice about the usage of nuclear material must be put to the electorate of the Canton. Given that this constitutional requirement extends to the question of the date-limitation on the Mühleberg facility the people of the Canton of Vaud are being asked to give their decision on this matter and this will then be the official response of the Canton to the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy, and Communications (DETEC). However, these responses from the Cantons are not binding upon DETEC which has to take the final decision.

Article 56 of the Constitution of the Canton of Vaud specifically includes a paragraph favouring the phasing out of nuclear energy. And this is the basis upon which the Grand Council of the Canton of Vaud, on 8 September 2009, passed a resolution by 69 to 64 votes, with 3 abstentions, to recommend to the people of the Canton to reject the request from the energy company for the date-limitation to be lifted, when they vote on this referendum on Sunday, 29 November.

A brochure setting out the background and explaining the Grand Council’s decision is on the web-site and will have been sent out to all the electors of the Canton. Also, the opinions of the political parties are given: with the two left-wing parties and the Greens supporting the “No” position; and the Radicals, Centre Democrats, and Liberals supporting the “Yes” position.


CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

PM against binding referenda plan

The public would demand more spending but pay less tax under binding referenda, Prime Minister John Key says...

NZPA | Monday November 23 2009 - 10:01am

Saturday's "March for Democracy" of up to 4000 people in Auckland called for the Government to implement the outcomes of referenda.

Protesters said the government had failed to respond to citizen initiated referenda on reducing the number of MPs, a more victim-centred justice system and amending the anti-smacking legislation.

Protesters also demanded the smacking law be changed so that a light smack would not be a criminal offence.

Mr Key said his position on the anti-smacking legislation had not changed; the law was working but he would react if that changed.

He said the wider idea of requiring the Government to implement referenda was unworkable, and had failed in California.

"California has that and that's why they're broke. People only vote for spending increases and they don't vote for tax cuts," he said on TVNZ's Breakfast programme.

"If you apply ACC to that everyone would sign up and say no levy increases a few years down the track we'd have a system that was completely broken."

Auckland businessman Colin Craig, who funded the march, said more marches may be held if the Government refused to engage.

"We are willing to take this campaign through to the General Election in 2011, if that is what is required," Mr Craig said.


CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Copenhagen Treaty

Is the Copenhagen Treaty a threat to our democracy? click here to listen to this Australian radio interview.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Letter to NZ Herald

My letter to the Editor of the NZ Herald about their biased reporting...

The Editor

I congratulate all those who participated in the 'March for Democracy'. They are the gladiators of society, the 6-8% of New Zealanders who get politically involved and
get off their backsides in an attempt to make a difference. They will eventually triumph over the elitists in society who believe they always know what is best for the ignorant masses.

I include your newspaper in this list of elitists. Your coverage of the smacking referendum was totally biased, you made a concerted effort to deter citizens from the march, and your reporting about binding referendums has been totally one sided and inaccurate. I imagine it must irk your editorial and reporting staff immensely given a massive 87.4% of the public still voted “no” in the referendum and thousands marched up Queen Street on the weekend calling for referendums to be made binding. Your newspaper has failed miserably in its attempt to undermine our democracy.

As Victor Hugo said, “All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come”. Binding referendums will eventually come, but in the fight for People Power, there is still work to be done.


CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Thousands march!

The march up Queent Street was a great success. The momentum for binding referendums is building. Listen to TV3 interviews with Bob McCoskrie from Family First, Garth McVicar from Sensible Sentencing Trust and Colin Craig the protest organiser click here

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Economic Tools for the 21st Century

The basic global problem is that the world’s money supply is created, owned and controlled by commercial financial institutions and lent into the system at

interest. The interest is not created, requiring more borrowing, resulting in exponentially increasing, compounding debt.

The whole world is heavily burdened with compounding debt. It causes deepening poverty, famine and in the last few decades, continuous war. Compounding debt is the underlying cause of regular and more frequent boom/bust cycles, increasingly severe recessions and the misery and loss suffered by business and small investors.

In Western countries, compounding debt causes ‘deindustrialisation’  the shifting of the manufacturing sector off shore to countries with few labour laws and no environmental compliances. It leaves behind unstable economies, and a growing, lowskilled work force.

