Another reason why National should not be permitted a 2nd term

Written By: - Date published: 1:25 pm, November 19th, 2010 - 39 comments
Categories: democracy under attack, law and "order" - Tags:

Annemarie Thorby, 15 November 2010.

New Zealand’s justice system is going through another major change this week. … [Under the new laws] police can seize a person’s assets on suspicion of a crime. No criminal activity has to be proven in a court. The onus is moved from the state to prove guilt, to the individual to prove that they have committed no criminal activity.

more people have to give DNA samples and from next year all arrested people charged with an imprisonable offence will automatically have DNA samples taken,

The Criminal Procedure Bills (both Part 1 and Part 2) however, are just the tip of the iceberg. The last few years have seen many fundamental changes to our justice system.

I find it inconceivable that we are allowing these laws to pass through Parliament.

And for those people who say that we have the Bill of Rights to protect ourselves, it may not be there for much longer. National has already given notice that they are also going to be reviewing that legislation.

39 comments on “Another reason why National should not be permitted a 2nd term ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. randal 1
    19 November 2010 at 1:38 pm

    anti-spam=primitive.
    that is the tory programme.
    primitve.
    grab everything
    and n.b. there are south american cities who still use electric generating gear installed in the 1890’s.
    the charter prevents any new capacity and it is a sure dividing line now between the haves and the have nots.
    this is the sort of economy the nats require.
    where the necessarys are supplied to a few and the rest have to watch.

  2. Colonial Viper 2
    19 November 2010 at 1:43 pm

    Great way to drive out all our talent to Australia. At least in Oz you have an economy which will pay you what you are worth so you can put up with this dangerous BS. Unlike the undemocratic cheapskate society that Bill and John are building over here.

    • Bored 2.1
      19 November 2010 at 2:03 pm

      What Aussie economy post oil? If you have no oil you cannot dig for ore, rail, ship and smelt….there goes the Aussie economic miracle.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.1
        19 November 2010 at 2:47 pm

        What do you think that you are doing thinking more than 5 years ahead of time? Careful, they’ll lock you up!

        More seriously, roo meat could be the new powerhouse of the Australian economy.

      • KJT 2.1.2
        19 November 2010 at 2:50 pm

        They will be OK because they still have a healthy internal economy. Owned by them selves.

  3. Tanz 3
    19 November 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Three letters as a reminder as to how democratic Labour were in their dying days of power (to try and keep themselves in power, rather desperate) – EFA. There was no mandate for that one, now, was there. Oh, and the Anti-Smacking Bill, now endorsed by JohnBill, the traitors!

    • ianmac 3.1
      19 November 2010 at 2:13 pm

      Tanz. Have you read this very good post?
      http://thestandard.org.nz/electoral-finance-reform-in-nsw-parliament/
      What do think of that?

      • Tanz 3.1.1
        19 November 2010 at 7:25 pm

        But you would like it. The EFA was Labour trying to stay in power, no matter what, with the help of the unglamourous Greens. Yes, let the voters decide, because the only religion the Left love is unfettered Humanism, a poisonous and dangerous doctrine, but one that has encroached upon all of the West’s major establishments, such as education, politics, business and the media. Stolen and brainwashed, starting with the Preschoolers. Go the Tea Party movement!

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
          19 November 2010 at 7:38 pm

          because the only religion the Left love is unfettered Humanism

          People ahead of profits, and compassion ahead of corporations.

          unfettered Humanism, a poisonous and dangerous doctrine

          You sir, are a moron. (That is not a compliment).

          • Tanz 3.1.1.1.1
            19 November 2010 at 7:55 pm

            Why do lefties always resort to name-calling when someone disagrees with their odd worldview? Humanism is made up by humans, it’s about One World Govt control and throwing out the old moral order. It hates Christianity and all that is good and honest and ethical.

            By the way, try Madam.

            • Daveosaurus 3.1.1.1.1.1
              19 November 2010 at 8:18 pm

              “Why do lefties always resort to name-calling”

              … What wonderful irony encapsulated in that one phrase.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.2
              19 November 2010 at 8:23 pm

              Humanism is made up by humans, it’s about One World Govt control and throwing out the old moral order.

