 |
Media Archive |
||
|
|
|
Congratulations on Local Government Minister Chris Carter wishing to examine electronic voting for local body elections. In our much-lauded information age, it is regrettable that the democratic process has been reduced to the speed of a constipated old cow. A touch-screen booth featuring user-friendly instructions and hard-copy receipts - for transparency of results - would do the trick nicely. It is important that Single Transferable Voting not be thrown out as a culprit. It is a far more accurate gauge of an electorate’s wishes than First Past the Post or MMP. It ensures the proportionality that FPP ignores, and avoids the demagogues spawned by MMP. The mechanics of STV are a bit complex, but so is the mechanics of a cellphone. I don’t need to know the details, as long as I can trust the thing will do what it is supposed to do. Kiwis like choice. Kiwis like voting. We vote for New Zealand Idol, the NetGuide Awards, on Holmes. We vote because we care and want to make a difference somewhere. STV is the right tool. Just include instructions in ways everyone understands. Democracy only works if you use it.11/10/04 It is disappointing to hear some of the recent Commerce Commission rulings. I was under the assumption that the Commission worked to protect consumers and businesses from the tyranny of monopolistic practices. Clearly, I was mistaken. The Commerce Commission u-turned on local loop unbundling days before Christmas last year. It flew in the face of WTO rulings and relegates us to hanging out with Mexico as the only country in the OECD not to let competition loose on the loop. Last week, the Commerce Commission gave Sky City the thumbs up to fulfil their Machiavellian destiny as New Zealand’s only casino racket. Once the Casino Control Authority and Overseas Investment Commission have given the nod, Sky City will effectively control five out of six casinos. That leaves the Steamer Wharf Casino in Queenstown, with its six gaming tables, as Sky City’s sole New Zealand competition. The Commission is governed by the Commerce Act 1986. The purpose of this Act is unequivocal; “to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand.” The Commerce Commission needs to throw out the semantic kung-fu that they used to justify some of their recent findings and get back to the rulebook. 24/05/04 ∆ I gather that much of the opposition to the Civil Union Bill is that it is seen as a threat to the role of marriage. I support the introduction of these Bills, seeking to praise marriage not to bury it. In a time when the traditional family unit and community support has been usurped by de facto or solo parenting, and community services are seeing a freefall in volunteers, I see the Civil Union as building a bridge of trust and commitment between people. Civil Union and Matrimony are not mutually exclusive entities. Marriage is, and will continue to be, the most highly respected of civil institutions. However, there is a certain demand for protection under law for couples currently subsisting on de facto relationships of whatever kind. I foresee civil union allowing a legal stepping stone for 'normal' couples to introduce trust and formal recognition to their partnership, and developing an aspiration towards marriage. Civil Unions can also adapt to the technological realities which confront us. Traditions by their nature are not readily adaptable. In the meantime, we've got test tube Mums having morning tea with surrogate Mums, Italian doctors getting pensioners pregnant, Raelean cults claiming the immaculate conception and sperm banks thawing out dead men's douche. It is this technological change that is really spooking the Civil Union opponents. Not much hope can be offered to quell their fears. There's a price tag to human exploration and discovery. The price is innocence and it tastes like apples. If law is to be respected, it must reflect the mores and realities of the people it is delegated to protect. No point in shooting the messenger. I suppose this is the part where I have to defend same sex unions. Although I have no first hand experience of such matters, I have a wide range of contacts in both the 'straight' and the 'gay' communities. There's not much difference between them; they're all human. Even some of the more homophobic people I know don't begrudge same sex unions. It has no impact on their own day to day activities and at least once the gay couple are hitched, the rednecks won't be paranoid about getting hit on by them! Which leads nicely on to gay parents. Is it preferable that a child be raised by two working lesbians (with the assistance of one spermatozoa) in a stable loving household with protection under law, or a solo mum on the DPB with multi-choice father figures? Hopefully, you would agree that the former are the lesser of two evils. Would Hudson & Hall have made better parents than Jake & Beth Heke? Marriage is not under attack by the Civil Union Bill. Marriage will retain its elite and traditional human nature. The Civil Union Bill exemplifies a practical consideration, a provision for pluralism, an acceptance of standard deviation. 