Kia Koe – a party offering empowerment to all

Duncan Brown: A new political party, intentionally different from all the rest

About the name “Kia Koe”

New Zealand is the birthplace of our party and it was important that our name reflected those origins. The original idea was to name it the “You Choose” party, which is what the party is all about, but that had no obvious connection with the New Zealand culture.

So we looked to the Maori language for a translation of “you choose” to find a name or phrase, or adaptation, that shouts New Zealand, that combines well with our uniquely New Zealand logo and is easily recognized, being unlike anything else in the New Zealand political arena.

And so the name Kia Koe was born. It is not intended to be a strict translation from the Maori language. We trust that people will accept that and embrace the meaning and intent of Kia Koe in the same way that words such Aroha, Whanau and Haka have become accepted throughout New Zealand culture.

We are sometimes asked if the name implies a Maori political party. The answer is no, it caters to everyone. The ambitions of Kia Koe are outlined in the Mission Statement that appears on this page.

Kia Koe!

What is it that the Party stands for?

The Kia Koe party, hands over its power and control to the members of the party, in the proposal and selection of policies, and their importance.

In this sense, what the party stands for, is a belief in that the people of New Zealand, overall, are rather clear, or becoming more clear on the importance of having good governance from the Government.

And that the good governance, is going to require clear direction, from the people of NZ, for the policies that we, as a Nation, want to have represented by our elected representatives.

The ability to gather those views, and to set them in order (to rank them) according to our own individual preferences, is the key to keeping this an extremely democratic process.

So, the party stands for a democratically elected set of policies:

Which are proposed by the members of the Party, not by a Party committee, council or body

Which all members have had involvement in, and we trust, are satisfied overall that the process of arriving at those top policies, which matter to everyone one the most, were transparently arrived at

Which involve a larger base which includes minors over the age of 12 years old. This is because these are tomorrows custodians, and we want them to arrive at the vote with a greater politically savvy understanding of what is going on, better able to contribute to the direction of where our country is going. And, this choice, is also in the interests of fairness – that as there is a cut off of 18 years of age, to be able to vote for the Party of your choice, there are a great many, who have not yet voted, who can be as old as 21 years old, minus one day, before they are actually able to make that choice.

Is inclusive of all ethnicities and backgrounds

Who is the Kia Koe Party to Represent?

All members of NZ society, no matter which ethnic background, or any other possible bias. There is no preference in the membership, apart from that we expect that members will make their choices with consideration and honesty, for the good of all of us, as individuals, for ourselves in the sense of community, and for our nation, as a whole, in general

Upon what principles, is the party based?

That the five Basic Rights, and the five Basic Freedoms, will be honoured. These basic rights and Freedoms, have their limits in terms of Boundary, and Responsibilities that go with them.

  • The Right to Life
  • The Right to Freedom and Liberty
  • The Right to Work/Labour
  • The right to enjoy the Pursuit of Happiness
  • The Right to Love/Friendship
  • The Freedom of Choice
  • The Freedom of Speech
  • The Freedom of Association
  • The Freedom of Movement and
  • The Freedom of Enterprise

Further, that as custodians of our beautiful Country, on behalf of our descendants, that we will do our utmost, to pass the country on, in better condition, than we arrived in it, environmentally, financially, spiritually, and socially.

How does it work?

Currently, and as has been for a long time, the offerings on Election Day are overall, rather flat

So, our being at the tail end of Party Policy, that is, that at the time of elections, the Parties represent to you, the voter, a final non-negotiable set of Policies upon which and amongst which, we must choose that which best suits our needs

This Kia Koe party, turns that around, and puts the responsibility for policy suggestion, approval, and ranking, in the hands of those who matter most. The voters themselves.

The way this works is to follow a basic simple process:

If you have a policy suggestion, and it fits within the underlying principles (above), propose the Policy

For all policies, if you feel it is worth commenting on, either in support of, or to oppose, we want you to do so, and to keep the process organised and somewhat ordered, we have developed 4 differing forums (quadrants) to debate or offer views, so it does not become an unmanageable lengthy interminably long blog. Two of these quadrants, by default, are those of Information, and Financial. Financial is important, because every time we require the Government to “Do something for us” there will naturally be a cost. And these costs must be able to be estimated, in order to decide whether it is a good idea or not. Sometime, and increase in costs is absolutely justified, but we need to know what those costs are estimated to be.

