Do our minor parties have the membership to be eligible for the 2011 election?

I wonder if any of our minor parties are ineligible for the 2011 election.

A fact that I just found out from the Electoral Office is that not only does a group need to attain 500 members to become a party, it also needs to keep 500 on its books to remain a legal entity.

The Electoral Finance Act (1993) states in Section 67, Clause 3 that

“It shall be the duty of the secretary of any political party registered under this Act—

(Part d) to notify the Electoral Commission if the number of current financial members of the party who are eligible to enrol as electors falls below 500”

The Act goes on to explain in section 70, clause 2 of the ramifications of not keeping membership above 500, “The Electoral Commission shall cancel the registration of any political party on being satisfied that the number of current financial members of the party who are eligible to enrol as electors has fallen below 500.”

Political parties are duty bound to provide a declaration every year that their membership is above 500 and the Electoral Office pretty much takes that as gospel. Officially they can challenge the declaration if they are not satisfied, in doing this the Electoral Office can request the members list, and for evidence on how the information on the list was gathered. I am reliably informed this ‘challenge’ has never happened to any party.

To be a member on a political party list you must be an eligible voter which means you must be living, over 18, a NZ Citizen who has been in the country sometime in the past three years or a Permanent Resident who has been in the country sometime in the past 12 months. Finally you must not be incarcerated at the time of the election.

So of our minor parties, are there any that don’t fulfil that membership criteria?

I have just spoken with ‘Margaret’ at ACT’s head office and asked her about how many members ACT has, and how they check if their members are eligible voters. Margaret let me know that they had about 1,000 members and when they send out renewal forms they had to sign the bottom declaring they were over 18. ACT does not check any of the other criteria to ensure their members are eligible voters. Margaret tells me that she would know if any of the members were not in the country during the previous 3 years as ‘the membership is so small’ that she knows them all. When I questioned her on ‘knowing’ 1,000 people I was informed that the board members check to see if anyone was off shore making them ineligible.

‘Michael’ at The Greens tells me that they check to make sure their members are eligible by comparing names of members to the electoral role. The Greens say if they are eligible to vote, they are eligible members…not strictly true when you think that this process must happen every year as a declaration to the Electoral Office which means in theory members could vote in an election, then move offshore for a period of time (or end up in prison) and no longer be eligible.

The Maori Party openly accept members who are not eligible, they have some members as young as 13 years of age, and their checks on the criteria around location is based around someone’s address. However they have 15,000 active members according to Te Orohi Paul, which would mean even if there are some members who would breach the criteria they would still have more than enough to breach the 500 threshold.

The Revenue Minister and Honourable Peter Dunne spoke to me personally when I phoned United Future, and whilst first stating UF won’t disclose numbers of memberships stating the membership was ‘substantially in excess of [500]’, by the end of our cordial chat, and upon hearing that other parties had disclosed their numbers, Mr. Dunne estimated the membership to be around the 800 mark. When pressed about how UF confirms that his membership is eligible I was told that there was a revamp of how they do it this year, including conversations with the Electoral Office and a new form was in place. On the new form there was now a place to make sure the members are eligible. The form asks if the member is over 18, and eligible to vote. Nowhere on the form does it explain actually what criteria are needed to be fulfilled to be eligible.

Although they are not in parliament presently, and most don’t seem to think they’ll be there after November 26^th, I thought it might be interesting to find out how NZ First has gone with its membership since 2008. Membership Secretary Tracey Martin explained that it was party policy that they would not release how many members they have, explaining that it was no use to anyone but her to know that number. She made it clear that she had to sign the declaration with the Electoral Office each year and that was all the information that I should require. They do check their memberships against the electoral role and they must have a valid NZ address which once again puts them in the same camp as The Greens where NZ First is putting the onus of truth onto their members that the information they are giving is true on whether they are eligible.

The idea around looking at minor party membership began when I heard ‘whispers’ that ACT and United Future didn’t have the 500 members required to be eligible party to compete in the election…pure rumour no evidence given, however an interesting observation began to take shape when I told the various minor parties about what I was writing about without mentioning what rumours I had heard, they almost all mentioned ACT and United Future not having 500 members. Was this true...or  had I become a patsy in a smear campaign against two of the minor parties supporting the National Government?

