All posts tagged MP

Prosser out on his ear, maybe next month?

Richard Prosser wrote an extreme column about Muslims, a very deliberate aim to inflame, and to sound like a tough guy. And he was apparently unrepentant. Patrick Gower reported:

No apology over Muslim statements

New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser has outraged Muslims. Both he and his leader, Winston Peters, refuse to apologise.

“If MPs don’t say this, who will?” Mr Prosser says. “We are here to represent and to speak about the views that people have.”

A tough stance from someone who will never back down. From his book Uncommon Dissent:

One of the best things about being a no nonsense right wing nationalist social and political commentator is never having to say you are sorry.

It doesn’t matter if you upset anyone, because the only people likely to be offended by your unabased dissertations of truth and common sense are pinkos and liberals and other whingeing minorities whose opinions don’t count anyway.

And get offended they certainly do!

And this his how Prosser is promoted on his book sales site:

RICHARD PROSSER is not just one of the country’s newest politicians. He’s also the outspoken, straight-talking, politically-incorrect mind behind Investigate magazine’s monthly “Eyes Right” column.

ON ‘LIBERALS’: “I mean if people want to be weak, stupid, effeminate, erectile dysfunctional, naïve, apologist, namby-pamby, thumb-sucking, lefty pinko fantasy-land morons, let them find their own word for themselves, and leave “liberal” for us genuine freedom-loving, gonad-equipped, libertarian go-getters”

PREPARE FOR A WITTY, PUNCHY & EASY-TO-READ EXPLANATION OF EVERYTHING THAT’S WRONG WITH NZ, AND HOW TO PUT IT RIGHT…

But that was last year. And his unrepentant refusal to apologise was last Tuesday.

By Wednesday Prosser had changed his tune. Stuff reported Prosser’s sorry but backlash continues:

The Waimakariri-based list MP has vowed not to write any more inflammatory columns, saying: “It’s what a shock jock does, and I’m not that any more.”

The “gonad-equipped, libertarian go-getter” is not that anymore?

He “unreservedly” apologised for his provocative Investigate magazine column, which said Muslims should be banned from Western airlines.

Last night, he insisted his mea culpa was genuine. “I think you can learn from these things and not make the same mistake twice.”

He added: “I suppose the disappointing thing is that you realise you have made some mistake and set out to make an apology and that doesn’t get accepted, then that’s a little bit on the nose.”

The article was “not his best work”, he admitted. “I shouldn’t have allowed that to go out and tar them all with the same brush. Nor should I have gone down the line of calling for a blanket ban . . . it’s not a political solution.

It’s an off-the-cuff, in-the-pub solution.”

The column was not an “off-the-cuff, in-the-pub” comment. Neither was what he wrote in his book. He has made big claims about his no nonsense unrepentant wish to offend people “whose opinions don’t count anyway”.

Prosser has a right to speak, like anyone in New Zealand. But that doesn’t rule out consequences.

And as soon as he feared consequences he backslid. He made a half arsed apology – he said sorry if people were offended, he didn’t ‘unreservedly” apologise. And then said it was “on the nose” if people didn’t accept his apology – having written “One of the best things about being a no nonsense right wing nationalist social and political commenter is never having to say you are sorry“.

And he didn’t stand by what he had written. When a motion was moved in the House making a statement distancing Parliament from what he had written Prosser was in the House and agreed with the motion. (See Parliamentary motion on religious equality).

Prosser’s words obviously can’t be trusted. He has not been an honest MP.

ON KEEPING POLITICIANS HONEST: “Our Prime Minister, and members of the Cabinet, need to have a similar Sword of Damocles hanging over them; they need to know that if they don’t perform, conform, behave properly, and do as We The People tell them, that they’ll be out on their ears, not maybe in three years time, but maybe next month. That should keep the bastards honest.”

He has not performed or conformed as an MP – all of Parliament made it clear they didn’t think he had behaved properly.

If one bastard was to be kept honest he would be out on his ear. Maybe this month.

by Pete George on February 17, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 17, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/17/prosser-out-on-his-ear-maybe-next-month/

Good reasons why MPs shouldn’t engage at The Standard

For several months there have been many please and demands that Labour’s leadership, caucus and MPs ‘engage’ with the peeps at The Standard. IrishBill posted on this last wee:

On engagement with the Labour caucus

Yesterday Annette King started talking with Standard commenters on a couple of threads. As I understand it this is part of a move to engage with the Standard.