You are also able to provide links, and upload data and information which may assist with your side of an argument or view, to enable members to see both sides more clearly

For all policies, choose your level of support for each, whether you agree with it, or not.

Once you have chosen whether you support or not, Rank the Policy.

As new policies come up, or the level of importance that you attach may change, for each of the policies you have chosen, continue to order, and reorder your ranking so that it constantly mirrors your best choices for the party to represent on your behalf.

The Concept of Kia Koe

Kia Koe, broadly meaning: you choose, is a political party where the key philosophy is “empowerment”. It provides a platform for people of all ages and walks of life to contribute to current debate and influence the issues and events affecting their society.

Involvement in Kia Koe is like having access to an unlimited 24/7 referendum that actively solicits ideas, concepts and discussions from registered members who want to influence the actions of government.

Input is via supervised forums (quadrants) that lie at the heart of Kia Koe and registered users can participate in any of the quadrants once they are qualified to do so (Aged 12 to 17, is free, which means they have immediate membership and ability to influence policy development and choices, 18 and over, there is a membership fee)

We encourage you to submit a registration request as soon as possible and look forward to your participation. Kia Koe is not yet a registered political party, and cannot be until the minimum number of members (500) defined the relevant Electoral Commission is reached.

We are so confident that this will be your best Political Party experience that we are offering a 100% money back guarantee on your membership fee if you are not satisfied that we are collectively achieving the outcomes stated for the benefit of all.  We expect that within 90 days you will become comfortable with the Kia Koe system and what it delivers to you personally and your fellow countrymen.  If this is not your personal experience simply complete the online refund application and we will credit your account in full.  A period of 90 days of your joining fee must have lapsed as this is not a system for instant gratification.

Ambassador: “Give Trump a fair go”

New US ambassador Scott Brown has asked new Zealanders to give Donald Trump a fair go.

RNZ:  NZ needs to give Trump a chance

Mr Brown is a former US Senator and served in the National Guard for 35 years, reaching the rank of Colonel. He replaces Mark Gilbert.

He was also an early supporter of Mr Trump’s presidential campaign.

He has described himself as a “social moderate but a fiscal conservative”.

“I said that this is the country I want to go and I could have had a choice of anywhere.

“[Donald Trump] trusts me, he understands that I’m very direct and he respects my opinions.

“He wanted somebody here in this important part of the world, as you know what’s happening with China and their taking rocks and turning them into islands and potentially militarising them.”

Mr Brown acknowledged some New Zealanders may not like Mr Trump’s style as American president, but he urged them to give him a fair go.

“One thing that people like about him is the fact that he is different….he’s not a politician. He ran on a platform and he’s one of the first elected officials that actually has fulfilled those promises.

Stuff:  ‘Give Trump a chance’: US ambassador’s plea to NZ (link includes video):

“Whether you like it or not he’s a man of his word and that’s one thing I’ve always respected about him. Will he get a fair go from the American people, or from the world, New Zealanders and other media outlets?

“Gosh I hope so because I think it’s critically important to give anybody who’s in a new position, a new position as the President of the US, or the Prime Minister of this country – I don’t care who, give them a chance first before you start criticising.”

New Zealand has to do what it can to get on with Brown, Trump and the US as well as possible.

There might be a few New Zealanders who would like Trump to give them and the world a fair go too.


‘Auckland Labour Party’ responsible for intern scheme

The ‘Auckland Labour Party’ has now been named by Labour Party general secretary Andrew Kirton as responsible along with Matt McCarten for the intern scheme.

Kirton has also said that “it started off as a Labour Party project”. So Kirton, and one would expect Labour’s leader Andrew Little, would have known more about the scheme than they have admitted.

When the Labour intern story broke it was obvious that Little and Kirton were not being open about what they knew about the scheme.

Little has said he had heard about the scheme as an idea at the start of the year, has admitted finding out it was running as an unapproved scheme in May, and he says he stepped in when they started getting complaints around Monday last week (but there are variations in that story too).