So are ACT and United Future viable? Was their claim to me that that had 1,000 and 800 members respectively accurate?

I told ACT of the whispers and asked if there were prepared to release their list of members, or provide other evidence of their numbers to dispel the rumour and was told by Party Secretary Gary Mallet that he ‘was not interested in dispelling the myth’ and ‘why would [he] do that…what was in it for [him]?’ and then he promptly hung up. Likewise United Future, upon hearing of the rumour said they had more members than required to ‘satisfy the 500.’

I don’t necessarily think there is a smoking gun here, it’s not my place to accuse party members that their telling ‘porkies’ about their numbers, but the reason I started this wee investigation is that it seems fair that if a new party starting out needs 500 members ala Mana and the Conservative Party then it would seem appropriate that incumbent parties are held to the same standard.

Let me make one thing clear, I am not accusing ACT or United Future of misleading the Electoral Office the idea that a political party would make a false declaration to the Electoral Office is very serious, but what I can say unequivocally is that no party is fulfilling the criteria to ensure that their members are eligible voters. All parties are asking their members to signify that they are eligible, however they are not expecting proof and/or they are not providing the information for their members to know whether they are eligible or not.

Again I don’t suspect that there is a smoking gun here, but this is the highest court in the land, surely we have a duty of care to do things properly.

Why the '81 Springbok Tour needed to happen

An article from the Dominion Post came out today with that famous pantyhose wearing rugby player, Alan Hewson, saying that the 1981 Springbok Tour should not have happened. I disagree.

Alan Hewson says he now is thirty years older that "maybe the Government shouldn't have allowed the tour to take place." I disagree.

I understand the sentiment that comes with the idea that we should not have been a part of the racist regime that ruled South Africa for so long, and with the idea that as a young man you may not make the best decisions, but with 30 years hindsight you could also come to another conclusion.

The protests of that 1981 tour did something to the atmosphere of racism in South Africa, it shone a light on it like never before, it brought to the world a new, ugly understanding, of what some people thought of the apartheid movement. Without the tour that never would have happened, without the tour apartheid may have lasted another 6 months?..6years?..60 years? Well it is fairly arrogant to make the argument that the protests against the tour were the reason for the downfall of apartheid...but there did something to its inevitable decline.

To the people in South Africa who were fighting the system the protests were an inspiration, a shot in the arm to help them continue the fight for their cause. In 1995 Nelson Mandela was in NZ and said in 1981 when he heard of the protests that “the sun shone into the dark cells of Robin Island and transformed the oppressive Soweto dungeons of despair into beacons of hope.” Without the tour this would not have happened. Each one of those protesters should be proud that they brought hope to this man, and his fellow oppressed.

There's an old saying that all things can be used for good...I dunno if I'd go that far, but my hindsight of 30 years says that Nelson Mandela needed that tour, South Africa needed that tour, the world needed that tour to shine a light as bright as the sun on the evil nature of how South Africa was run.

Hindsight brings perspective. If you want an example of what I mean watch the movie Invictus, starring Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman. It's the story of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and whilst there is no 'Suzie', and plenty of Hollywood schmaltz, the basic story is that South Africa needed to win that World Cup to help unite the country. With hindsight, and that knowledge, I don't mind that SA beat us in the final.

Here's a clip...



If Alan Hewson was to ever read this I would say to him that he was an unknowing, unwitting pawn in one of the most important sporting events in recent history that made a tangible difference to the lives of millions of blacks in South Africa, and whilst I agree that Sports and Politics are intrinsically intertwined, with hindsight this is one of the times it worked for good

Awful Quiet on Here

So yes, I've had emails and FB messages asking me if this site still is actually in motion...and the answer is 'Yes!'

Forgive me if you are regular here, but in the last two months we have moved house, started another new business, and have spent the last 5 weeks fixing up the house we moved into.

As from next week it's all really behind us so I look forward to getting back into updating the site often.

I think leading up to the election I will be posting more on the politics of the nation and less on my personal life, maybe FB is the place to be personal, here is all business ;o)

We'll see how the next few months go...oh and BTW

ACT will win Epsom, National has thrown them a bone and Winston will miss out...just to give you a taster :o)

Election Predictions

So Michael emailed me today and challenged all of us to predict the results for the election. Okay lets do it here...

So this is the idea. You will have a chance to list your guesses now, then come 30 August you will have a chance to revise your picks. I will organise two prizes, one for who is closest from the first pick, then one who is closest from the revised picks. We will say there are 122 seats.

Clear as mud?

Here I go with my first guess.
National 53
Labour 47
Greens 11
ACT 6
Maori Party 2
Mana 2
United Future 1

Left/centre left with 60 seats
Right/centre right with 60 seats
Maori Party with the balance of power

My boggle here is NZ First, I acknowledge you should never could Winston out, but right now I don't think they are goers. However if they were I think it would be at the expense of mostly ACT with people looking for a genuine third party and make the win easier for the left.

Put your predictions in the comments below, feel free to make any 'fence sitting' comments as I have done ;o) as well

Debunking the 2012 Conspiracy

The Truth about 2012 from NASA Lunar Science Institute on Vimeo.

Don Brash, defender of the poor and downtrodden

It is fantastic to see that Don Brash is trying to get back into politics with today’s coup of the ACT Party leadership.

Don Brash said in his brief press conference his objectives were to “raise the income levels of all New Zealanders” while making sure that “all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law”. Finally a man in politics who is going to fight for the lower class, to stand up for the marginalised, to speak out for the lower socio-economic groups in NZ. Don Brash is the defender of the poor and downtrodden, a friend to the beneficiary, a campaigner for those in need.

Don Brash is correct, New Zealanders are treated unequally under the law. One 21 year study that looked into this found that Maori offenders were between 2.1 and 2.6 times more likely to get a conviction than a non-Maori offender where there socio-economic standing and repeat offending were similar. Dr. Brash will make sure that Maori offenders are treated the same as non-Maori.

If you have a look at convictions in NZ, 66% of apprehensions of European New Zealanders are resolved by prosecution, whereas 76% of apprehensions of Pacific People end the same way. Pacific People are being treated unfairly under NZ law, Don Brash will be the champion of the Pacific People to make sure they are treated the same under the law.

If you look at the lowest socio-economic groups in NZ, statistics show that they are much more likely to plead guilty to a crime. It is believed that largely this is because they do not have access to the resources to fund a defence campaign as someone in the highest socio-economic group. Don Brash will be a spokesperson for the poor, helping them get equal treatment in NZ courts to the richest people in the country.

If you look at any part of our judicial system, where the wealthy and famous have an advantage then Don Brash will make sure the poorest, least educated and unknown get the same advantages as he wants to ensure that “all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law”. The wealthy get more diversion, more name suppression and more home detention than the rest…not on Dr. Brash’s watch!

And finally, Dr. Brash will be a friend to pensioners and beneficiaries as well as those on the minimum wage. His statement that he intends to “raise the income levels of all New Zealanders” leaves us with only one logical conclusion. That Don Brash will be raising the pension, raising benefits and increasing the minimum wage.

Welcome back to politics Dr. Brash, a man who will passionately work for the marginalised of our beautiful country.

Some Accuracy on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

Some are for this bill, some are against it, but I think what I am seeing is inaccuracy, xenophobia and hysteria around the bill in general by a few loud voices who are being listened to and believed as if they were Jesus Christ himself spelling out the Gospels.

For me, I don’t have a huge issue with this bill, I never have, and I don’t buy into the conspiracy theories that all of a sudden NZ coastlines will be under lock and key with local Iwi denying access.

But rather than an opinion piece today, let’s just start with some facts about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.

In 2004 the then Labour government blocked Maori the ability to have their day in court and challenge to see whether ownership of the foreshore and seabed was their right, this Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill redresses this.

So what does the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill do now that it has passed?

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill allows Maori to go to the courts to put their case for ownership (of sorts) to their ancestral foreshore and seabed. Maori can also negotiate with a Minister one on one, but if they do the negotiated agreement must then be put before parliament to be either approved or not. What the bill doesn’t do is hand the keys to our beaches over to Maori to the detriment of every other person living in NZ. There is due process to go through and Maori have 6 years to lodge a claim.

Maori need to prove exclusive use and occupation of the foreshore and seabed since 1840, which I think will actually be very difficult to do but if they do they will then be granted a new form of property right called ‘Customary Title’

What is Customary Title?