Compounding debt takes the wealth created by people’s work and delivers it into the hands of nonproductive bank shareholders and speculators. It widens the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

Compounding debt causes stagnant wage levels, rising prices and failing business. It contributes to family breakdown, community dysfunction and national unease.

Compounding debt causes poverty, inflation and unemployment. It promotes poor nutrition, poor health and inadequate housing. Compounding debt fosters racism, sexism and other forms of exclusion. It breeds a savage, dogeatdog society.

Compounding debt drives people to gambling, drug abuse, crime and violence. It is a recipe for depression, despair and suicide.

Compounding debt deflects business income from sustainable production methods. It pollutes our water, air and earth through poorly regulated, profitdriven activities. It destroys rainforest and other fragile ecosystems, for the increasing production and unstable prices of cash crops such as coffee, chocolate, palm oil and soy beans.

Compounding debt forces cashstrapped governments, local bodies and individuals to treat urgent environmental problems as unaffordable ‘side issues’. It allows a small group of people to own and control the world’s wealth, leaving the rest of us to fight for a shrinking number of jobs.

Compounding debt causes commoditisation of resources that were once public utilities: power, water, and especially money. It causes commoditisation of social essentials that were once investments in the well being and future of the people: housing, health, public transport and education.

This is the state of New Zealand in the 21st Century. As fast as the ice caps melt, the debt mountain grows faster. So what are we going to do about it?

This party has a proud history of nurturing ideas well ahead of their time. Will we abandon that vision and the robust economic tools that support it? Will we cravenly adopt populist causes at the expense of our core policy of justice through economic reform? I say “No.”

The tools we have developed to reform the economy are more relevant in the 21st Century than ever before. The current Government is as ineffective as the last one, pussyfooting around the edges of the recession, tinkering with this bit and taking big slices off that.

Give us the opportunity to redesign New Zealand’s money supply as a public utility, and we will provide interestfree and debt free money to enhance the quality of life for all.

I won’t be like Roger Douglas, and timidly back down in the face of threats from the banking sector. When we can begin to progressively reform the hugely inefficient and openly biased tax structure with our revenue tools, I refuse to kowtow to financial industry bullying. They will NOT evade FTT as they evaded GST.

We are here today with the tools to reign in these powers and we are not going to lay those tools aside for political expediency. The Gap  some $50 billion and rising  is being filled with debt. What are we going to do about it?

Are we going to let the foreignowned banks continue lending at interest, to suck the wealth from the pockets of families to fill the pockets of the already rich? I say “NO”.

For too long the powers that be have proclaimed that only work can generate income. The powers that be are living proof that this is a lie. Many in the top income brackets live off unearned income. They are the real beneficiaries and bludgers on the nation.

It’s time to turn that around. It’s time to return to the people what rightfully belongs to them: their ownership stake in the country, and their inheritance of past wealth.

We have the tools to accomplish this. Using an economic tool box for New Zealand, we can provide a basic Kiwi income for every resident in the country. An income that is not tied to working hours, or to a dole for not working, or to a handout  and a slap  for being a solo parent. An income for every person that derives from ownership, inheritance and residency, as of right.

The banks won’t like it. Who will they lend to? Who will take on their credit cards and overdrafts? What will they tell their shareholders? They can tell their shareholders and their head office banks overseas:

“The game is over. In New Zealand, they finally figured it out.”

And we have figured it out, a long time ago. The country is in a mess, the tax system is in a mess, and the welfare system is in a monumental mess. People have to borrow to live, and we know how to fix it.

This is our point of difference.

This toolbox of reform mechanisms can transfer the wealth out of the pockets of the moneylenders and back to the families and businesses of New Zealand. Why would we want to hide the strengths and convictions that have helped us survive for so long?

In the face of political ridicule that masks fear, in the nervous silence of the media, in spite of the humble, exhausted ignorance of the very people we seek to help, still we work for a better life for this country and its inhabitants.

We work for environmental, social and economic justice. We work for quality of life and a standard of living that is shared by all, including those who come after us.

We are the guardians of a truth so profound it is not an option to back down under threat or ridicule. It is not an option to compromise with injustice. It is not an option to give up.

I mentioned a toolbox, and not by accident. In this toolbox there are five basic monetary reform tools that we can utilise to transform New Zealand into a showcase of sustainable prosperity that will be the envy of the world.