Matt McCarten quickly became the scapegoat. He was employed (by Parliamentary Services) to work for Andrew Little in Auckland, and no campaign work was allowed. However it is clear that McCarten has spent some time (months) working on the intern scheme aimed at campaigning for Labour.

The scheme was advertised overseas in February as a “Labour Party Fellowship”, with email addresses for contact. It became ”Movement for Change” in May and changed soon afterwards to “Campaign for Change”.  With McCarten leaving his Labour job it seems there was an attempt to distance the scheme from the party.

Little in particular has talked as though it was not a Labour Party scheme.

But that position was untenable. Other Labour Party people were connected with the scheme.

Earlier this week it was reported that Labour’s Auckland/Northland Representative on their NZ Council, Paul Chalmers, had stood down. Stuff on Tuesday (27 June): Two on Labour’s intern programme may have broken immigration rules as council member stands down:

Labour Leader Andrew Little on Tuesday said Paul Chalmers, who was connected with the scheme, had voluntarily stood down over the weekend “and he is not involved in the governing council of the party at this point”.

Chalmers is still named on Labour’s website as an Auckland/Northland representative.

Little said it was also possible the party would have to cover some of the costs of the plan masterminded by Little’s former chief of staff Matt McCarten, who more recently was Little’s Auckland organiser but stood down from that role in mid May when his contract ended and was not renewed.

An eight month contract terminated four months before the election seems odd.

Also on Tuesday in an RNZ interview Little’s story was starting to wobble over what he knew and who was responsible. From More details emerge of Labour’s intern scheme:

Suzy Ferguson: Are you saying you don’t know where this money’s coming from?

Little: I don’t know any details about the organisation of it apart from what we now know, I think 85 young people here staying on a marae, and helping out in various parts of the Auckland campaign. Beyond that I don’t know, I’m not sure if the party knows or knew at the time, and we’re in the process now of getting the detail about the organisation behind it.

Suzy Ferguson: …are you saying you don’t know where the thick end of two hundred grand has come from?

Little: Well, um, no one in the party is responsible for what Matt and others, and let’s be fair, it wasn’t Matt alone, there were at least four people involved in driving this, three on the party side…

Suzy Ferguson: …while this was being done Matt McCarten was in the pay of the Labour Party wasn’t he.

Little: Um, he was the, he was my, he was the director of the Auckland office, um, which is funded out of the Leader’s office, my office, um he was working for me (a) to open and run the office and (b) to run my Auckland programme, outreach programme.

Suzy Ferguson: Ok, so he’s working for you, but you’re saying you didn’t know what he was doing, you didn’t know about this?

Little: I didn’t know about this. I didn’t know the extent to which he was organising stuff.

That didn’t sound convincing.

Even more details emerged yesterday. Newshub ‘It’s not a good look’ – Labour fronts up on intern visa problems

Labour general secretary Andrew Kirton told The AM Show it’s “not a good look,” but said as soon as he heard of the programme’s problems, he stepped in to sort it out.

“My team arrived on Tuesday to sort out this programme of Matt McCarten’s and the Auckland Labour Party.”

“It’s been a bit of an effort but we’re getting on top of it now. The young volunteers are now really excited to get out and learn about MMP environments across the country.

“It started off as a Labour Party project – not too dissimilar to what we’ve done in the past. The problem with this though was it was expanded out quite significantly by Matt McCarten with support from the Auckland Labour Party.

“[It] got out of control, the management got out of control, and that’s why we stepped in straight away.”

So after about a week of trying to distance Labour from the intern scheme Kirton has admitted that it was an “Auckland Labour Party” programme, along with McCarten who was effectively Little’s chief of staff in Auckland.

Little and Kirton appear to have been somewhat frugal with the truth over the last week.

They have either deliberately misled and lied about the extent of their knowledge of the scheme, or the Labour Party in Auckland and Little’s Auckland employee were running an unauthorised scheme without telling them anything about it and without them finding out about it until last week. Or the week before. Or in May, depending on which explanation you listen to.