While I can’t speak for other authors I welcome this as a good sign there’s a real desire to grow some trust and unity and I think MPs who post here should be made to feel welcome.

Bad habits are hard to break and there was some less than welcoming engagement with King and the next day with Darien Fenton when she had a go.

Update: As I feared I’ve already had to give two commenters a wee break so let me make the ground rules to this post explicit: I expect this thread to be a model of polite engagement and I will be heavily moderating for language and tone.

Many have had a free licence to attack as they please but for some reason MPs are prompting calls for some better behaviour and respect. (When I suggested better behaviour would make for better  engagement last August I was permanently banned for “telling them” how to run their blog).

Much comment followed about how MP engagement should be encouraged and conducted.

But there are a number of good reasons why MPs shouldn’t engage at The Standard.

  1. Engaging effectively in social media, especially blogs, takes quite a bit of time ongoing. MPs shouldn’t have the amount of time required.
  2. The Standard has a track record of un-moderated abuse and harrassment.
  3. It is common for single comments to be isolated, misrepresented and repeatedly used to discredit without being able to respond effectively.
  4. Most commenters are anonymous or use pseudonyms so it’s impossible to know who you are ‘engaging’ with.
  5. Some authors and commenters use multiple pseudonyms.
  6. Some authors and commenters use what appear to be real names but they are pseudonyms to disguise their identity.
  7. Some authors and commenters may hold office or employment at LECs, affiliates and parliamentary offices.
  8. You often need to follow the behaviour of people with pseudonyms for months to get an understanding of their motives, their associations and whether they can be trusted (and even then some change their behaviour markedly and sometimes suddenly – if it is the same person usuing the pseudonym). And some are too devious to reveal much at all.
  9. Labour party members are asking for more open discussion and transparency, that can’t be achieved on a blog where most commenters use pseudonyms.
  10. It’s an uneven playing field when one person in a discussion is clearly identified and their connections are well known (eg an MP) and those acusing, debating, discrediting could be:
  • anyone
  • a fellow MP or someone representing them
  • an MP from another party or someone representing them
  • someone from the MP’s LEC , or another MP’s LEC
  • someone (or their representative) competing with the MP for leadership,  spokesperson, electorate or list positions
  • a journalist
  • etc etc

In short, MP’s shouldn’t have time to do engage on blogs and it’s a political minefield.

There are effective ways for MPs to provide some degree of political blog engagement using a trusted intermediary, I’ve tried it with some degree of success. Open and honest identifying of those involved is essential.

And I’ve found that going to an MP (rather than demanding they come to your forum) can work, some are good at responding to questions and requests for clarifications – Darien Fenton one of them in my experience.

Some degree of interaction with MPs should be encouraged. But I don’t think a mostly anonymous/pseudonymous blog is a good forum. The Standard has a reputation of being a vipers nest of names, some of ill repute. Just look at who runs it, lprent is hell bent on lecturing and proving how abusive and nasty and unevenhanded he can be.

I’d say that The Standard needs to do a heck of a lot of proving they deserve engagement from MPs before anyone should risk their reputations and careers by diving into that fray. Abusing, discrediting, undermining and demanding, often by pseudonyms of ill repute and questionable connections and motives will take a lot of turing around into a trustworthy forum.

by Pete George on February 9, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 9, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/09/good-reasons-why-mps-shouldnt-engage-at-the-standard/

Electorate MP responsibilities

How should an MP prioritise their responsibilities? Should they work for the electorate, party, the country or themselves?

They are elected by the people of their electorate but some (possibly many) of their votes will have been more for the party than the persdon.

I’d like to find out what people think of what are the most important duties and responsibilities of an MP.

Some of an MP’s main responsibilities are…

  • Electorate
  • Country
  • Party leader
  • Party policies
  • Party ideologies
  • Self and family

And how should they prioritise what is most important?

For example…

20% Electorate
40% Country
5% Party leader
20% Party policies
5% Party ideologies
10% Self and family

What do you think?

by Pete George on January 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 3, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/03/electorate-mp-responsibilities/

Why do our MPs behave so badly?

Sue Kedgley asks this question. It’s not all MPs that behave badly, I’ve had communication with a number of MPs who strongly support better parliamentary behaviour – see Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill.

But some MPs do behave badly, and behaviour in parliament, especially during question time, often seems dominated by the bad behavers.