22/06/04 New Zealand has always prided itself for standing up for the egalitarian ideal. Our representatives should reflect the spirit of its people. I scarcely need to recall New Zealand’s legal precedents; Women’s Suffrage, Social Security, the Nuclear Free thing, Homosexual Law Reform, and Prostitution Reform. The sky hasn’t fallen on our heads. Au contraire, it has fostered a proud tradition of change. Robert Louis Stevenson described marriage is, at its lowest, no more than a kind of friendship recognised by the police. Marriage’s reputation hasn’t improved since then. Another form of formalised friendship is needed to reinstate marriage to a position of respect, responsibility and meaning. For instance, some of my friends want their weddings to be the best day of their lives and take years to save for a nice gig. In the meantime, the Civil Union could be a legal tool to provide them the security and stability akin to engagement. It is not beyond the realms of chance that one would notice a decline in de facto relationships if the Civil Union Bill were passed. Marriage is anathema to many after witnessing the thermonuclear family fallout of their parents’ shattered vows. The Civil Union Bill provides an alternative commitment, a parallel that doesn’t reek of hypocrisy and hurt. Who cares who raises the kids, as long as someone does? As long as children are raised as well as they can and are given love, affection and support, who are we to condemn? The Civil Union Bill fosters a family unit and family stability. It provides protection under law for children as well as consenting adults and is not just some fashionable piece of PC rhetoric. It is the responsibility of the New Zealand Parliament to provide an alternative for these many couples that do not wish to get married but still want their relationships recognised and protected by law. Regardless of one’s personal morality, it is important for you to support the Civil Union Bill for the benefit of others. Ethically, it is the right thing to do. Thank you. 15/06/04 ∆NZ Music Month at the Ministry of Sadistics Last census, 50,000 Jedi Knights escaped recognition by the Ministry of Statistics. Although 120 times more popular than New Age, 56 times bigger than Satanism and triple the Sallies’ congregation, the Jedi failed to provide “tangible proof of an organised and thriving religion”. Following our example while disregarding a possible $1000 fine, 50,000 Australians converted to the Jedi faith in time for their census. Then the Brits followed too. Our actions ripple in eternity.In this vein, I’d like to draw attention to the plight of the Kiwi. Not the timid nocturnal bug hunter, but the one that doesn’t officially exist. They are the people who fill in forms and, when asked to identify their ethnic group, tick Other and write Kiwi or New Zealander.How many generations does it take to naturalise a Kiwi? I reckon we’ve had enough. If the pigeon-holers want tangible proof on an organised and thriving culture, they can turn on the radio. Show your support for Kiwis and NZ Music Month by becoming a Kiwi today. If any form asks your ethnicity, don’t go for boring old Pakeha or Maori. Release the Kiwi within! If enough Kiwis show their true colours, we can succeed where the Jedi failed. We can create our own official and legally recognised existence. 24/05/04 ∆It’s high time our government workers got a taste of their own medicine. Drug test the lot of them, from the MPs to the police. And not just for weed either. It is in the public interest to know if any backbench MPs are on valium or Prozac. The government is so fond of urgency in the House, rushing through safety, compliance and indirect tax legislation. Speed may be to blame. Are our cops drunk at checkpoints? What medication is that mayor on?It follows from the simple premise that one follows by example. If the public are to suffer the rigorous regimen of distrust condoned by our lawmakers, we are entitled to ask the same of them. We need to take the piss out of our public servants. Then test it. After all, who watches our watchmen? 21/04/04 ∆Law Commission report offers good news, if implemented The Law Commission has recently released a review into New Zealand’s court system which calls for an overhaul of the current convoluted and alienating system. There are many spots of hope for cannabis users in the report. Read at its optimistic potential, it could see some cannabis offences removed from the statute books altogether! In Delivering Justice For All; A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals, recommendations are made to replace the District Court with a Community Court, Primary Criminal Court and Primary Civil Court. The Community Court will hear most, if not all, cannabis offences. Offences with sentences up to a maximum ten years imprisonment will be heard in the Community Court by a judge. There will be no option for jury trials in this court. At first glance, this is bad news indeed. For over a century, Kiwis have been entitled to trial by jury for any offence punishable by at least three months’ imprisonment. This was affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act 1990. Jury trials are essential for ‘trojan horse’ jurors to express their repugnance of stupid prohibition laws by finding cannabis offendersnot guilty regardless of evidence. Check out the related news blurb to see another attempt at jury-tampering. Thankfully, the Law Commission report is painted on a broader canvas. Wide consultation, from High Court judges through to end-users of the court system, shows that the current system is “complex, confusing and alienating to the majority of New Zealander.