              Says who? Glen Beck/Fox News? What old moral order are you referring to? The one which said an eye for an eye? That thieves should have their hands cut off? What are you on about?

              By the way, try Madam.

              Enchanté. Pleased to make your acquaintence.

              Why don’t you try a more balanced view of what “Humanism” is, one with a perspective of history and the development of western civilisation, and which is clearly not fictitious BULLSHIT.

              http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REN/HUMANISM.HTM

            • Frank Macskasy 3.1.1.1.1.3
              22 November 2010 at 12:22 am

              You base your criticism of left-wing politics and international affairs in a belief in an invisible deity?

              How very… quaint.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      19 November 2010 at 2:40 pm

      More lies and distraction from a RWNJ. The EFA would have increased democracy and transparency. NACT didn’t like that though as can be seen by their dismissal of ECAN, the push through of the undemocratic and gerrymandered SuperCity, and now the removal of justice from the justice system.

      • Graeme Edgeler 3.2.1
        19 November 2010 at 2:57 pm

        The EFA “would have” increased democracy and transparency? Surely you mean that it did? It was the law in 2008. Was that election more democratic and more transparent than earlier elections?

        At the 2008 election we knew about the source of $130,001 of National’s funding. In 2005 we knew they got $1,881,793, including $1,254,845 from the Waitemata trust. In ’08 we knew of $422,917 of Labour’s funding. In ’05 we knew of $930,977.04.

        How is that more transparent?

        • mickysavage 3.2.1.1
          19 November 2010 at 3:30 pm

          Are you arguing Graeme that the EFA provisions should have been toughened up so that there was more transparency? The Farrar whipped hysteria moved the debate in the opposite direction.

          I anticipate that the problems were the donations were made before the EFA came into force but you may wish to comment.

          • Graeme Edgeler 3.2.1.1.1
            19 November 2010 at 11:27 pm

            Are you arguing Graeme that the EFA provisions should have been toughened up so that there was more transparency? The Farrar whipped hysteria moved the debate in the opposite direction.

            I anticipate that the problems were the donations were made before the EFA came into force but you may wish to comment.

            I certainly was arguing that.

            I encourage you to read my EFB submission 🙂

            Donation Disclosure

            7 Our law already requires parties to declare every donations they receive over $10,000 – but it doesn’t work. Donations can be given anonymously, or can given to someone (or something) else to give to the party. We don’t know the names of the big donors to our political parties – we only know the names of the intermediaries they use to funnel their cash to our politicians.

            8 Voters have a right to know who is funding those seeking their support. It is an important guard against corruption and an open election finance regime an important protection against the perception of corruption.

            9 An informed electorate is a pre-requisite for a healthy democracy. Knowledge of those paying the bills of our political parties – knowledge of those to whom our politicians may consider themselves beholden – should be available to all voters before they vote.

            10 The lack of controls on anonymous donations and donations passed through intermediaries significantly weakens the current disclosure regime, and therefore weakens the integrity of the electoral process. A disclosure threshold should be set at a figure sufficiently low to deter parties and donors with creative lawyers from avoiding public scrutiny – the $500 limit applicable to third parties is about right.

            11 Fixing anonymous donations isn’t something that’s “too hard”. The Electoral Finance Bill contains rigorous disclosure and donation rules for third parties – these could be readily adapted to suit.

            Also, I’m not sure you can blame Farrar for anti-transparency moves. The EFB as initially drafted by Labour was incredibly weak on transparency – basically no change for political parties from the law before. DPF was pointing this out, and argued in his submission to strengthen the disclosure and transparency aspects of the law. Not to the extent that I was, but he argued for the opening up of trusts, banning large anonymous donations etc.

    • Graeme Edgeler 3.3
      19 November 2010 at 2:41 pm

      reform of election finance laws was an explicit promise in Labour’s 2002 and 2005 manifestos.