It’s no wonder we don’t trust MPs

Why do our MPs behave so badly?

I seldom watch Question Time in Parliament these days.

I sometimes wonder who does, other than the press gallery, parliamentary staff, lobbyists and those with a masochistic streak.

It’s supposed to be the high point of the parliamentary day – a time when the opposition can grill the government and hold it to account.

But more often than not it’s a low point – an hour when MPs let off steam by shouting, jeering, point scoring, hurling abuse and bickering with each other.

Few questions are actually answered during Question Time, either, as most ministers are trained in the art of evading rather than answering questions. And some questions aren’t intended to solicit answers, but simply to score points or attack the Government.

A lot of time is wasted on points of order, too, or barracking or interrupting the other side. And the general impression is that nobody is listening, or is there learn. So I decided to watch Question Time the other day, to see if it had improved at all in recent months.

Sadly, it hadn’t. The session was banal, frustrating and pointless.

Sadly that’s the impression of parliament that a lot of people get. Much parliamentary work goes on away from the cameras and media coverage.

But what should be the showpiece of Parliament is odten a shampiece.

To be fair, the present Speaker, Dr Lockwood Smith, has tried harder than most of his predecessors to get ministers to answer questions.

But despite his best efforts, Question Time remains a hopelessly unsatisfying political game. For most MPs, the objective is not to elicit or divulge genuine information, but to score points and attack the other side.

This is a real pity, as Question Time is one of the few times when the House is full, and the press gallery is in attendance. Most of the rest of the time the House is deserted.

Yes, if you watch parliamentary television coverage, apart from question time the house looks mostly deserted.

It’s easy for MPs to get caught up in the daily ritual of Question time, and to end up thinking that the shouting and abuse is normal and acceptable behaviour.

But outside of Parliament, many find it off-putting and even pathetic.

Yes. Many of those outside the political beltway and bubbles often see it as pathetic.

Back in 2002 a group of Wellington High school pupils observed Question Time, and wrote a report about it, expressing their shock at the aggressive, bullying culture in Parliament.

“There was a lot of verbal violence. MPs shouted at each other and abused each other. They would groan or jeer or interrupt if they disagreed with what was being said.

“They didn’t listen to each other and there was no sense of working toward anything.”

The behaviour in the House would not be accepted in the classroom, they concluded, or even the playground.

Fairly typical observations of people not familiar with ‘normal’ parliament.

Many MPs dismiss these sorts of criticism, and defend Question Time, arguing that it is all part of the robust cut and thrust of politics. But I believe the constant sniping and personal attacks have a corrosive effect on public perceptions of parliament and politicians.

Political activists also think that negative, attack politics and bad behaviour is “the robust cut and thrust of politics”.

And political activists seem to behave at their worst when defending this bad behaviour, they seem to hate being confronted on it. In my extensive experience on political social media the worst I see sems to be when activists are trying to defend bad behaviour like blatant lying or abuse.

I’ve been banned or blocked from commenting from three major political blogs for confronting nasty politics.

And when I suggested on Trade Me Message Board yesterday that Labour were acting badly I got the usual attacks.

Bad MP behaviour is supported by political activists.

This needs to be countered. ‘Good’ MPs need to be more vocal in demanding better behaviour of their colleagues.

And those commenting in political social media should speak up more demanding a better standard of politics.

Why do our MPs behave so badly? Because we let them keep getting away with it.

by Pete George on September 19, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 19, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/19/why-do-our-mps-behave-so-badly/

Clare Curran’s accusations

Clare Curran has been busy on social media this week criticising National, especially Bill English, about a lack of availability to constituents. She posted on Red Alert:

A message to Bill

Bill English, it appears many people in your electorate don’t want you to sell our assets. And how about being a bit more available to them!

She tagged this ‘representation’. Clare has often talked about more open government. This is something I’m also interested in, it is the main reason why I got involved in politics.

Clare followed up with another post on Red Alert:

How many electorates aren’t being well served by National MPs?

Posted by  on September 4th, 2012

My post yesterday on Bill English and his mostly closed electorate offices in Balclutha and Gore has attracted some interest on Red Alert and on facebook.

A number of people commented that they were experiencing the same issues in other National-held electorates.

I’m wondering how many National Party electorate offices are actually staffed on a regular basis?

