E-mail to Annette King

MrNiceGuyNZ · Forum Moderator Joined: Sep 18, 2005 Posts: 2912

Is It Time To Change Our Voting System?
Friday, 19 October 2007, 3:24 pm
Press Release: NZ Centre For Political Debate
Is It Time To Change Our Voting System?

By Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research,

NZCPR

October 10th 1996 was New Zealand's first MMP election. Eleven years on, MMP has profoundly changed the face of New Zealand politics.

To mark the anniversary of MMP, the NZCPR is delighted to publish - for the very first time - a speech written by Don Brash a year ago when he was Leader of the Opposition. The speech 'We Deserve Another Referendum on MMP' was never delivered because, as Don explains, "some of my colleagues thought that it was a 'distraction' from the issues we were then focussed on".

Don reflects the views of a good many New Zealanders when he says:

"While MMP has got some advantages, it leads to disproportionate influence for very small parties, as a consequence leads to weak and 'compromising' government, requires more MPs than most New Zealanders see as desirable, and greatly strengthens the hand of party bosses at the expense of voters". (To read Don's speech click www.nzcpr.com)

There is no doubt about the fact that MMP has delivered excessive power into the hands of minor parties. In a recent speech on "MMP and Public Policy" journalist and author Graeme Hunt put it this way:

"The anti-smacking law is the ultimate example of MMP influencing public policy. Before the Bradford bill appeared, there was no public policy on smacking and the Prime Minister was on record as saying she opposed criminalizing parents who resorted to the occasional smack of a wayward child. But with the problems surrounding her Mangere MP, Phillip Field, she had no choice but to reach an accommodation with the Greens over a bill that was neither loved nor wanted. It was MMP at its most ugly". (To read Graeme's speech click www.nzcpr.com/research.htm)

The reality is that under MMP, the voters' democratic right to choose their MPs has been compromised. At the present time, 52 MPs in our Parliament of 121 have been chosen by party bosses. Worse, some of the MPs who did not have the confidence of voters in their electorates were returned to Parliament as Party appointees, carrying on as list MPs as if nothing had changed. The system of checks and balances that normally operate in a democracy - where candidates have to satisfy the majority of voters in order to successfully represent them in Parliament - is now missing. That means that candidates with views that are so extreme that they are unacceptable to the wider community can now be Members of the New Zealand Parliament through their party list selection process.

Under MMP, governments are no longer formed as a result of voter opinion, but after negotiations between party bosses. It is therefore not surprising that small parties wield a disproportionate amount of influence. Labour's radical move towards environmental sustainability is only possible because of the more extreme ideological views being promoted by their Green Party partner. These will not only lead to a massive escalation in consumer costs associated with the government's new energy strategy, but will significantly increase household rubbish charges and water rates as a starter. These are all changes that the electorate would more than likely reject, if asked.

MMP was promoted on the basis that it would improve Parliamentary representation. With more women, a larger number of MPs who are not careers politicians, and an increase in ethnic representation, it has achieved that objective.

At the present time there are 21 Maori Members of Parliament. Seven of those represent the race-based Maori seats, whose principle role appears to be to win greater state privileges for Maori. Since these privileges come at the expense of the rest of the population, the Maori seats are an anachronism, which the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform recommended should be abolished. Ironically, their continuance appears guaranteed because of MMP, with all Parliamentary Parties now supporting their retention. As a result, the extremist Maori Party, which holds four of those Maori seats, looks set to become the future "kingmaker" of the New Zealand Parliament.

The real problem with MMP is that coalition politics requires every item of business to be negotiated through these minority niche support parties under a "quid pro quo" process: "if you support this, then we will give you that". As a result, under MMP New Zealand is being driven by extreme agendas with little likelihood that critical but 'unpopular' issues will ever be addresses by any government in the foreseeable future.

This means that the growing underclass - spawned by our dysfunctional welfare system - which is responsible for the lion's share of New Zealand's social problems, is unlikely to ever be reformed under MMP. Instead, the 'solution' will undoubtedly be more politically palatable 'feel-good' public service advertising campaigns. Unless there is a real commitment to reform, child abuse and neglect will continue to increase, violence and crime will continue to escalate, and more girls and women will continue to become career beneficiaries by having children they do not want and cannot care for. The politics of compromise, which MMP has become, will ensure that no party has the courage to fix this dysfunctional system in desperate need of change.