The first tool is interestfree lending, set up as a revolving credit facility or overdraft through a public utility. This tool has been employed successfully in the past, but never in a modern New Zealand economic environment. It is designed to replace the current inefficient sources of money with a cheaper, more efficient source.

The second tool is the creation of new money debtfree. This money will be spent into the system, increasing the money supply without increasing the debt. This tool is designed to help fund social investment such as a free health system, free education and a basic income programme.

The third tool is a Financial Transactions Tax, known as FTT. The primary function of this tax is to discourage speculation. FTT will also remove compliance costs for business, and help balance the government budget.

As a first step FTT will gradually replace GST. Any further replacements to the tax system will be done progressively and with due caution. There may be unforseen effects and changes of behaviour prompted by the implementation of FTT that will require adjustment.

The fourth tool is the Foreign Transfer Surcharge  FTS. Again, this tax is primarily to stop speculative currency trading. Any revenue gathered by FTS will go toward retiring overseas debt, restoring the balance of trade or reducing domestic taxes.

The fifth tool is the use of a repayment term instead of an interest rate to control demand inflation. The commercial banks will be required to manage the average repayment term of their loan portfolios, as the public utility directs for the good of the people of New Zealand.

Unlike the current debtbased financial system, these tools are not designed to ‘run the country’. They are designed to manage a money supply so that people can own and run the country. These tools are designed to empower people with income, with health, with skills and with opportunity.

They will free people from the tyranny of compounding debt and give them an economy that works for them instead of the system we have now that makes us tenants in our own country.

I am not going to dwell on the specifics of this tool box. There is no point getting bogged down with hypothetical percentages and estimated costs that can’t be tested in today’s economic climate. I am confident that when the time comes, this tool box will be ready to build a better future.

The toolbox is designed to be utilised in the 21st Century. New technologies exist that make these tools easy to implement and difficult to evade or defraud. And it is through these new technologies  internet, mobile phones and other global communications  that we will reach a younger audience.

These are the business people of the future, who need to know that there exists an alternative financial system that allows the economy to work for them. This younger generation surrounds itself with constantly emerging technology and electronics communication systems.

In order to reach them, we must adapt our language  and our thinking  to a modern context. We can’t go back to old times and old ways of doing things. We have always been a forward looking party.

With a toolbox well suited for the electronic age, it only remains for us to embrace modern communications in order to share our vision with coming generations.

There should be no exclusions due to poor communication. We’re all in this together.

The Future Beckons.

Deputy Leader John Pemberton; PO Box 402 Matamata
Email: pemberj@slingshot.co.nz Website: www.democrats.org.nz

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

The dinosaur roars again!

Yet again the dinosaur we call the NZ herald has lambasted binding referendums in their latest Editorial piece click here.

They simply don't seem to be interested in playing fair by allowing Better Democracy NZ to air our views on the matter in an opinion piece. I have sent them a number of articles for publication only to be totally ignored. Their reporting over the smacking referendum was totally biased to say the least (I did a media study project on it) and they are making a concerted effort to rubbish binding referendums and the March for Democracy this weekend.

They are a desperate newspaper that know their days are numbered. They know people are turning away from their paper in droves and the only way they have managed to keep circulation up is by bribing subscribers to part with their money with special deals just too good to turn down, virtually giving the paper away for free. That tricks advertisers in to paying up.

What irks the NZ Herald the most is that they know their totally biased attempt to sway the smacking referendum had very little, if any, effect. They failed dismally given a massive 87.4% still voted “no”. But what would voters know anyway? We certainly aren't as intelligent as the editorial staff at the NZ Herald are we?!

I suggest a concerted effort by supporters with letters to the editor (editor@nzherald.co.nz) is warranted, even if it will probably be a waste of time.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Rudman/NZ Herald attack democracy

Here's a pathetic attempt by Brian Rudman of the NZ Herald click here to rubbish binding referendums and The March this Saturday. Just another

elitist in my opinion, who would never trust the collective wisdom of his fellow citizens. The trouble is he doesn't even get his facts right. It was representative democracy in Switzerland that refused to given women the vote until 1971. They finally received it thanks to a binding referendum. There are similar examples in America where elected representatives did likewise and it was only state wide binding referendums that gave women the vote.