And how much direct constituency work they do and what options are open to constituents if they try to approach their local MP and are rebuffed, ignored or can’t make contact because it’s always closed.

Would be interesting to find out.

As it happens, I’ve been ‘rebuffed, ignored or can’t make contact’ with Clare and also my electorate MP David Clark. Both usually ignore emails. And both have blocked me from their social media. So I commented:

Pete George says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm
MPs can be too busy to be available all the time.

Both my local Dunedin electorate MPs don’t usually respond to my emails.

And my own electorate MP (Dunedin North)seems to want to avoid contact on Twitter:
“You have been blocked from following this account at the request of the user.”

I was having a dig for sure, but Clare was having a dig at the unavailability of Bill English and National MPs so I think it’s fair to point out her own deliberate unavailability.

(I have once had an email reply from Bill English but he usually ignores my emails too).

Clare responded:

Clare Curran says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:50 pm

Oh Pete George let’s be honest here. I didn’t know you had been blocked on twitter, but I have unfriended you on facebook.

You are a troll. You are one of Cameron Slater’s (Whaleoil’s) tipsters. You pretend to be something you aren’t and you remain a commenter on Red Alert on notice.

I am a very liberal person. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in honesty and accountability. I don’t believe in pushing false information.

My response:

“You are one of Cameron Slater’s (Whaleoil’s) tipsters.”

What do you base that claim on?

“You pretend to be something you aren’t”

What do you base that claim on? I’ve been very open about who I am and what I do.

Calling me a troll is a cheap and/or ignorant shot. At times I promote and publicise what Labour (and you) do. At times I question you. Shouldn’t MPs and parties be open to scrutiny?

“I am a very liberal person. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in honesty and accountability.”

That’s not how you are acting here.

“I don’t believe in pushing false information.”

Can you clarify the intent of that comment?

I’m very active in social media but I’m not a troll – that’s a term that’s often misused.

I’m not ‘one of Cameron Slater’s (Whaleoil’s) tipsters’.  I’ve had some contact with him as I’ve had with other bloggers, that’s common. And I comment on his blog as I comment on others, including Red Alert.

‘You pretend to be something you aren’t’ is an outlandish accusation, I’m one of the most open people on political blogs. What on earth does Clare think I’m pretending to be? She ignores me, blocks me, she refuses to engage and then thinks she knows about me. She is wrong.

I also believe in free speech. On the same blog thread:

whodunnit says:

Offensive. Banned. Clare

I don’t know how offensive the comment was so can’t judge on how justified this was.

I also believe in honesty and accountability. Clare seems to actively avoid accountability while criticising other MPs for being unavailable.

“I don’t believe in pushing false information” – neither do I, I don’t know what she is implying by saying this. I’ve asked her to explain but she hasn’t responded yet.

I first contacted Clare about three years ago and have tried to actively engage with her and other MPs in Dunedin. I’ve criticised her at times, but I’ve also praised her and published positive information about her.

One of my main aims in politics is to improve communication between Dunedin MPs and the people of the city. This has to be two way. And it means MPs have to be prepared to communicate with people outside their comfort bubble.

People want to be heard more. In Clare’s own words, “how about being a bit more available to them!”

If Clare is serious about open government and if she’s serious about MPs being available to the people then I invite her to work together with me to achieve a better connection between MPs and people in Dunedin.

I’ll email Clare as well to make sure she gets this invitation.

by Pete George on September 5, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 5, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/05/clare-currans-accusations/

Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill

After the poor behaviour in parliament last week, hightlighted by the speaker Lockwood Smith and blogged here – Addressing disgraceful parliamentary behaviour - I emailed MPs asking for their opinions on it.

Ross Robertson (Labour MP for Manukau East) replied saying he has a Member’s Bill in the ballot that addresses MP ethics and behaviour. Whether this makes it into parliament is subject to the chance of the ballot. Roberston tried to promote his bill a few months ago:

Tuesday 24 April 2012 Media Statement

Local MP Calls For Support For Parliamentary Code

New Zealand should be a world leader in democratic accountability and transparency, according to Ross Robertson, Labour MP for Manukau East, who spoke to an audience of Rotary members this morning on good governance and democracy.

“Unfortunately New Zealand is not leading as it should be,” Ross Robertson said.

“My Members Bill, title the Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill would see a Code of Ethics adopted by MPs and followed according to its spirit and purpose. Unfortunately this bill is yet to be drawn from the members’ ballot.