In his speech, Don Brash made the comment that "only one voter in six voted for MMP under any real conviction that it would provide a better system". In other words, MMP became our system of government not because it was deemed to deliver a higher standard of government, but because voters were tired of the childish antics of their MPs and wanted to give them a shake-up. This added to a series of 'gaffes' that gave us MMP.

The first of those gaffes can be traced back to a televised leaders' debate in the 1987 election campaign, when David Lange promised that if Labour was re-elected he would hold a binding referendum on MMP. At the time, while there was a strong lobby of third party representatives promoting MMP, neither he nor most of his Labour colleagues, were supporters.

Instead of holding the promised referendum, Lange established a Select Committee inquiry. The committee recommended that First Past the Post be retained but a referendum be held to see whether there was public support for increasing the size of parliament using the Supplementary Member system. The Supplementary Member system operates in a number of countries including Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

The second gaffe on the road to MMP was committed by Jim Bolger during the 1990 election campaign, when, in seeking to embarrass Labour for failing to deliver on its referendum pledge, he rashly promised to hold a binding referendum on the electoral system if elected. Again, neither he nor his party supported MMP.

The binding referendum on MMP was held on 6 November 1993 with 53.9 percent of people voting in favour and 46.1 percent against. Commentators say that if the election had been held a week earlier, First Past the Post would have been retained.

When the 1993 Electoral Act to introduce MMP was drafted, a clause was inserted to allow a Select Committee to review the system after two MMP elections and to determine whether there should be a another referendum on electoral reform. Many New Zealanders understood this to mean that another referendum would be held, so that if they voted for MMP and it didn't work out, they could get rid of it.

The Select Committee set up in 2000 to review MMP - as was required by the Act - couldn't reach a decision on whether another referendum was needed. As a result, the Government concluded: "Changing any major constitutional arrangements would require a higher level of consensus from the public than currently appears to exist. In the absence of that high degree of consensus, the Government is of the view that it would not be appropriate to recommend any significant amendments at this time".

Section 264 of the 1993 Electoral Act stated that if there was to be a further referendum on changes to the electoral system that, "the nature of the proposals to be put to voters" be outlined. The difficulty we have at the present time is that while many people are unhappy with the way MMP is working out, there is no consensus on a viable alternative.

In his speech, Don Brash provides some leadership:

"My personal preference would be to adopt the Supplementary Member system with a total Parliament of 100 members. There could be 75 electorate MPs, thus enabling a small reduction in the size of current electorates. And 25 list MPs. As now, voters would have two votes - one for their electorate candidate and one for their preferred party. But whereas at present the party vote determines the overall composition of Parliament, under the SM system the party vote would determine only the composition of the list seats. A system of this kind would enable minority voices to be heard without giving small parties disproportionate influence, would enable a reduction in the total size of Parliament, would provide a route for people to enter Parliament without spending a lifetime working through the party hierarchy, and would provide a way of ensuring reasonable diversity in the overall composition of Parliament. To the extent that a higher proportion of the total Members of Parliament would be elected in electorates, SM would also increase the power of voters and reduce that of party bosses".

The public poll this week asks whether there is support for a campaign to replace MMP with the Supplementary Member system as proposed by Don Brash.

To vote go to http://www.nzcpr.com

ENDS
_________________
A pain free day the marijuana way.

Vote for change, Vote ALCP

Thread_Killer · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:52 pm

NZCPR hates ALCP, the Greens (in particular Nandor and Meteria) and has a special loathing for cannabis users in general.

Check out these comments from its director...

Tony · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:46 pm

No the Eye testing devise is not the new technology , that just works on pupil size etc.

No this new toy is somewhat more sophisticated than that.

It is not a lazer light but some other high tech ray of some sort , it shines into the back of the eye and actually reads the chemicals in the blood of the eye ..It can have the fingerprint of just about any chemical , natural or not programed into it and give what rumour has a totally accurate outcome..