  4. Mac1 4
    19 November 2010 at 2:49 pm

    It’s a shame but National’s possible return is not a question of permission. A small question of democracy…..

    Unless of course we go like National and just get rid of local authorities we don’t like.

  5. Jeremy Harris 5
    19 November 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Good post, these laws are a good reason right wing people shouldn’t vote for National…

    Also add the elimination of jury trials for sentences 3 months to 3 years…

  6. tc 6
    19 November 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Bored….Oz has shed loads of oil/gas so their economy will continue to barrell along.

    After the shipley/bolger/richardson trifeca of trashing NZ into the dirt we were making some progress under labour…..only took the nat’s 2 years, yes there’s a GFC but wake up RWNJ’s and smell the coffee……who’s going to change your incontinence pad and spoon feed you in a battery-hen style rest home under your heroes future world.

    Forget about getting any assisstance in your own home….slash then burn, Oz is way ahead because even their right wing gov’ts understand and leave alone measures that make for a better holistic society.

    NACT policies are mostly discriminatory just spun to look like what’s good for you.

    • Bored 6.1
      19 November 2010 at 6:19 pm

      TC, Oz is according to CSIRO shot for oil…..A recent international survey by BP indicated that Australia’s proved oil reserves at the end of 2003 amounted to 4400 million barrels. This represents some 0.4% of the world’s total proven oil reserves. Australia’s oil production seems to have peaked around the year 2000, and has begun to decrease since that time. At the 2003 rate of production, and if no additional discoveries are made, the present reserves would be expected to last for a little under 20 years.

      Would you believe NZ possibly has more, but most of ours is deep water.

      On OZ rightwing governments understanding and leaving alone there is the little matter of Unions and good old Oz anti authoritarian belligerence.

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.1
        19 November 2010 at 6:27 pm

        4.4B barrels of oil sounds impressive = 7 months of US consumption (or less than 3 months of global consumption) at *todays* rate of use = much less impressive.

  7. OleOlebiscuitBarrell 7
    19 November 2010 at 4:44 pm

    National should not be permitted a 2nd term

    Interesting turn of phrase.

    Wouldn’t we leave that up to the voters?

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      19 November 2010 at 5:00 pm

      Frak no we are leaving nothing ‘up to voters’.

      Instead we are going to actively make it clear to them the detailed societal degradation and damage to democracy a 2nd National term would bring about.

    • Pascal's bookie 7.2
      19 November 2010 at 5:00 pm

      I’d say the poster is speaking as a voter, to voters, and that was precisely his/her point.

    • Jim Nald 7.3
      19 November 2010 at 5:18 pm

      yet another instance calling out for rescue by a Tolley copter

    • Jenny 7.4
      19 November 2010 at 8:20 pm

      .
      OObB:

      Wouldn’t we leave that up to the voters?

      Of course we should.

      If at next year’s general election the majority of electors vote for parties other than National and ACT, (as seems likely), it behoves these other Parties to form a government.

      We don’t want a fiasco like in Britain where Gordon Brown refused to rule the country in a coalition with the Lib Dems, and by default threw the election result to the Tories.

      If the New Zealand Labour Party also find they can’t rule alone, will the Labour Party leadership arrogantly ignore the will of the electorate and hand the country over to tender mercies of the Nats for another term?

      National should not be permitted a 2nd term

      OObB, You wrote this is an “Interesting turn of phrase.”

      What I should have added was if a majority vote against the Nacts – that wish must be honoured.

      Still think this is interesting?

      Let me know.

  8. RedLogix 8
    19 November 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Reading Annemarie’s article is chilling. And wholly predictable.

    For a very long time I said that when National was in Opposition, they were loudly screeching bs accusations at Labour over corruption and nanny-statism…while all along I said that when they got their grubby butts on the benches of power they would fully act out the very evils they were making so much noise about just years earlier.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      19 November 2010 at 8:53 pm

      Agreed. All the corruption that the NACTs tried to pin to Labour (without any evidence whatsoever) they have gone and done themselves – usually more blatantly and with an air of entitlement (Double Dipton). Everything they said was/is pure projection.

    • ak 8.2
      19 November 2010 at 9:22 pm

      Yes, it’s the old projection bizzo Red: it’s why protesters just must be a paid rent-a-mob, how union officials are all millionaires, why Mother Theresa was selfish, and why the worm of unrequitted humanity gnaws ceaselessly at the empty gut of every right-winger producing the manic drive to materialistic domination and the grotesque, nihilistic obscenity of today’s global situation. C’est la V drink.

      Meanwhile, back in microcosm, it’s sometimes amusing to work backwards: NACT behaviour belies the truth: though nectar to the swinging voter, the mediocre gambler with a run of “instinct” is a myth: the secret is just that: covert, prior information. In the form of cutting-edge polling sophistication.

      A casual observance of the frequency of MSM repetition of the phrase “reduced majority”, coupled with the early announcement of attendance by the Greasy Grin at Hekia’s hooley, not to mention Dynamic Dipton’s claiming Mana’s lack of “raising issues” as mandate for nothing less than the entire NACT economic programme, I’d say the massive NACT poll machine has coughed up a promising result.
      Furthermore, based on the putea poured in in late 2007, I’d say the “vibe carried into Xmas” has similarly been poll-proven a biggie.

      Headlines you’re likely to see: LABOUR MAJORITY SLASHED IN MANA

      UNLESS. Every able-bodied man, woman and child with a nuance of concern for this proud nation and sanity makes their way to Mana tomorrow and again throws a spanner in the golden NACT polling machine: you did it in Mt Albert, you did it for Mining, you did it in the Lenslide: one more time for your mokos.

      And Labour: learn from Matt, the MSM can’t resist a stunt. Go APESHIT with the combined Lab/Green/Unite total. Back to the base.

      • Jenny 8.2.1
        19 November 2010 at 9:31 pm

        .
        ak:

        Headlines you’re likely to see: LABOUR MAJORITY SLASHED IN MANA

        ak, the question is – if indeed these are the headlines tomorrow.

        Will the Labour Party use this as an excuse to go more right?

        Or a timely warning that they should be more left?

        • ak 8.2.1.1
          19 November 2010 at 10:22 pm

          I think they’re on the right track Jen – I think this lot can see the writing on Helen’s, Blair’s, Rudd’s, and Obama’s overly-cautious walls, and will ride the new wave.

          Joe ‘n Joanne public aren’t stupid, as a rule: they’re living the leaden result of unfettered selfishness and there’s an increasing appetite for values that transcend the acquisition of plastic toys.

          I’m an inveterate optimist Jen, but even allowing for that, I see a huge opportunity for fundamental change. The adolescent Right has had it’s last throw – and failed miserably. Mostly I seek succour in a mature sociological paradigm now, back to China as soon as the body is able.

  9. Frank Macskasy 9
    22 November 2010 at 1:36 pm

    “More Kiwis leaving permanently for Australia”
    – http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4372238/More-Kiwis-leaving-permanently-for-Australia

    “New Zealanders went on a record two million trips in the year to October, almost half of them to Australia, while net migration is taking a dip as more Kiwis leave permanently for Australia.

    Net migration in the past year was 12,600, slightly above the long-term average, but the monthly gain was just 700 in October, as more people left for Australia. ”

    Hmmmmm, so much for John Key’s promise to reverse the out-flow AND raise wages to parity with Australia.

    While the Australian government was proactive in minimising the effects of the global banking crisis/recession – John Key is famous for his Hands-Off, Do Nothing approach. At least Nero played a fine tune while his city burned around him…

    Strangely, even the tax cuts have not stemmed the population outflow. Why is that? Could it be that New Zealanders recognise a scam when they smell one and realised that the 1 April 2009 and 1 October 2010 tax-cuts were a lolly-scramble for high-income earners – but not much good for them?

    Could it be that the rise in gst to 15% was not what voters expected from a supposedly anti-taxation party?

    Prediction: if National returns to office next year, the rate of emigration will increase to a point where NZ will experience further shortages in health professionals and skilled tradespeople.

Links to post