Ross Robertson told Rotary members that he was frustrated that Kiwis were being put off politics due to often inaccurate perceptions about standards of behaviour.

 “New Zealanders expect parliamentarians to serve out of conviction and a commitment to the public good,” Ross Robertson said. “This bill aims to clarify that purpose and engage young people who are being turned off politics in droves.”

“We need to demonstrate the relevance of Parliament in order to earn the respect for democracy that is so vital to our future as a free and thriving nation.

“With regard to my goal of raising respect for both Parliament and our New Zealand democracy by improving the performance of Parliament, I believe that to do nothing is not an option, for the biggest advantage of a code lies in its ability to regain the trust of citizens in the institution of Parliament and its Members.

“While progress on my bill is at the mercy of the ballot, I will continue to advocate for these important principles.

“This code is about good governance. It is about such things as integrity, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, an acceptable standard of behaviour, and acting in good faith.

“Good governance and transparency are non-negotiable for a healthy democracy,” Ross Robertson said.

I think there will be a lot of public agreement with this. How to get parties and MPs to take some notice?

Part 2, 7 (2):

It is the duty of every member of Parliament to conduct themselves in a
manner that will maintain and support the public’s trust and confidence in the
integrity of Parliament.

Many of the public would argue that some MPs are not conducting themselves in an appropriate manner in parliament. As this bill is “declaratory rather than mandatory” there should be no why parties can’t adopt it’s principles anyway.

Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill

Member’s Bill

The purpose of this Bill is to provide a Code of Ethical Conduct for members of
Parliament.

The legislature plays a key role in promoting good governance and
curbing corruption and poor administration in all sectors of society. Citizens expect
parliamentarians to maintain a high moral standard in their professional and private
lives. They expect parliamentarians to serve out of conviction and a commitment to
the public good, rather than for aspirations of personal power and the pursuit of
private profit. In turn, they have conferred on them the legitimate authority to take
decisions that determine the fortunes of both the state and its citizens.

Failure by parliamentarians to live up to these expectations can seriously undermine
the trust citizens have in the ability of their elected leaders to act in the public interest,
and also in the legitimacy of the state and its institutions. At best, this leads to
cynicism and apathy on the part of citizens. At worst, it leads to a questioning of the
entire political system.

It is crucial therefore, that elected members of government
act, and are seen to act, in an ethical manner.

The Code of Ethical Conduct is deliberately modest and declaratory rather than
mandatory. There is no evidence in New Zealand of the sort of corruption that has
plagued other Parliaments from time to time or is endemic in some other countries.

The role of a member of Parliament comes with both legal and moral responsibilities.
The Code deals more with the moral and ethical responsibilities than those imposed
by law. This is reflected in the Code’s guiding principles of selflessness, integrity,
confidentiality, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

The Code promotes principles of common courtesy and decency whilst sustaining the
sense of cut and thrust that is vital in any legislature at the cutting edge of ideas,
creation and consideration. The overall purposes are;

  • to promote high standards of service by politicians;
  • to inspire the quality of behaviour which reflects the honour and dignity of the
    profession;
  • to encourage and emphasize those positive attributes of professional conduct
    that characterise effective political leadership;
  • to enable politicians to declare themselves publicly accountable.
by Pete George on August 21, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on August 21, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/08/21/members-of-parliament-code-of-ethical-conduct-bill/

Green comments on parliamentary behaviour

I emailed all MPs on parliamentary behaviour and replies have been dominated by Green MPs, which doesn’t surprise me, they put  more emphasise on standards than some of the other parties.

Green comments about behaviour in parliament included: frustrating, demeaning, unproductive, variable.

Kennedy Graham:

I endeavoured, as the Green MP on the Standing Orders Committee last year, to address this issue in its triennial review of the standing orders.

Got nowhere really.

Gareth Hughes:

I think it is fantastic people are contacting him [Lockwood Smith, the Speaker] and making comment about the level of debate and of MPs behaviour in their Parliament.

I think MPs do themselves no favours with their behaviour in the House.

I support robust debate but often debates get bogged down into petty point scoring, name-calling and rude behaviour. Question Time becomes dominated by pointless points of order which seem more to boost some members’ egos than improving parliamentary process. I believe is one of the reasons why voters are turning away in droves from engaging is the lack of respect for other members and for intelligent debate in the House. The sad thing is that it has gone on for so long it has become normal and acceptable.