I heard about it recently while trying to get some complex endocrine lab testing done and heard about some research work being done by some Kiwis on this technology , from a Kiwi researcher overseas..
I had already heard of the principal and knew it was being used in other applications overseas already ..mainly in research i gather..

I have heard the scientific name of the the light devise just forgotten..

But I understand its commercial implications could be one of the reasons we are not getting to hear much about it..

Just like we gear little about much of the cannabis related research going on in NZ , its either Govt funded and hence controlled , or its commercial private interests and commercially sensitive .

I am trying to tie down the legal implications of the various aspects of research / medpot support etc one may come up against ..

It seems possible any research at all that involves any form of cannabis could be a problem because of conflicts in the MA , MDA and others..

Just curiuos ZINGER , how does CANDOR look at the legality of say your recent DUI tests , was there any legal concerns??? WE want to do a formal trial to use as evidence but there is conflicting legal views..

We have unofficially established impairment from THC can be reversed by the other cannabioids and as well for many the main active medical aspect of cannabis is not principally THC . and it possible to use medpot of the low THC variety to safely drive but as well shall we say sober up..if required..from high THC..
What we don't know is THC readings of say 10 ng with high intake of the other cannabinods likely to effect one differently to mainly high THC product..

But everyone one runs scared when it comes to doing anything involving cannabis if it might go public..
How do CANDOR get passed this.???

Tony
tony

zinger · Heavy User Joined: Jul 11, 2006 Posts: 223 Location: nz

daddyO · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:41 pm

If any researches in Nz are using usa pot then they are wasteing their time and their research.

Because the usa 'content standardised' weed is achieved by firstly removing ( via solvents probably ) the thc.

Once this is done you might as well not even call it cannabis anymore.

But then they reintroduce a specified amount of thc to this "dead weed " and people like zinger and lap dog researches call it content standardized weed and pretend that it's like, or even relevent to the real thing.

All we are doing is taking part in perverted science at the cost of real knowldge.

..................... now pass me that lovely candor snake oil please

Tony · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:44 pm

I think ZINGER it was the cookie trials and complications that they encounted that is one of the concerns.. The problem seems if one intends to supply product for the experiments, an essential element to standardize.

We would have less of a problem if we perhaps could do it without the need to supply.. Although there seems to be divided opinion if one was to be seen to encourage use to participate in the trial..

A number of the research and teaching Profs have been approached and its the complications they put up , most part scares off the ones wanting to support..

Its easier to work with those in Canada and US , and even using an Australian Lab..

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

tony

potshots · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Wish I'd checked out this thread earlier but I didn't have a good read of it until yesterday.

steveoh
After dashing my hopes a couple of times in the past week, you've redeemed yourself in great fashion

. As they say, actions speak louder than words.
I have to admit that apart from my 2003 HSC submission on cannabis, I haven't actually written to any MPs. LTE writing seemed to be my skill but I've learnt this year that I can write articles as well. Writing to an MP always seemed a bit daunting (although I'm not sure why now) but you've shown me the way so I hope I can add another letter to this thread soon.
BTW how did your community radio spot go?

Thread_Killer
Ditto for your letter to Annette King - very inspiring.
You and steveoh also managed to rattle zinger's bars which was interesting to follow as an observer. I was tempted to respond until I read "...so the best one to discourage f you want to reduce polydrugging risk is... thc" (2nd paragraph) when I suddenly realised that I couldn't even be bothered reading any more of zinger's nonsense. However, I did read and enjoy yours and Tony's responses (eg "I just wanted to say thanks because I hadn't sent my letter just yet, and have now decided to attach the summary of the meta analysis from which I got the above extract"