Well Mr Rudman, your article was full of emotional language and false arguments against binding referendums. Along with Sir Geoffrey Palmer, you are a relic from the past and simply do not believe citizens are intelligent or informed enough to make sensible decisions that directly effect their lives. Although you would never admit that would you! Times are changing Mr Rudman, citizens are far more informed, far better educated than ever before in history and we are now starting to assert our power, People Power. You will see this power in action come Saturday the 21st of December with The March up Queen Street to protest yet another ignored referendum. Momentum is building for binding referendums. The people are tired of being ignored by arrogant, elitist politicians completely out of touch with the majority of New Zealanders.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Saturday 21st Nov 1.30pm bottom of Queen St, Auckland

>See you all there!
Read more...

Recent BDNZ publicity

Past referenda organisers lend weight to march

By Ellen Dorset Updated 1:25 PM Monday Nov 16, 2009
Organisers of past referenda ignored by governments have lent their weight to Saturday's march over the anti-smacking referendum, billed as "the biggest march in New Zealand's history".

The march is being organised to protest the Government's lack of action against on the removal of Section 59 from the Crimes Act.

Some 87 per cent of the respondents to the referendum in August agreed that "a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence".

Organisers from past referendums - including Garth McVicar who led the referendum on Law and order, Margaret Robertson who campaigned for 99 MPs and the organiser of the last anti-smacking referendum Sheryl Savill - appeared at a media conference this morning.

March organiser Colin Craig called past referendum organisers "true New Zealand heroes".

"These people are heroes and heroines who have stood up as a group and have said: 'hey, we want some things to change'."

Mr Craig said he hoped the march would focus attention on past referenda that have been ignored by governments going back to the 1990s.

"I think the people will win out."

He said despite a large majority in each of the referenda, governments have ignored the citizens.

Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust said he was not a hero.

"We're just ordinary New Zealanders who are passionate about our country."

Mr Craig supported the anti-smacking referendum and said he had been approached by political parties and other organisations with offers of money but chose to reject their help to avoid any "underlying agendas".

Mr Craig has said the march will cost him personally up to $450,000.

Family First national director Bob McCroskie said the march was "opening up a can of worms" and wanted all past referenda to be revisited by the Government.

Steve Baron of Better Democracy (NZ) congratulated the organisers of the weekend's march.

Better Democracy is a non-profit organisation formed to promote binding referendums in New Zealand.

"These people are the gladiators of modern society", he said. "The small percentage who aren't afraid to stand up and be counted.

"I'll be marching alongside them on Saturday, and recommend everyone else does so as well", said Mr Baron.

Free bus services are being arranged to make it easier for those wishing to attend the march, which Mr Craig hopes will draw over 50,000 supporters to Auckland's Queen St this Saturday afternoon.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Plato's Conceit

An interesting article on the New Zealand Centre for Political Research website about the ruling elite by Gerry Eckhoff, an Otago regional councillor, Roxburgh farmer and a former member of Parliament.

NZCPR Guest Forum
Plato's Conceit
Gerry Eckhoff
7 November 2009


A political system that allows the select few of the ruling elite to dominate the life of the ordinary person has come to be known as …..“Plato’s conceit”.

Plato, the Greek philosopher, had a belief that the power or governance of a country should always be vested in the ‘guardians’ from the ruling class. His design for governance of a country applied only to those fortunate enough to be well educated. “Ordinary” people were of no consequence. Plato believed farmers and their ilk were best suited to slavery. His perfect society was based on the masses agreeing to be ruled, but with such people having no understanding of the principles upon which they were to be governed. His system dominates much of the world’s political governance to this very day.

The singular problem with Plato’s utopian ideal is that it doesn’t work …anywhere despite the “guardians” of many different hues decision to implement Plato’s design (by default) during the last 2000 years. That reality still does not stop our politicians as there has been an inextricable march in New Zealand towards the implementation of what is only a minor variation of “Plato’s conceit”.

The Guardians or in today’s language - cabinet and councils – would, according to Plato, naturally be possesses of wisdom, courage, temperance and justice.

Recent political history has shown us that wisdom is often tyrannical within those who possess it; as such people can be intolerant of those that don’t. Courage can be mistaken for belligerence, while justice appears to be an increasingly unaffordable and fleeting thing. Temperance of course has never been New Zealand’s strongest suit.