Parliament can improve its behaviour and still maintain robust debate but it’s not up to just the Speaker; it’s up to all MPs.

Good comments. I agree that it should be up to all MPs, but it is also up to the parties, and their leaders in particular. And the public should increase the pressure on them to do something about it.

by Pete George on August 18, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on August 18, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/08/18/green-comments-on-parliamentary-behaviour/

Inefficient and ineffective MPs supported by the Clerk of Parliament

Ok, that’s not exactly what was said, but should MPs be given a free pass on their work ethics andhabits?

Wrong to ask MPs to work efficiently, panel told

Members of Parliament should not be compelled by law to work “efficiently and effectively” because delay was a legitimate political tool, a panel of MPs was told yesterday.

The Clerk of Parliament, Mary Harris, said she wanted the reference removed from the proposed Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill.

She told the committee that a requirement to be effective and efficient in some situations was inconsistent with reality.

“For example, Opposition members may see it as their legitimate duty to obstruct the progress of controversial Government legislation by filibustering in the House,” her submission said.

“Such a debating technique is time consuming and does not necessarily align with the usual perception of business efficiency.”

I don’t think anyone expects MPs work to “align with the usual perception of business efficiency”, but a reasonable degree of responsibility and performance should be expected.

The bill should not tell MPs how to do their jobs, she said.

“How members discharge their duties is a matter for them as members of the House and any attempt to dictate the way that they carry out their responsibilities could be regarded, in my view, as fettering the privilege of the House to control its own operation.”

Leaving them to decide how to “carry out their responsibilities” could be regarded, in my view, a free pass for open slather politics with no consideration of what ‘the people’ might want and expect of them.

Labour MP Trevor Mallard said every party in every democracy used the filibuster technique.

Yes, and they should be able to. But it’s a matter of frequency, degree and intent.

I don’t think the people like silly willy nilly filibustering.

In fact from what I hear there are many people who have had a gutsful of poor behaviour and performance from some MPs, and that can severely taintsthe performance of parliament as a whole.

Maybe it’s up to those MPs who do want to work efficiently and effectively to actively support what the people want and impress on their more inefficient and ineffective colleagues that they need to up their game and down their gamemanship.

 

by Pete George on July 19, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 19, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/19/inefficient-and-ineffective-mps-supported-by-the-clerk-of-parliament/

Maori Party on the Alcohol Reform Bill

Te Ururoa Flavell (MP for Waiariki) and the Maori Party are proposing significant amendments to the Alcohol Reform Bill to address alcohol related harm.

Alcohol harm drives Maori Party to propose significant changes to Bill

The Māori Party is proposing significant amendments to address alcohol related harm by making changes to the Alcohol Reform Bill including the restrictions around proximity of liquor stores to schools and tightening up the criteria around trading hours.

“Alcohol is killing up to a thousand New Zealanders each year, and in one third of all crimes the offender had consumed alcohol prior to the offence,” said Te Ururoa Flavell, MP for Waiariki.

“If these statistics were not enough, then one only needs to look at our young people to know we must do all we can to save lives and keep our families from further harm. Nearly one-fifth of all deaths for males and one-tenth of all deaths for females aged between 20 and 24 are attributable to alcohol misuse,” he adds.

“No matter how you look at it, alcohol harm is a huge issue and it is sapping our communities of their greatest potential.”

“The Māori Party has been speaking out about the ongoing concerns relating to easy access to alcohol. We supported the efforts of the local community in opposing the application of a Cannons Creek  liquor outlet for a licence to sell liquor directly opposite school gates  and have been concerned that in Whanganui alone there have been four stores open up in just over a year.”

“The Maori Party believes that more can be done to prevent the harm which is associated with alcohol misuse and abuse in too many of our homes”.

“Our changes will ensure that alcohol cannot be bought anywhere between the hours of 3am – 10am and includes a ‘lockdown period’ from 1am – 3am for on-licence retailers”

“Our amendments also include provision for the Minister of Health to set a minimum price per unit of alcohol.”

“Our bill will limit the visibility of alcohol advertising and sponsorship in an effort to de-normalise alcohol. This includes grocery stores, where alcohol will need to be kept out of public view.”

“To address the high number of liquor outlets, we will have a sinking lid policy within territorial authorities so that over time we will gradually lessen the number of outlets. To ensure that smaller towns are not left without an outlet, the sinking lid only applies if there is another liquor store within 5km.”