A number of Labour’s Auckland MPs and candidates have been involved with the interns in their campaigning – seeLinks between interns and Labour from April.

Alongside Little’s claimed lack of knowledge of the scheme it is also curious that deputy leader Jacinda Ardern, Auckland based and with a special interest in young people and getting them out to vote, seems to also have had no knowledge of an international and local student get out the vote campaign in her own city.

Labour still have major questions to answer about who the mysterious anonymous donor was, and why McCarten and possible other Labour staffers were running a campaign scheme when their employment terms didn’t allow that.


Media watch – Thursday

29 June 2017


Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

Open Forum – Thursday

29 June 2017


Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

World watch – Thursday

Wednesday GMT


Post, news or views on anything happening of interest around the world.

BBC English

An interesting series  from @nick_kapur that explains how BBC English came about and a bit about how it evolved. I have changed it to more readable text.

Today we speak of “BBC English” as a standard form of the language, but this form had to be invented by a small team in the 1920s & 30s.

Which coincides with when the BBC was set up (in 1922).

It turned out even within the upper-class London accent that became the basis for BBC English, many words had competing pronunciations.

Thus in 1926, the BBC’s first managing director John Reith established an “Advisory Committee on Spoken English” to sort things out.

The committee was chaired by Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw, and also included American essayist Logan Pearsall Smith, novelist Rose Macaulay, lexicographer (and 4th OED editor) C.T. Onions, art critic Kenneth Clark, journalist Alistair Cooke, ghost story writer Lady Cynthia Asquith, and evolutionary biologist and eugenicist Julian Huxley.

The 20-person committee held fierce debates, and pronunciations now considered standard were often decided by just a few votes.

Examples included deciding “garage” would rhyme with “carriage” rather than “barrage” and “canine” (the tooth) sounding like cay-nine.

In 1935, there was a crisis over what word BBC radio should use for “users of a television apparatus” (whom we now call “viewers”).

To solve this conundrum, a 10-member “Sub-Committee on Words” was set up, chaired by the American, Logan Pearsall Smith

Funny, an American chairing the BBC English sub-committee.

The Sub-Committee came up with the following list of possible new words for the users of the television apparatus:


The Sub-Committee ultimately chose none of these, settling on “televiewer,” which was shortened by the main committee to just “viewer.”

Emboldened by this early “success,” the Sub-Committee on Words began to run amuck, inventing new words willy-nilly out of whole cloth.

In particular, Sub-Committee chair Logan Pearsall Smith wanted to beautify English and “purify” it of foreign influences.

He also disliked words with too many syllables and preferred English plurals to foreign plurals (eg. hippopotamuses over hippopotami).

Some of the new coinages were reasonable and have survived. For example, “airplane” replaced “aeroplane” and “roundabout” was invented to replace the then-common “gyratory circus.”

Similarly the word “servicemen” was invented to describe members of the armed forces, and BBC radio was instructed to stop saying “kunstforscher” and instead say “art researcher,” which has since become “art historian.”

If they pronounced the German version properly it shouldn’t have been a problem. But that word doesn’t seem to be in common use in Deutsch now, if it ever was. Kunst does mean art, and Forscher means researcher, but perhaps they have moved to KuntsHistoriker.

Other ideas were…less successful. E.g. Smith proposed the BBC call televisions “view-boxes,” call traffic lights “stop-and-goes,” and call brainwaves “mindfalls.”

Other members of the Sub-Committee also came up with bizarre new words.

Edward Marsh devised “inflex” to replace “inferiority complex,” and Rose Macaulay wanted “yulery” to replace “Christmas festivities.”

BBC English is also known as Received Pronunciation (RP), apparently.

No language remains static, especially a language as widely used as English. Looking at language history and variances in usage is fascinating.

I remember the poncy accents here on the radio, on Movietone News and later on television. I think they were trying to sound like BBC English.


Workplace bullying

From patupaiarehe:

I posted this link last week Alan, and I’m going to do it again. It seems relevant, IMHO, seeing as how ‘confidential settlements’ are being discussed…

The people at the heart of this story are silenced. They have been paid off to keep quiet.

It is all part of the emerging New Zealand silent class. These people have won cases against employers, but as part of their settlement, they are gagged.