The decision of the Cabinet to continue with the fundamentally flawed and essentially bankrupt ACC system at what ever the cost to the ordinary person can only be described as a perfect example of “Plato’s conceit”. No genuine consultation with the “ordinary people” that are to pay the huge cost increases, has occurred. We the people are supposed to accept therefore, that community ownership of accident compensation, no matter what the cost, is good and that private arrangements no matter what the benefits, is bad.

The petition to repeal the anti smacking law is also a current example of Plato’s conceit. “We the Cabinet knows best - besides the petition was signed by…. ordinary people - who are unlikely to possess our “wisdom”. The controversy over the adding of an ‘h’ to Wanganui by the Geographic Board “guardians” despite widespread opposition is yet another recent example of Plato’s conceit.

The ‘wisdom of crowds’ is cast aside in favour of the ruling body giving advice to itself which is rarely if ever ignored.

To add insult to injury; too often the “guardians” load up the cart and then look for a suitable horse to pull it. There is only ever one available - the “ordinary” people.

Auckland’s super city quest is all about easier governance and less about the enhancement of democracy. Most will question how the will of the people will be exercised by the “guardians” of Auckland’s future. In reality such guardians will be drawn to the belief that their “informed” opinions must override the masses.

Climate change is another case in point. There has been no meaningful engagement with the public on this issue; just top down rhetoric promoting pseudo science from those who believe they know best. (Plato would have been proud)

The allure of power is more than enough to attract the odd fox to the central and local government’s hen house. That in itself is not too much of a problem as the fox among the hens is easily identified. It is when the “hens” start to crow and forget who and what they represent that problems occur. Once inside the hen house, there are very few guiding principles - other than the need for - “consultation” with the people.

There appears to be two forms of consultation. The first kind of consultation is easily recognizable. A series of public meetings is usually held where discussion on the issue is led by the proponents of the issue at hand, usually a cabinet minister or a councilor. A presentation is made to the attendees of the only options available and everybody goes home a little more informed but not necessarily any the wiser.

True consultation however is quite different as there is risk attached to the council or Government whose view may well be overridden. This form of consultation is determined by the stage and level of interaction between the council and the public or the impacted group. True consultation is so much more difficult as it requires an egoless effort and the courage of a council or government to accept the will of the people.

Failure to engage true consultation before any development, planning and construction proceeds violates the principles of transparency and accountability. A closed or ‘in committee’ meeting with selected persons who do not represent the majority view is still a form of consultation but it is not true consultation. Plato would have approved of this very discerning or selective type of consultation.

To truly engage with “the people” may be difficult and in many cases well nigh impossible but without the requirement and commitment to do so with openness and total transparency, is to deny democracy the chance to change and enhance people’s lives.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE THE ONLY RESORT, SAY VICTIMS’ FAMILIES

Press release by Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust regarding victim impact statements being censorded by judges.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE THE ONLY RESORT, SAY VICTIMS’ FAMILIES

The families of murder victims are defying court orders to silence them by publicly releasing full versions of previously censored victim impact statements to the media.

View statement (.doc, 30KB)

The civil disobedience campaign includes the families of high profile murder victims and is being led by the Sensible Sentencing Trust as part of a wider move to see the laws regarding what can be said in a victim impact statement (VIS) changed.

“The reading of a victim impact statement is often the only time a victim or their family get to be heard in the justice system and the current practice of gagging what people can say is frustrating and unfair,” said Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman, Garth McVicar.

Currently a VIS can outline physical injuries sustained by a victim, loss or damage incurred from the crime and emotional and psychological effects as a result of the crime. Opinions, comments on sentencing, the conduct of the offender during the trail and rebuttal of information presented about the victim during the trial is not allowed.

Gil Elliott, the father of murdered Dunedin woman Sophie Elliott, is leading the move to release full versions of censored statements after his family had large amounts deleted by police the night before sentencing.

“Lesley and I and other members of the family had spent a lot of time on these statements. It was finally our chance to be heard. I must have done dozens of drafts on mine before I was satisfied it was ok,” Mr Elliott said.

With no time to redraft the statements, they were forced to read around the crossed-out segments, which Mr Elliott said were not defamatory but defended slurs made against his daughter by the defence and expressed the family’s view of her killer, Clayton Weatherson.