).
But you weren't quite correct when you wrote "you've already broken potshots". I was just feeling a bit overwhelmed by everything and a bit discouraged that other cannabis users didn't seem to see the bigger picture re: drugged driving. However, I now realise that part of my problem was that the Govt has made it seem like the drugged driving law was imminent which in turn made me feel like we had to act with urgency. I've now calmed down a bit and feel rejuvenated after seeing your letters. zinger was an unnecessary distraction but I feel confident that anyone who has the fortitude to follow our epic battle will soon work out that Candor are the Mad Hatters of NZ road safety. Plus I also feel we can successfully counter their propaganda. But somewhat arrogantly I had always assumed that the Truth about cannabis would defeat the lies used to justify its prohibition (drugged driving being no different) so maybe it was a lesson that I needed to learn: Even logic has its limits against prejudice. (Just as an aside, this was the winning caption from a competition for a photo of Star Trek's Capt Kirk and Mr Spock on an alien world: "Screw logic Spock! Just take your trousers down and bend over.")
Anyway, I've now concluded that it's time to take the fight public so I'm hoping to get a couple of LTEs written soon plus a letter to Ms King now that I've got my spirit back again.
And thanks for also reminding me of the following

paula · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:31 pm

Just one question. If some grower was cloning their pot wouldn't that produce standardised pot ? Or am I having a thick moment

?

Thread_Killer · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:28 pm

Other aspects of growing could likely affect the thc level. Anyway, I dont see the need for standardised pot for research because the percentages would still need to be confirmed by testing before a dose relating to the body weight of the subject could be given.

While on the subject of standardisation, in terms of a medipot product, GW pharma grow just a few strains that are cloned, one for high CBD and another for high THC. They also factor other things into the grow to produce "standardised" plants, something they call optimal morphology. In post-harvest processing they use ethanol extraction and with further refinement are able to produce accurate percentages of thc/cbd. Sativex is a 50/50 mix, there are also high thc and cbd mixes.

But standardisation could be manufactured medipots weakness as there are over 60 different chemicals in varying ratio's in raw herb, resulting in the anecdotal evidence that sativex is not as effective in helping different body types and diseases.

Potshots - dont get too excited, I haven't sent the letter yet, its important to get it right. For us to be seen as supporting "potential killers" on the road would be a real arrow in the bow for prohibitionists. I agree though that for sole users, the implication of culpabilty in an accident is very worrying, not just from a potentially innocent users perspective but also because the real cause is ignored. The DUIC literature review I'm going to attach has more detail on the unreliabilty of impairment analysis. Of course according to zinger, research since 2005 has changed all of that, even though ICADTS, a group she references, has only just released guidelines for future research in an attempt to overcome the vagueness of the issue. I'm glad you were only taking a breather, hope you enjoyed the long weekend.

_________________
IF 25 YEARS OF SMOKING DOPE HAS ADDLED MY BRAIN, I MUST HAVE BEEN AN INTELLECTUAL GIANT IN MY YOUTH ~Tim Shadbolt

Tony · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:32 pm

This applies to medical but
The need for accurate standardized dose is just a crock.. By cloning and standardized grows of selected varieties is all that is required.. The fine tuning is done on an hour or two basis and will actually vary all the time , minor variations in strength don't matter .

Its more reliable know safe supplies of given varieties .. as chemical free as possible and affordable..
Strength = dose and is is for most suck it and see .

tony

Thread_Killer · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:00 pm

Exactly, standardisation needs to apply only to products such as opiates which are easily OD'd on. That's the beauty of raw herb medipot, to dose is so easy and safe until a benefit is obtained, no need to guess according to weight, metabolism, etc.

The varying strains and chemical ratio's cover a broader spectrum of ailments and vapourising overcomes the smoking issue. The "antis" really have no plausible argument to fall back on, except that it might give the patient a little buzz.. ohhh.. nooo.. the sky will fall...
_________________
IF 25 YEARS OF SMOKING DOPE HAS ADDLED MY BRAIN, I MUST HAVE BEEN AN INTELLECTUAL GIANT IN MY YOUTH ~Tim Shadbolt

steveoh · Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:38 pm

I just received my "stock" reply from Annette's office; we're acknowledged you letter in the legal time required (10 days) And when were finished wiping our arses with it, and had a good laugh over some imported merlo, we'll probably get back to you, that's if you keep nagging and threaten us with the on-BUDS, man

. Other wise; What was your name again

Steveoh
_________________
Regulation will set cannabis free

GassRoots is you

MrNiceGuyNZ · Forum Moderator Joined: Sep 18, 2005 Posts: 2912

Standardized dosage is for substances that can be over-dosed on or creates serious side effects. Standardized dosage for cannabis is not applicable as it's impossible to over-dose on cannabis.