[1]” Apart from the courts taking a more inclusive role respecting diversity, Delivering Justice For All recommends a more co-ordinated advocacy service for the majority of New Zealanders who don’t have a legal qualification. Explicitly, it states that every citizen facing their day in court should be entitled to at least one expert consultation before the trial date.[2] Compare this with the present system which sees overworked duty solicitors handing out only the most superficial advice on the day. In addition, police are advised to alert offenders to the Police Detention Legal Assistance Scheme. This free legal service already exists, but the police are under no compulsion to actually tell people in custody about it. The biggest bud of hope lies in Section 2 of the report. The most effective way of delivering justice may not even involve going to court. Recommendation 32 of Delivering Justice states: “The minor offence regime should be examined to be determine whether some minor offences should be reclassified as infringement notices, or removed from the statutes and regulations altogether.[3]”
Minor offences are classified as punishable by a fine of up to $500. Coincidentally, this is the maximum fine for possession of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is reasonable from these two statements to infer that marijuana possession may be decriminalised or even legalised!
You don’t have to read between the lines to see good news for cannabis reformers.
The Law Commission strongly pushes for the Police Diversion scheme to be replaced with a formal caution system. Concern is raised that the current process oversteps the police’s constitutional power, empowering them to instigate both arrest and punishment proceedings. In short, that means the Legislative arm of government is buggering with the Judiciary. Big no-no.
The workplace is covered by a verbal and written warning process that provides intermediate stages before the big guns are brought out. An equivalent system for minor offenders does not exist. Either police let you off or you are charged and risk a criminal record. There is no middle ground.
A formal caution scheme would use the police’s existing powers of discretion to determine whether less serious offending is really worth all the paperwork and wasted time. Instead of cranking up the legal machinery every time some stoner lights a doobie, the Law Commission recommends police hand out formal cautions to act as slaps on the wrist. Although a trip to the cop shop is probably still on the cards, at least a formal caution beats a trip to court and a possible criminal record.
Problem-Solving Courts may provide a better process for dealing with some cannabis issues. Therapeutic justice, which takes into account an offender’s mitigating circumstances and environment, tailor-makes sentences to reflect long-term solutions and rehabilitation. Part restorative justice, part remedial programme, problem-solving courts seek to minimise reoffending by adjusting offenders’ behavioural patterns.
While well-intentioned and noble in purpose, the Law Commission’s report still risks getting sunk. The report did not include a budget, and Delivering Justice doesn’t look cheap. When pushed for detail on some implications of the report, Justice Minister Phil Goff told the Herald “We'd like to get a lot of public feedback.” You heard the minister. Check out the report at www.lawcom.govt.nz and get writing! The government has six months to reply to the Law Commission’s report, so feel free to send Mr Goff some public feedback on the issue.
Related News
In 2001, the Law Commission recommended that jury trials move from unanimous decisions to majority decisions. In spite of opposition from some defence lawyers and the Criminal Bar Association, Phil Goff, Minister of Justice, intends introducing legislation shortly to introduce majority verdicts.
Majority verdicts rest on the idea that juries may be ‘nobbled’ by organised crime getting to a juror and intimidating them into causing a mistrial, like in the Sopranos. Labour are pushing for 11-1 majority votes as binding. National want to go one better, making 10-2 jury decisions binding. Unfortunately, majority verdicts nobble a juror’s ability to take into account a disproportionate punishment under unjust laws when deciding guilt.