“It is bad enough that victim’s families have virtually no input into proceedings, without then finding out that we can’t even read our carefully worded statements in total. In Lesley’s case about one quarter was censored. It’s just another kick in the guts for victims.”

Weatherston was allowed to read the statements privately and in full prior to sentencing, which also upset the family, who had wanted their daughter’s killer to sit in the public court and hear from them first about the impact his actions had had on them.

Brian Brown, whose daughter Natasha was murdered by Michael Curran at McLaren Falls, near Tauranga, in 2005, is one of those taking part in the campaign and said despite being told by the judge to stop when he began reading censored parts of his victim impact statement in court, he continued to read it all and is glad he did so.

Mr Mcvicar said families of victims believed the right to be heard was more important than respecting what they believed was an unfair court ruling. Several members who had yet to present their statements in court had committed to reading the full, uncensored version and were encouraging others to do the same.

“If the court system is going to continue failing victims and their families, they have no choice but to come out fighting for change themselves. They have been through enough already and shouldn’t have to be re-victimised by the system that should be there to deliver justice for them,” said Mr McVicar.

He said the families were more concerned with fairness than with any consequences they faced by disclosing the censored statements, and would fight hard for a law change regarding what could be said in a statement.

Specifically, the Trust and its members wanted statements to be able to include:

The victim’s opinion on sentencing, and any argument that it be increased to reflect any lack of remorse or misrepresentation of the victim during the trail.
To ask the court to order specific reparation or compensation.
To draw attention to any disgraceful conduct and attitude during the trail by the offender or their family/supporters.
Section 25 of the Victims Rights Act allows a court to make orders restricting disclosure of a statement. But Sensible Sentencing Trust legal adviser Stephen Franks said even if an order had been made, there was a strong argument that the court still did not have the power to restrict what a victim said, providing it was true and not defamatory.

Full victim impact statements from Gil Elliott and Brian Brown have been linked to/attached to this email, with censored parts highlighted. Contact details and experiences of other families are also available on request.

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:


Garth McVicar (027) 2487-919
Spokesman, Sensible Sentencing Trust

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Majority want to keep MMP, new polls shows

A new survey has found a majority of voters don't want to change from the MMP electoral system.

Majority want to keep MMP, new polls shows
NZPA | Thursday November 12 2009 - 02:38pm

The UMR opinion poll, released today, contradicts previous surveys which have shown the opposite.

A referendum will be held at the same time as the 2011 general election asking voters whether they want to change from MMP, and if they do they will be able to tick an alternative choice.

If a majority want a change, there will be another referendum at the time of the 2014 election which will be a run off between MMP and the most preferred alternative.

UMR used the proposed wording of the first referendum in its poll and the result was 48 percent in favour or retaining MMP and 40 percent in favour of changing the system.

Other recent polls have shown a majority in favour of changing the electoral system.

UMR questioned 750 voters and also asked them whether they wanted a referendum.

When they were told it was going to cost $20 million, 60 percent didn't want one and 32 percent did.

Voters were also asked about alternatives to MMP and UMR said opinion wasn't clear -- 41 percent were unsure or didn't know enough to make a choice.

The Government hasn't announced which alternatives will be put on the referendum paper, but it is known they will include the old first-past-the-post system (FPP) and probably single transferable vote (STV) and supplementary member (SM).

UMR found that of those who did have an opinion, 29 percent favoured FPP, 20 percent STV and 9 percent SM.

"It is likely to be a very close contest on whether there is a second referendum at all," UMR said when it released the findings.

The survey was carried out between October 22 and 27 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Hide: No need for referendums

Following is a press release by Rodney Hide, Minister of Perks & Local Government.

Rodney Hide28 October, 2009

Reforms to help keep rate rises under control

Local government reforms agreed by Cabinet this week will give ratepayers more say in how councils spend their money, Local Government Minister Rodney Hide said today.

"The reforms are about local government focussing on core functions, managing within a defined budget, and adopting transparent and accountable decision-making processes," Mr Hide said.

"These changes to the Local Government Act 2002 will ensure that council costs, rates and activities are better controlled. The decisions taken by Cabinet this week represent significant progress towards better local government, and easier and more effective participation by ratepayers and residents in the activities of their councils.

