Media continue their extensive coverage of Colin Craig. Yesterday he had an ‘Ask Me Anything’ online session with Chris Keall at NBR. Here are some questions, answers and comments.
Christ Keall to Colin Craig: Do you want Citizens-Initiated Referenda results to be binding?
Yes we do want them to be binding, very odd that a formal vote by the public in a democracy can be ignored even when overwhelming.
Our policy is a 2/3rds majority should be binding, anything less can be taken as advisory.
This is a bottom line for us although accept that there may be need for restrictions on referendum that are financially significant.
That’s a Yeah, but nah, not necessarily.
Tom B: Is there any policy that you would make a condition of any coalition or confidence agreement with a potential National Government?
Things at the top of our list at the moment
Binding referendum (2/3rds majority required)
batter value for government spend
work for benefit not a freebie
Generally smaller more efficient government with greater transparency/democracy.
Other than binding referendum that’s slogans and platitudes, you can’t have bottom lines on things that vague.
Megan Jones: What is your opinion of the Tea Party movement in America and are there any of their policies or views that you would like to implement?
Absolutely necessary, someone had to challenge the big borrowing, big spending and the age of “corporate welfare” with businesses getting bailouts beyond belief.
We share that platform.
Also their “town hall meetings” style is reflective of a grass roots party like ours.
Does he have “town hall meetings”? The Tea Party and Craigs Conservative Party are quite different in respect of a movement versus one person financing and running a party.
Craig seems to support abortion, this can’t be universally accepted within CCCP:
Our abortion policy is to bring in “full and informed consent” as practiced in Western European nations. We think that this policy could gain support to become law.
Full and informed consent requires women contemplating an abortion to be fully informed of potential health issues and consequences. The advice is given by an independent medical experts.
This would still leave the decision with the women in a situation such as you have outlined. There would still be a need to meet current legislative requirements.
Depends on what he actually means.
Michele Bachmann’s proposed “Heartbeat Informed Consent Act,” would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, in order to view and hear a fetal heartbeat.
“A pregnant woman who enters an abortion clinic is faced with a decision that will forever change two lives. That’s why she must have the very best information with which to make that decision. The ‘Heartbeat Informed Consent Act,’ that I introduced today, would require that abortion providers make the unborn child’s heartbeat visible through ultrasound, describe the cardiac activity, and make the baby’s heartbeat audible, if the child is old enough for it to be detectable.
Don’t see that being a goer here in New Zealand, although it still allows for abortions.
Jimmy to Colin Craig: Do you believe the world was created in seven days?
Don’t know, I wasn’t there.
Seems there are lots of theories and opinions. I realise it is important to some people but I just don’t know the answer.
This sounds like he tried to avoid answering it or tried to appease two camps, but either way a poor waffly response. A clear ‘no’ was the only credible answer.
What is your position on teaching the theory of evolution in New Zealand schools?
Schools are meant to educate. This is a widely known and respected theory so should be taught.
Do you believe creationism should be taught in schools as a valid alternative to evolution?
This is the predominant world view (although in various forms).
As above schools are meant to educate and so I think it should also be taught.
Again a nod to different camps but may reveal where he’s coming from, despite him trying to play down his religious leanings (he claims he doesn’t go to church).
Mark Hubbard: Do you understand that sacrosanct property rights and the small state are fundamental to conservatism? And that your populist promise to forcibly have the (big) state purchase land from developers who aren’t, in the mind of an arbitrary state, building fast enough, contradicts both these tenets?
If you so easily break these two fundamentals why would a conservative trust you on any other policy issue?
And another questioner: How can you justify encroaching private property rights just to get a bit of land for development? Surely the same nett effect could be achieved by making it easier and cheaper for developers to develop(but without the undermining of important principles)?
Firstly see our website for my blog post to put it in perspective.
Other reforms such as land zoning (free up existing land use restrictions) and RMA (exempt residential housing and improvements) need to happen first. Also Govt needs to lead by example and better utilise it’s large land holdings.
If the above fails then writing to a few land bankers (not developers with relatively small holdings) is a valid step toward solving the housing crisis. Interesting to see the UK Conservatives have had to do similar.
I don’t see this as a breach of Conservative principles, legislation does empower government intervention, I consider it a last resort but better to use it than have a dysfunctional market like we have now.
So he supports market intervention and forced property acquisition.
Craig says he’s a Conservative, but he seems willing to compromise on some fundamental things like property rights.
What other principles will he compromise on? He has feet in different camps on some issues.
The full session is paywalled at NBR (ir was open during the Q & A) – ASK ME ANYTHING: Colin Craig