It’s time to write and tell your MP how much you disapprove of this Reality TV-style majority voting on juries. See NORML News Autumn 2003 for further details on jury nullification. 21/04/04 I heartily agree with Doug Bailey’s Comment in yesterday's Business Herald on the need for a written New Zealand constitution. The Bill of Rights Act provides as much protection against a well-intentioned but overbearing state as a G-string in a gang rape. National and local governments make law. Very rarely do they repeal or tidy it up; it just grows like cancer. Witness the ‘liberal’ Clark government introducing the Crimes Amendment Bill last year, outlawing hacking, unless you happen to be a cop or a government spook. Witness the Auckland City Council wielding the dangerous Local Government Act 2002 like sledgehammer in search of a nut. We need a real constitution because we are too busy trying to pay the bills, raise the kids, keep our jobs and run to stand still in general. We don’t have time to examine the fine print and implications of what the lawmakers think will look good on the Order Papers and election pledge cards. In order to accomplish this, the citizens of New Zealand have to make a stand. An entrenched and enforceable constitution is needed urgently, before we delegate too much power to the thick scum of bureaucrats in Wellington and Aotea Square. 21/04/04 Verbal Submission on the Auckland City Council Brothels and Commercial Sex Premises Bylaw Gudday Councillors. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to regarding the proposed bylaw on brothels and commercial sex premises.It is with considerable disbelief that I first read this bylaw. It not only runs contrary to the egalitarian and easygoing nature which I thought this land was proud of, it maligns the intents of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (PRA) and presents a worrying precedent on the application of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02). This is dangerous legislation in a number of ways. For starters, the bylaw seeks justification using the LGA’s clause on health and safety. Part 8 of the LGA: A territorial authority may make bylaws for its district for 1 or more of the following purposes: a) protecting the public from nuisance b) protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety c) minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places Clearly, this Weapon of Mass Instruction is a two edged sword. Anything might be banned using that criteria. Council should err on the side of caution, lest they get carried away by the dangers of safety. According to the bylaw’s preamble, complaints have been made to Council regarding the sex trade for many years. Sex stores and massage parlours setting up near schools and residential areas are a main concern. The impact of sex signs and displays is another. The nature of these complaints are vague. Some feel uncomfortable with the sex industry. It makes them squeamish like a vegan at a barbecue. However, no-one has been robbed, burgled, murdered, raped or otherwise interfered with because of these shops and signs. There is a big fat line between not liking something and making it illegal. This bylaw crosses that line, entrenching intolerance in our land. Let’s look closer at this alleged bylaw. It is essentially a two-pronged attack; on brothels and the sex industry at large. Not all brothels are equal even though the proposed bylaw thinks they are. There are big brothels run as going concerns which may be attached to more diversified entertainment facilities. There are small brothels run as collectives or sole operations which operate in a vastly different market and structure. Bigger more obvious operators will adapt, move or shut down. The minority will adapt. Many will move or shut down, due to the limit on the number and location of brothels. Employers will lose investment capital and leases. Perhaps they will rightly sue the Council for damages. Employees will lose jobs. Not just the ladies either. Barmen, security, cashiers and other support staff will be out of work. Consumers will lose choice, one of the most effective quality control tools around. Smaller owner-operators, who operate in anonymous areas will not disappear. These poor buggers are the real victims. According to Council’s own report, they cause no nuisance, no harm, no signage, no problems. The police don’t have complaints with them and there is no evidence of gang affiliation. Yet they have been bundled together with the bigger brothels, like oranges and apples. I am sure that these small operators would prefer the legal support of the cops and the courts that most of us take for granted. However, if it means sticking their head in the moral firing line because they work where their client base is, they will seek protection where they can. It is naïve to think you can gerrymander the brothels. We don’t feel the need to restrict Starbucks stores or keep them 75m apart, even if it rips the market share away from smaller operators. Frontage control, which deals with architectural guidelines only, has been roped in to hassle legitimate businesses. Too bad if you have a bad hip or use a wheelchair. If you can’t