“Finally, we need to give more community input into tackling alcohol harm. We have seen some heroic action taken by local communities right throughout the country, in trying to put in place protections around the sale and purchase of alcohol.  Our bill will make the proximity to a school a criteria for determining liquor licences and ensure Maori representation is included in the membership of the local committees who determine liquor licences.”

Maori Party SOP details:

  • Make the proximity to a school a criteria for determining liquor licenses
  • Local committees to expand by one to accommodate a mana whenua representative
  • Limit the visibility of advertising/product in grocery stores and grocery shops (so they are not visible in the store, but they are able to be sold)
  • Eliminate advertising and sponsorship of alcohol except inside on-licence premises
  • Sinking lid policy on off-licence retailers (liquor stores) within territorial authorities (replacement of existing stores is the only exception and only if there is not another liquor store within 5km)
  • Trading hours: Changed to 10am – 10pm for off-site, 10am – 3am for on-licence premises with a one-way door restriction period from 1am – 3am
  • Minimum price per unit of alcohol sold (which will be set by Minister of Health) – this follows the model proposed in Scotland

Supplementary Order Paper No 81:

Alcohol Reform Bill
Proposed amendments
Te Ururoa Flavell, in Committee, to move the following amendments:

New heading and new clause 43A
After clause 43 (line 20 on page 51), insert:
Minimum price of alcohol

43A Minimum price of alcohol
(1) Alcohol must not be sold or supplied at a price below its minimum
price on any licensed premises.

(2) Where alcohol is supplied together with other products or services
for a single price, subparagraph (1) applies as if the
alcohol were supplied on its own for that price.

(3) The minimum price of alcohol is to be calculated according to
the following formula:
MPU x S x V x 100
where—
MPU is the minimum price per unit (expressed as a decimal)
S is the strength of the alcohol (expressed as a decimal)
V is the volume of alcohol in litres (expressed as a decimal)

(4) The Governor-General may from time to time, on the recommendation
of the Minister, specify by Order in Council the
minimum price per unit for the purposes of subparagraph (3).

(5) For the purposes of subparagraph (3), where—
(a) the alcohol is contained in a bottle or other container;
and
(b) the bottle of other container is marked or labelled in
accordance with the relevant labelling provisions, the
strength is taken to be the alcoholic strength by volume
as indicated by the mark or label.

(6) The Governor-General may specify by Order in Council, on
the recommendation of the Minister, the enactments which are
relevant labelling provisions for the purposes of subparagraph (5).

The Green Party say “We support all the measures in Te Ururoa’s SOP but haven’t yet looked at what Labour proposes.” (Kevin Hague as spokesperson).

by Pete George on July 7, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 7, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/07/maori-party-on-the-alcohol-reform-bill/

Stand up straight white males

David Farrar at Kiwblog has comments (Straight White Men) on what Deborah Russell writes in the Dom Post,  Straight white men have lost power - about the balance of power in parliament.

I’m a straight white man but I don’t care about the power loss, it’s time reasonable balance of power was achieved. But we’re not there yet.  Farrar says:

Now as I said, while I support diversity I don’t think the aim is to get a Parliament that is perfectly proportional in every demographic. I think it is about being broadly representative. And we are in terms of Caucasian, Maori, Pacific and gay MPs. We’re not doing so well with female and Asian MPs.

How do we do better with female and Asian MPs?

Making parliament a less macho-combative personality attacking forum would help. It would not only make it a more attractive vocation for women and Asians, but also for better quality Maori, Pacific and gay MPs. And also better quality straight white males.

It’s not difficult to imaging that many good people won’t offer themselves as potential representatives of the people because they don’t want to subject themselves to the levels of personal scrutiny and abuse that happens still.

We probably aren’t over-represented numerically by the negative and nasty, but the worst side of parliament seems to dominate perceptions, and that repels.

There are dinosaur MPs of the past still in parliament who seem to see themselves as T Rex essentials. Not only do they foul the quality of behaviour, they discourage better and more diverse representation.

One way to address this is for stand up straight while males to confron then and stare down their antics. That will be most effective if it comes from the top.

John Key and David Shearer could lead the way to an even better diversity and quality of representation, if they chose to show leadership on this.

.

by Pete George on May 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 29, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/05/29/stand-up-straight-white-males/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers