Greens draw up their own anti silly questions bill

The Greens are designing a bill that will stop citizens having silly questions approved in referendums,in line with Green MP Sue Bradford's demands.

Ms Bradford says her bill will amend the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, legislation that condones the use of silly questions for referenda.

"We want to end the situation where there is a legal right to have silly questions approved for referenda."

Ms Bradford said she was deeply concerned that people would be answering referenda questions against her wishes. New Zealand has not changed the law which allows people to have silly questions approved for referenda..

Ms Bradford said today citizens have used the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act to get away with not only writing silly questions, but misleading and ambiguous questions as well.

"I can't understand why the Government does not want to do anything about the Citizen's Initiated Referenda Act at all. The integrity of our democracy is too important to put on hold."

Ms Bradford, Green Citizens Initiated Referenda Spokesperson, said it was the inalienable right of referenda to be free from any form of silly questions.

"Citizens are supposed write good questions, not silly questions and, and should feel totally safe in signing petitions based on good questions. the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 adds to the whole culture of abuse of referenda that is still so rampant in New Zealand society."

[With reference to this]

The bill is available here. Spot the glaring error. If the Green Party is going to draft bills, it should at least get its facts and wording correct.There are at least three errors in the explanatory note alone.

CPAG: Action group for the poor or cheerleaders for the left?

Child Poverty Action Group released a list of nine things it wanted to see the Government do to "reduce the effect of the recession of New Zealand's children". CPAG researcher Donna Wynd says poverty is damaging and urged action in light of the recession.

After the 2008 budget, the CPAG congratulated Labour and applauded the Greens for its home insulation progress in Budget08. There was no nine point plan criticising the Labour budget. This year, the CPAG criticised the budget for not doing anything for Maori. There was notably no CPAG release after Budget09 congratulating National on the home insulation programme announced as a result of the Greens memorandum of understanding. It's a much better deal than the Greens would ever get out of Labour. But CPAG are primarily Labour supporters, and Donna Wynd was a candidate for the Greens at the last election hoping for a Labour government. Is that why CPAG can't be seen to be too complimentary of National?

On the latest wish list was this:

Tax capital gain from residential property in a fair way, for example by using the risk-free rate of return method.

Like that's going to do anything abut child poverty. Why on earth can't the CPAG be a proper action group on poverty and at least promote things that WINZ already provides? Things that most poor families don't apply for because they don't know they can. Like up to $1100 of free food grants a year, and advances for those who can't pay power bills? That is more than a third of the amount of an In Work Payment that the group considers beneficiary families should be entitled to - and taking advantage of entitlements will reduce the effects of a recession.

The Child Poverty Action Group had a post-budget breakfast yesterday morning. Russel Norman was there - paying for his cab, of course. Wonder if he congratulated his former candidate about her suggestion of taxing the rich to pay for things like ending child poverty? Naa - he probably had a chuckle at Roger Douglas' expense, given Douglas had to vote for the removal of National's tax increases and vote for the Green's home insulation fund.

Fire at will bill will not lead to 13 week benefit stand downs

There has been a fair bit of scaremongering by the Greens that the Fire at Will Bill will lead to people losing their jobs and not being eligible for a benefit for 13 weeks. In fact it is the opposite - people who are fired at will for misconduct under the 90 day legislation will be much less likely to get a long stand down.

Firstly, if you are fired within the 90 days and your partner works you are not eligible for a benefit anyway. Secondly, the 13 weeks only applies to a work tested benefit and is a discretionary stand down, not a mandatory one as the MSD can choose not to apply it. If they go on a sickness, invalids or DPB, the stand down won't apply.

Section 60H of the Social Security Act provides for the stand down if an employee leaves their place of employment without a good and sufficient reason.Unemployed means resigning from or otherwise leaving employment, other than by dismissal. Any firing is dismissal. However the section also applies if an employee has lost his job because of misconduct. Misconduct cannot be proven under the 90 day legislation as an employee can't challenge it in a personal grievance - the only method of establishing whether the employer acted with good and sufficient reason, whether that reason was misconduct or simply a bad case of BO. .So a stand down can't be legally imposed as there is no test of that good and sufficient reason.

Sue Bradford wrongly says that if an employee who is dismissed, say, on suspicion of theft, will be stood down from the dole for 13 weeks, and will have no means of challenging the stand-down. Mere suspicion is not a good and sufficient reason and a decision to stand down on something that may not have happened can certainly be challenged. But, for those who don't know beneficiary rights - including Sue Bradford and most WINZ Case Managers - they wouldn't know that a person can get out of a 13 week stand down purly by attending a mandatory interview in preparation for employment, and an approved activity. This could be as simple as getting a free CV and doing the interview applying for a benefit and receiving a Job Seekers Agreement.

Greens are hypocrites..again

Apparently the Green Party supports electoral reform in the hands of politicians only if they are the politicians having a disproportionate amount of influence.

The Greens supported the Electoral Finance Act only with the promise of a wide ranging review of electoral reform, driven by a citizens jury. That's not going to happen now. Instead of the Greens withdrawing support for the EFA, it is moaning that the panel has been disbanded.

The Greens supported partisan, self serving law making. If a citizens jury is appointed again, and National does not consult with other parties, the Greens will be the first to complain. But they didn't complain when Labour appointed the experts to that panel without consultation, because they thought they`d get more money from state funding of political parties.

Unacceptable breach of privacy from the Greens

The Green Party has a website called vote for us where people can make billboards. Many have. But last week the Green Party sent an email to all those who made billboards asking if they would give permission for the billboards to be used in a newspaper advertisement - but it revealed everyones addresses in the process - meaning everyone who made a billboard could see who else had made one as well. That is an invasion of privacy.

But the Greens are sending more unsolicited emails from a different Green Party address asking for people to vote for them - meaning they now have a data base consisting of e-mails that they are using for purposes for which email addresses were not given.

That is unacceptable behaviour.

PM regrets shutting Greens out of Government

Oh dear. Helen Clark has regretted that the Greens weren't in Government. They would have been if they had have polled higher.

Actually, so would National if it had have polled a bit higher.

Perhaps the PM should encourage people to vote Green, then, instead of aligning herself to NZ First, because, thanks to Helen Clark, a vote for the Green Party is a vote for the opposition. The problem for her is that the only way to increase the Green vote is for it to come off a declining Labour vote tainted by a suport for Winston Peters. She should have been regretting she passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Had she not passed it we may well not have had a Maori Party to spoil her coalition fun.

Greens new billboard

The kids looks like he's been to McDonalds a few too many times. I wonder if he eats his greens. I wonder if Andy Moore will put it on his Don't vote Greens site. Almost as good as the new Labour burns billboard.

Hattip Lindsay Mitchell

Vote for me

The Greens have started its campaign with advertising. They want your vote.

The is time the aim is to make an emotional, heartfelt connection with voters to appeal to them to think about the bigger picture and the solutions the Green Party stands for on Election Day,” says Dr Russel Norman, Green Party Co-Leader.

So, the Greens want you to vote for them but they're not telling you why. An appeal to emotional heartfelt connections don't make anyone think about solutions, especially when they are not offered.

I'd vote Green if they'd give me a reason to. I thought a campaign was about providing that reason, not by issuing billboards that look like postage stamps.

Update It appears I'm not alone in thinking that too.

Greens should vote no on ETS

Well, I haven’t been following the ETS (bill here) as much as I’d like, but thanks to a very succinct report from Paula Oliver I know enough to call the Greens to vote no on Tuesday if it really wants to be in Parliament after the election. Greens may want to support imperfect policy now rather than worse ones under National, but if it was a principled party it would vote with its convictions instead of aslking the voters what they think. Chris Trotter quotes Edmund Burke:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

They didn't ask the opinion of voters when they voted on the anti-smacking legislation, did they.
Jeannette Fitzsimons says

What really mattered about this scheme was that is was fair to New Zealanders and effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Throughout the negotiation process we have kept this at the forefront of our minds. If we don’t get these things right, the huge wealth transfers that the ETS creates will be both unfair and ineffectual.

And if that’s the case, don’t vote for it, then. There are many more options than just waiting for National to pass its own scheme, and if the Greens are not in Parliament it will not be able to influence it or further its own policies.

National’s climate change policy is outlined here.

It is irresponsible to pass useless legislation just to send a message

This from Frogblog about the tagging legislation:

In his classic style, Nandor ripped into the House last night, telling those who support the tagging legislation that it is irresponsible to pass useless legislation just to send a message. He pointed out that everyone who spoke in favour of the legislation railed about the evils of tagging and its link to violence, while openly admitting that the Bill itself wouldn’t work. He called on Parliament to step back and take a breath.

This shows that the Greens are inconsistent and hypocritical. Let's discuss another bill. Imagine if Nandor had said this a couple of years ago.

In his classic style, Nandor ripped into the House last night, telling those who support the anti smacking legislation that it is irresponsible to pass useless legislation just to send a message. He pointed out that everyone who spoke in support of the legislation railed about the evils of smacking and its link to violence, while openly admitting that the Bill itself wouldn’t solve child abuse. He called on Parliament to step back and take a breath.

Labour's friends are deserting them

Matt McCarten has written a pretty good column in which he notes that Labour is lacking prospective coalition partners. The Greens realised this a while back which is why it is trying to rort the system to give the left more votes.

But Labour losing its friends is the fault of Helen Clark. That's what happens when you go into Government with support of the only parties that won`t last if their leaders go - NZ First and United Future. The Greens and the Maori party rely on different cleavages for their support - post-materialistic and ethnic - and these cleavages are rising in New Zealand's version of multi party politics. Plus, the Greens have seen themselves as Labour's natural coalition partners - but were snuffled when UnitedFuture and NZ First said they would not be part of any coalition with the Greens.

But any future majority coalition government may well need the support of the Maori Party or the Greens - or both. But its the Greens who are the "last cab off the rank" at the moment. The Maori Party is the centre party of this election - the only party that is pissing them off is the party that needs them the most - the Greens.

Vote Green or you`ll get the finger

How the Greens, after the anti smacking bill, is marketing itself. It's on the Green's website and postered around Auckland

Keep your sticky mitts off our party votes

There's a bit of a bitch fight going on between the Greens and the Maori Party at the moment.

And the Greens started it.

They want those in the Maori seats to vote Green instead of the Maori Party for the list vote and encourage this by putting forward candidates - because the Maori Party vote is likely to be "wasted" due to getting more electoral seats in proportion to that party vote.

So, the Greens want an overhang, and to directly benefit from it so that National and friends needs a bigger majority to govern.In other words they want the Left to have more seats than their list vote entitle them to. Or, to put it another way, if the Greens get more list seats off the Maori electorate, that does not mean that the Maori party loses more seats - because they`ll probably get more than they currently have- but there will be more MPs in parliament, creating a bigger Maori seat overhang.

If the Maori Party don`t like the Greens putting forward low profile candidates in the Maori seats as it may take off list votes that may not be needed, it should work to increase its list vote in the wider electorate, not just the Maori electorate.

Also see Labour's friends are deserting them .

Greens are merely following the law

So, Green co-leader Russel Norman is going to be an MP before the election. However some are saying that leapfrogging two list places to do so is undemocratic and it should not be allowed to happen because it manipulates the list. Instead of pointing the finger at the Greens,they should be querying the law, because that law allows political parties - or specifically, candidates - to disregard list rankings when entering parliament - with or without a party membership vote. Specifically Section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993.

137 Method of supplying vacancy
(2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall determine which of the unelected candidates whose name was included in the same party list as the member whose seat has been declared vacant stood highest in the order of preference.

(4) If that candidate is still alive and remains a member of that political party, the Chief Electoral Officer shall then inquire of that candidate whether that candidate is willing to be a member of Parliament, and if that candidate so indicates his or her willingness, the Chief Electoral Officer shall declare that person to be elected by notifying the person’s election in the Gazette.

(5) If that person has died or is no longer a member of the political party or does not signify his or her willingness to be a member of Parliament, the Chief Electoral Officer shall proceed to make the inquiries described in subsection... (4) of this section in respect of the following candidate in order of preference on the party list, and so on, in descending order of preference, until one of the candidates who remains a member of the party signifies his or her willingness to be a member of Parliament, in which case the Chief Electoral Officer shall declare that person to be elected by notifying the person’s election in the Gazette.

The fact that the party did a postal vote to get Norman in makes the Greens more democratic than the law. The fact that Mike Ward got arm twisted to announce that he will not signify his willingness to become an MP is irrelevant.

And I see that even Garth George likes the Greens provided that there arent to many of them in Parliament. Me, I quite like the Family Party, provided none of them get into Parliament.