climb stairs, you can’t have sexual needs. And what is with this gerrymandering anyway? It is fine if a gun shop wants to open near a church, or a sex offender facility opens next to kindy. We don’t ban fast food franchises 2 km from community facilities or restrict liquor and gaming licenses to businesses 250m away from a high school. But heaven forbid a brothel opening in the same time zone as any of these sensitive places. The restrictions that the bylaw encourages will have no effect whatsoever on streetwalkers. It is still entirely possible for a line of hookers to solicit outside a school or church and utilise a motel that charges rooms by the hour. Perversely, the bylaw prohibitions for brothels might encourage this behaviour! Logic is clearly on a tea break. The public health and safety is arguably more at risk from Columbine copycats. Our kids are more likely to be assaulted, raped or killed by their teacher, family member or priest than by a law-abiding hooker. The next generation won’t get heart disease, asthma and obesity from walking past a brothel. And brothels have their good points. Here’s a case in point. A NZ Herald article, dated 12 Sept 03, focussed on The White House and its proximity to the Myers Kindergarten. “Tanya Harvey, who is the licensee of the Auckland Kindergarten Association, which runs the child care centre in Myers Kindergarten building, said The White House had not been a troublesome neighbour. “Mrs Harvey said Mr Le Gros had improved the safety of the kindergarten building and park by installing security lighting, having nightly patrols and cleaning up graffiti.” It exemplifies a salient point. It is bad business to attract trouble. Good business practises have spin-off benefits for the surrounding area. It is in a brothel-owner’s interests to be a good corporate citizen. Every good business relies on advertising to operate. The proposed bylaw takes an ad absurdum approach. It gives the Council legislative authority to be art critics. Signs must not be sexual explicit, lewd or offensive. To whom? The general public? No. The Office of Publications? No. The Censorship Board? No. Whatever Council thinks it means. It gets stranger. Signs bigger than 1m x 0.3 m are somehow offensive. Flashing lights aren’t just a danger to epileptics. Neon is offensive on a brothel, but it’s not on a casino or a pub. Photons from brothels are not permitted to reach residential areas, only photons from fast food franchises. Sandwich boards present a new and hitherto unknown risk to public health and safety. If logic is on a tea break, common sense is out to lunch as well. The effect of the proposed bylaw on brothels will only keep two groups happy; the hypocrites and the gangs. The effect of the proposed bylaw on commercial sex premises will have draconian effects on everyone. This part of the bylaw represents a direct attack on our sexuality and therefore our humanity. This part of the bylaw has nothing to do with the PRA and brothels. It is a misuse of the LGA on a grand scale and bodes ill for future lawmaking. Blurred definitions and open-ended clauses open a chaotic can of worms which will please no-one. Let us look at the definition of a commercial sex premises. It is a premises used as striptease clubs; rap parlours (what??); massage parlours, adult sex shops and activities of a similar nature but does not include brothels. This definition straddles entertainment, health outlets, and retail stores. It knows no bounds. Any business connected with human sexuality is in the line of fire. Let’s start with entertainment. The bylaw will stuff Showgirls as it’s in the Britomart precinct. It is irrelevant that the place employs people, from dancers to bouncers to barstaff. It is irrelevant that the surrounding area is a vacant eyesore fit for squatters and derelicts. One would think that any business is better than no business. Would Coyote Ugly be able to operate? Perhaps the table dancing might be construed as a form of banned behaviour. If that is the case, where do you stop? Close all the nightclubs, bars and restaurants as they support activities “of a similar nature”? The agenda sent out before this hearing makes a recommendation that massage parlours do not include therapeutic, sports and other clinical massage practitioners are not included in this definition. Bathing, Health and Beauty facilities may need dispensation, unless they don’t. Defining the difference of one form of therapy from another is a legal nightmare. Is this all really worth the bother? Then we get to retail, the spookiest impact of the entire proposed bylaw. What constitutes “adult sex shops and activities of a similar nature”? Retailers of pictorial sexual acts? Bookstores? DVD stores? Video Ezy? Perhaps it means the sale of sex items like lubricants and condoms. There goes the chemist, the Family Planning Clinic and the Star Mart. Maybe it is only a adult sex shop if it sells vibrators and erotic clothing. There goes Farmers and its stock of massage relaxers and its lingerie department. Let us ask the Auckland City Council art critics on their opinions of what constitutes a sexually explicit, lewd or otherwise offensive display. How can a mannequin be