The only reason they want 'standardized dosage' is so the pharmaceutical companies can get in on the act.

Opium is one of the main drugs in the 'War on Drugs' carry-on yet opium based medications are everywhere - the UN controls the drugs market in favour of the pharmaceutical industry.

Now I am asking myself why opium over cannabis, could it be that opium is highly addictive? Could the pharmaceutical industry be using similar tactics as that of the tobacco industry?

This is white collar crime at the highest level.
_________________
A pain free day the marijuana way.

Vote for change, Vote ALCP

steveoh · Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:55 am

GO TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD TO READ MY LETTER

Reply from Hon Annette King

11 December

Dear Steven

Thank you for you email of 18 October 2007, in which you express concerns in relation to provisions in the Land Transport Amendment Bill No.4 (the Bill) which deals with the testing of drivers impaired by the use of illegal substances.

Your letter makes a number of worthwhile points. The Bill is currently being considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee (the Select Committee) and it has called for submissions on it. I suggest that you forward your suggestions for the Select Committee for its consideration. For information on making a submission I suggest you contact Paul Weakley, Clerk, transport and Industrial Relations committee, ph (04) 471 9536.

You may find the following information on the proposed Bill of assistance.

The Bill proposes a new offence of driving while impaired by illegal drugs, and introduces a duty not to drive while impaired by drugs.

Under the proposed Bill, a New Zealand Police Officer will be able to require a driver to undergo a compulsory impairment test when there is good cause to suspect the consumption of an illegal drug, or the use of prescription medicines outside the conditions of the prescription. The driver must give informed consent to the roadside impairment test A driver who is not able to satisfactorily complete the impairment test at the roadside will be required to provide a blood sample.

It will be an offence when:
* the driver is unable to complete the compulsory impairment test in a satisfactory manner, and
* the driver's blood contains evidence of an illegal drug.

(She lists all the drugs

I can't be bothered typing it all out its just the usual suspects)

Excluded are substances which are widely prescribed such as codeine, and benzodiazepines (tranquillisers

) and other substances found in over-the-counter medicines.

The blood test, taken as evidence of a traffic related offence, will not be able to be used as evidence of an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

The focus on illegal drugs protects users of prescription medicines while enabling the road safety objectives to be met. Any detected impairment would be acted on, usually by taking the keys from the driver. Users of prescription drugs can, however, be prosecuted under the proposed Bill if the drugs are being used outside of the conditions of the prescription.

In conclusion, I reiterate that a New Zealand police Officer must have good cause to suspect that a driver has been impaired by drugs before testing them using the roadside impairment test, I also emphasise that the proposed Bill will not allow a blood test, taken as evidence of a traffic related offence, to be able to be used as evidence of an offence under the Misuse of drugs Act 1975.

I trust that this clarifies the intention of the Bill for you. I hope that you are able to make your concerns known to the Select Committee.

Yours sincerely

Hon Annette King
Minister of Transport

Well there you go!
It may be worthwhile keeping antihistamine in your car, just incase you fail the roadside test "but officer I've just taken this

_________________
Regulation will set cannabis free

GassRoots is you

steveoh · Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:58 am

MY SUBMISSION

ATT: Paul Weakley

I will like to speak at the committee hearing personally

Hard copy to follow

At least a hundred people at any one time will be driving on New Zealand roads with cannabis in their system.

Many of these people have been driving (with cannabis in their system) for years, some for decades. Without having been involved in accidents.

Credible worldwide studies have proven that drivers who've used cannabis, are at no extra risk to themselves or others while driving.

United States Department of Transportation. "Marijuana and actual driving performance" (1993) - concluded; "cannabis had a minimal effect on driving".

University of Adelaide. (1998) found drivers under the influence of cannabis are just as safe as drivers not under the influence of any drugs.

Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands. (2004) The most recent study into drugs and driving was published in the July 2004, Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention. Researchers at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research analysed blood tests from those in traffic accidents, and found that even people with blood alcohol between 0.5% and 0.8% (below the legal limit) had a five-fold increase in the risk of serious accident. Drivers above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision. Drugs like Valium and Rohypnol produced results similar to alcohol, while cocaine and opiates showed only a small but "not statistically significant" increase in accident risk. As for the marijuana-only users? They showed absolutely no increased risk of accidents at all.

All these studies showed that cannabis drivers adjusted their driving to their level impairment, making them aware of their level of impairment, no other drug besides cannabis allows it's user to do that.

Around 1000 twenty-five year-olds took part in the Otago University research, where they were asked if they smoked cannabis and drove. 80 percent of the test subjects said they had smoked and driven (none seemed to have died).

The lead researcher for the Otago University study, Professor David Fergusson said he was very surprised by the research results. "We never expected to see that cannabis was going to be a bigger problem than drink-driving." Cannabis is not a problem, just more prevalent.

The point Professor Fergusson is ignoring, is that in the last decade, the state has spent a large amount of money in educating the public (young) in the dangers of drink driving. because of total prohibition of cannabis, no one is allowed to educate young people in the harms of mixing cannabis with other drugs.

We have people like coroner Ian Smith, when dealing with a death of a driver who had, twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system, wore no seat belt. But had smoked a cannabis joint some two hours previously, claims that cannabis was the cause of this persons death. Which is wrong considering that the part that gets you high Delta-9-THC is changed by your body into more inert molecules known as metabolites which don't get you high. Unfortunately these chemicals also have the word THC in them. Two of these metabolites are called 11-hydroxy-THC and 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC. These are the chemicals that stay in the fatty cells of the body. There is almost no Delta-9-THC left in the body after a few hours.

Credible studies and antidotal evidence shows that cannabis is not a real problem in relation to accidents on New Zealand roads.

The real problem (besides alcohol) on our roads are inexperience, fatigue, cell phones, and pharmaceutical drugs.
It would be more beneficial to reduce accidents on our roads through education than incarceration.

This amendment to the Transportation bill in relation to cannabis, is going to unfairly treat members of our community who, besides their informed decision to use cannabis, are normally law abiding citizens.

I am asking this committee to take two things into consideration when forming this amendment.

1- Ensure that the minimum level of THC is at a realistic level. Considering that a large percentage of cannabis users will have THC in their system but realistically are as safe if not safer than non-smoking drivers.

2- In-place into the amendment a clause that disallows the Crown to arbitrarily reduce the level of THC that the committee decides is appropriate, (with consideration that cannabis is not a real factor in road accidents) without public consultation.

The Honourable Annette King, Minister of Transport, stated to me in a letter: "I also emphasise that the proposed Bill will no allow a blood test, taken as evidence of a traffic related offence, to be able to be used as evidence of an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975."

This might be the case, but in reality there is nothing to stop the police arriving at your door the next day/week/month claim they smelled cannabis smoke and invoke the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and search your premisses

If the committee does not consider these points and act on them, then they are not drafting a bill to protect drivers on New Zealand's roads, but supplying a weapon to be added to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

I implore you to take serious consideration of all the credible studies rather than roadside and phone surveys. Because currently this bill is leaning towards zero levels of THC in the blood, and considering that around 10 percent of New Zealanders use cannabis regularly, (if cannabis was such a problem on our roads the statistics would show that) will undoubtedly only cause nothing but harm to members of our societies.

Steven Wilkinson. (post code 7182)

The hearing will be in March/April
_________________
Regulation will set cannabis free

GassRoots is you


Home :: About NORML :: About Marijuana :: Hemp :: Medical Marijuana :: Your Rights :: Laws :: Get Active :: Politics

National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, New Zealand Inc (NORML NZ) PO Box 3307, Auckland, New Zealand (c) 1998-2007 All rights reserved by NORML New Zealand Inc. except all comments and forum posts which are property of their authors. Powered by PHP-Nuke