"Ratepayers want and need greater confidence in their councils, and to have access to better, more easily understood information about the spending and performance of their councils - these reforms will enable that to happen.

"The changes will deal with some of the concerns which led to calls for greater use of referendums in local government. As a result Cabinet has decided to leave the present powers of councils to call polls and referendums unchanged."

The reforms include:

Councils being encouraged to focus on core services by amending section 12 of the Local Government Act (the power of general competence) to require councils to have particular regard to the importance of: infrastructural services; solid waste services; hazard and disaster management; libraries and recreation; culture and heritage services; and the performance of regulatory responsibilities and statutory duties

Simplifying council planning by merging the community outcomes process into the long-term council community planning process

Requiring councils to provide ‘plain English' financial reporting

Pre-election reports that draw together existing council information in a readily accessible format and timely manner to help promote election debate

Analysis of 2009-19 Long Term Council Community Plans shows that councils' operating costs will increase 39 per cent over the next 10 years. Over the same period councils' planned capital expenditure will total $31.4 billion, and total debt is forecast to rise to $10.8 billion.

Mr Hide said legislation to enact the reforms is expected to be introduced to Parliament before the end of this year.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

To all newspapers and MPs

Gone are the days of honest politicians, if such a time ever existed. Over the years, parliament has become a den of iniquity, full of

broken election promises, ignored referendums, abuse of taxpayer money, fraud, racism, physical violence and arrogance. Falling voter turnout only goes to prove the lack of trust New Zealanders have in their political system and their politicians. How long can we allow this unfettered power to go on without placing further checks and balances on our so called elected representatives? New Zealanders must have the final say on what happens in parliament and a vote once every three years at a general election is no longer enough. The Veto, Recall and Binding Citizens Initiated Referendums are political tools New Zealand must adopt without delay, if we are to truly be a democracy and not just an elected dictatorship. For the first time in my life I plan to protest by joining the march for democracy, walking up Queen Street, Auckland on the 21st of November. I hope others will join me and become the 6-8% of society who become politically active, the political gladiators, the select few who get off their backsides to make a difference.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Council Rates

Let's face it, getting your Council rates bill in the post isn't as exciting as seeing one of the many attractive woman walking down the main street,

but it certainly does make your heart jump! US President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “Taxes, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.” Rates certainly aren't cheap, the average ratepayer pays around fifty dollars a week as their contribution to the millions that Councils collect. Basing a tax on the gestimated value of a property is iniquitous. For example, Granny may have owned her home for a very long time so its not her fault the value has increased exponentially, but she still has to pay rates based on the value of the property. Neither does it seem fair that a household of five who use far more services than a single dweller, can end up paying less.

There are other options that could be considered. Poll taxes (tax per head) or Community Tax as it was known in the UK under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher are one option. However, they were very unpopular and inefficient to collect. A Service Tax, or a local income tax that operates separately from the national tax system has often been suggested, although this would create significant costs to collect. Perhaps a more equitable and simpler way to fund Council services would be through central government taxation which already funds a large amount of Council spending. This would simply mean raising national tax levels slightly, and spreading the load throughout society. If Council services were to become funded in this way, a specific formula would need to be designed to ensure Council funding did not become a deep black hole money is thrown at.

Regardless of how Councils are funded, another important consideration is how
Councils allocate budgets. One option becoming ever more popular throughout the world, and promoted locally in New Zealand by the Wanganui City Council, are referendums. This allows ratepayers to prioritize Council spending. Referendums in Wanganui have included decisions on gang insignia, water softening, recycling options and the Splash Centre (pool) extension. They were also given various options on rate increases. These referendums have proved very popular with referendum voting actually higher than the Council elections themselves. An empirical study by Professor John Matsusaka from the University of California has also shown that those American States that have the referendum system, spend up to 19% less than those who do not. That would be music to the ears of most ratepayers.

The current rating system is held in the same regard as the old TV licensing fee,
everyone hates it and its just not fair. Council rates are a regressive tax because they are not linked to the income of the individual or household. Neither do they adhere to the principle of user pays. Therefore they are inherently unfair and should be replaced.

First published 6 November, 2009 in the Cambridge News.

Steve Baron is an author, Founder of Better Democracy NZ, and a regular contributor to publications throughout New Zealand.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...