any of these things when it is not anatomically accurate? Would they ban the live model display that Farmers ran in their Queen St window some time ago? If not, then why is that permitted when a sex shop displaying anything more risqué than this season’s Taliban collection might be sued? Life is a sexually transmitted disease. Sex is everywhere. It is in our blood and our humanity. It is in our everyday life. Marketing of sex sells phones, cars, food, clothes, toothpaste, jewellery and more. This proposed bylaw wants make it illegal for sex to sell sex. At the start of the 21st century, this bylaw can’t wait to get back to the Spanish Inquisition. The proposed bylaw regulating brothels and commercial sex premises is bad medicine. The cure has worse side effects than the symptoms warrant. Insufficient research has been undertaken into the supposed ills and a significant sector of the law-abiding public will be unduly harmed while uncertain and dubious benefits are promised. If this bylaw seeks to improve the quality of life for our people, enrich our social and community lives, it is a misguided and ineffective attempt at such. We have better things to do with our time, effort and ratepayer money. The Council admits it is in untested waters on both the brothel and commercial sex premises front. There is a very real risk of litigation on numerous fronts which the ratepayer will be ultimately liable for. It would be prudent for caution and restraint, keeping the powerful tool of the LGA in the cupboard for more pressing matters. If Council does proceed with the proposed bylaw in anywhere near its current shape and form, it will create an unnerving legislative precedent. The same rationale that justified this repression can easily be used to prohibit any form of social and cultural censorship. We live here, proud of our multiculturalism, our tolerance and diverse lifestyles. Please, councillors, throw out this Pleasantville bylaw, this bylaw for the promotion of virtue and elimination of vice. We do not need it. Thank you. 10/10/03 ∆ The Ministry of Fun Congratulations on the Health Select Committee Report into cannabis use in New Zealand. While the wheels of government may grind slowly, they occasionally reach a common sense conclusion. Now is an ideal time to look at the regulatory amalgamation of our collective addictions into the Ministry of Fun. Such a ministry would oversee gambling, racing, Lotto, prostitution, alcohol, tobacco and marijuana.It would educate our younger citizens so if and when they partook of these pastimes, they were fully aware of the possible outcomes. Risk and reward could be discussed in an honest, non-judgemental manner. Support would be available to those who have none.The ministry would standardise a license regime to keep organised crime out, as well as ensuring quantitative and qualitative protection for consumers. It would liase with the Ministry of Health to minimise negative outcomes by re-legalising bongs and hookums. And the really good news is the ministry would be self-funded through tax. At present, the government spooks the excise taxes off into the consolidated fund. The Ministry of Fun would redistribute its entire tax take on education, rehabilitation and regulation. 09/08/03 ∆Dubya must be wistful for a pretzel right now. Faced with Iraq’s possibly non-existent WMDs, a good choke would increase his reputation and garner some sympathy from the international community. It certainly couldn’t worsen the US intelligence community’s thoughts for him either. The pressure to plant evidence, from the United States’ own collection of WMDs, must be mighty tempting. Thankfully, the James Bonds would be repelled by the notion of rigging it up for him. Bush has besmirched their honour by ignoring their reports. Instead, he has blithely followed the Pentagon’s agenda of hawkish numbskulduggery.Bush must realise that delays providing proof for his fatuous excuse in blowing Saddam’s straw hut away will be fatal to his credibility and therefore re-election. The Democrats are slowly realising that they might have a point to pursue on this. If they could only find a leader to rally behind and take on Bush’s $US400 million campaign warchest. Either this Nixon-in-waiting should be kicked out like his daddy, or his daddy should start reading him Sun Tzu’s Art of War at bedtime. Never acquire the enmity of one’s spies. Presidents come and go; the Pentagon endures. 11/06/03∆ A Bad Tactical Joke You have to hand it to Osama bin Laden - the man's got chutzpah. His latest alleged media release plays the agent provocateur between Iraq and the Bush Administration to a T. Neither Saddam nor Bush must feel comfortable with the Man From Al Quaida as cheerleader. It is a brilliant strategy. Bin Laden must be gleeful at the propect of getting rid of Saddam courtesy of a cruise missile barrage paid for by his most hated enemy. While Dubya pounds Iraq, North Korea and bin Laden will take advantage of the flank and wage battle on another two fronts. Divide and conquer, destabilise and gloat. The tragic thing is that the Bush Administration is gormlessly going along with it. Dubya is getting himself into a bad tactical joke. 14/02/03 ∆
|
|