There is an emerging culture of paid off silence across the country. Journalists can’t detail the stories as few will risk whatever outcome they have worked to achieve, by going public with their own story.

For most, the settlement will be the only positive to emerge from the damage inflicted at their place of work.

They are required to shut up because the truth is damaging. They are shut down because employers do not want the public knowing the truth. Councils, universities, hospitals and others want to protect their image and will manipulate settlements in a bid to mask the true level of workplace turnover.

Today these silent New Zealanders walk our streets with knowledge and experience that can not, and will not be shared. Yet, the very experience they have if shared publicly, may offer solutions to the workplace violence which has been described as nearing epidemic proportions.

Psychopathic workplace intimidation, (I refuse to use the word ‘bullying’ as I feel it belittles the violent reality of what happens at work), is real. The damage is long lasting and for some staff it is the workplace equivalent of post traumatic stress disorder.

You don’t need a mortar shell to go off to bring you close to break down. A dedicated workplace psychopath can do it all, just more slowly and deliberately.

Many reading this column will know of the creep of fear that occurs at weekends when they have to face the Monday morning dread, still days away.

PWI is widespread across New Zealand working life.  It is planned, malicious, vicious and designed to belittle and disempower.  It is always a power game and one that is often disguised in language and conduct designed to mirror the appearance of successful management culture.

We welcome the popularity of intimidatory violent conduct into our homes and lives when Gordon Ramsey the chef who abuses staff for ratings is on TV. Other reality TV programmes from Survivor to My Kitchen Rules to The Bachelor include public put downs, conniving closed-door conduct, exclusion tactics, backstabbing and humiliation as a routine part of entertainment.

Popular culture has made its way to the workplace where identical tactics of humiliation and intimidation are seen as the new wave of management.

Alongside the emergence of workplace bullying has been the growth of a side industry; a lucrative business of independent consultants helping people making claims of work place intimidation and violence. These consultants are the New Zealand equivalent of ambulance chasing lawyers.

And that is not to say they don’t have a job to do. They do, but when money changes hands from employer to independent employment consultant, the relationship is business and it immediately stops being independent. Those who pay – say.

And those consulting companies that want future work advising employers on their work-place intimidation practises are unlikely to get future work if they are constantly found to be siding with employees taking employers to task.

The Labour Department needs to treat the issue seriously and become the arbiter of workplace issues where intimation and violence is used against staff. It is a workplace hazard and it needs the same independent governance and oversight as any other issue. The conflict of interest between paid employment consultant and employers must be removed.

That is edited a bit, the whole article is at Sunlive:  Opening up about workplace bullying

Bills relying on Barclay’s vote

By not standing down until the election Todd Barclay’s vote is still available in Parliament so the Government can pass legislation. The Labour Party has pointed out their are three bills that are relying on that vote if they are to be passed before the election recess.

Bill English has said that it is Barclay’s decision as to whether he remains in Parliament until the election. A party leader is not able to force an MP to resign, for good reason.

NZ Herald: Three law changes hinge on National MP Todd Barclay’s vote, Labour Party says

The National-led Government would be unable to pass three pieces of legislation including major child, youth and family reforms if MP Todd Barclay had been sacked immediately, the Labour Party says.

Without his vote, the National Party would need support from two out of three of its coalition partners to pass legislation.

Labour said there were three bills before Parliament which were either opposed by the Maori Party or by both Act and United Future, meaning they would not progress without Barclay’s vote.

Government Bills which are remaining to be passed this term which will depend on Barclay’s vote (based on known party position)

  • Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill
  • Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)
  • Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill

Bills which passed by one vote since the end of February 2016 when the Barclay incident happened

  • Housing Legislation Amendment Bill
  • Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill
  • Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill
  • Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill (National Party members bill – still before the House)
  • Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill (National Party members bill – still before the House)

(Source: Parliamentary Library/Labour Party)

Is what Barclay has done (not being truthful) and is alleged to have done bad enough to justify stopping the elected Government from continuing with it’s legislative programme?

Should he have resigned in February last year? This would have effectively hung the Parliament in the middle of the term.