Customary Title is a new form of ‘ownership’ that has many provisions attached to it. If an Iwi get Customary Title they cannot sell the land and they cannot block access for any recreational use of the beach such as swimming or recreational fishing and boating. Under Customary Title Maori can say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to developments on that land including things like marinas and wharfs, they can make money out of minerals excluding gold, silver, petroleum or uranium as they are owned by the crown (which is another conversation altogether). Under Customary Title Maori can also charge developers for the right to build on the land and they will have a say in decisions around planning and conservation. Finally Maori will be able to protect sights deemed culturally significant.

All these provisions apply to the foreshore and seabed, which is the from high tide mark out to sea about 26m kilometres. It doesn’t include above the high tide mark, and it doesn’t include any land adjacent to the beach itself.

Let’s bring some context to this idea now.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will affect about 2,000 kilometres of our coastline, or about 11%, and we have groups like the Coastal Coalition and ACT scaremongering that Kiwis will lose access to all beaches.

In 2003, prior to the whole Foreshore and Seabed Act debate starting, the then Labour Government was looking into the Queens Chain. The Labour Government released some figures showing that of the “18,000 kilometres of New Zealand coastline, around a third, is in private hands.” So right now, about one third of our coastline is owned privately, mostly by non-Maori. Those private owners can have say over what developments happen on their land, they can make money off developers and they have say over planning and conservation. But most importantly you can be denied access to those beaches because it’s private land.

ACT and the Coastal Coalition seem to not have mentioned to NZ that this is the case already, surely if they had the courage of their convictions if would be better for New Zealanders if they started the process to take back one third of our coastlines from those who already own it, and have a much more detrimental legal use of them than the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will ever give Maori.

Here’s the thing, what you are hearing from those loud voices telling you that you will be denied access to the beaches is opinion, not fact. Now everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be, but my desire is for people to make their own opinions based on the facts laid before them, which is hopefully what I have done in this post. My one concern is that New Zealanders are hearing opinion, taking it as fact, and spreading it as if it is Gospel.

If you read this article, and come to the same opinion as the ACT party, then bless you, at least you can’t claim ignorance. For me, as I said at the start, this Bill is not something I am worried about, and I think that if anyone is being divisive in this conversation it’s those spreading opinion and rumour as fact.

According to MSNBC...American's are liberal

Happy Waitangi Day everybody!!!!

I hope you're all doing something fun today.

I just wanted to be the first to say to you..."Happy Waitangi Day!"

Pat

TVNZ Stitch up Hone Harawira

I read about the ‘lone’ protestor at Waitangi today on stuff.co.nz this afternoon. He is Wikitana Popata, nephew of MP Hone Harawira. I read that he took to a megaphone and claimed that John Key is the author of all that is wrong in Maoridom, here is what he said of John Key in a post protest interview…

“Many of my people still live off our rivers in Aotearoa, he is the one responsible for murdering and killing a lot of our people.”

“He is the one responsible for mining throughout Aotearoa.”

“He is the one responsible for stealing our foreshore, for stealing our land.”

“He is the one responsible for the injustice to my people.”

For video you can visit stuff.co.nz

Of course NZ knows that this is not the case, however we live in a free and democratic society where we have the right to air and voice our opinions even if most of us would disagree with them. In fact we probably should be encouraged to voice our opinions more often. Most of us would be more comfortable with a more ‘sanitary’ version perhaps than what we saw today…however I think that is the point of today’s protest.

I then read that Hone Harawira has told reporters that he was proud of his nephew for standing up for what they believe in and voicing their beliefs in the only way young people know how to do.

Fair enough, I thought, he hasn’t gone as far as to back the content of the protest in full, he has just said that he was proud that his nephew was passionate enough about a topic to make his views known.

Then I was watching OneNews tonight and I saw that they spun this story to imply that Hone Harawira is fully in support of what was said.

Jessica Mutch on voiceover “Hone Harawira’s chances of uniting with Labour or National are slim when he says things like this about Wikitana Popata protesting against the Prime Minister, “I was quite proud of the protest actually”

I think TVNZ has stitched up Hone Harawira, but is it an innocent mistake, or is there some malice here? Either way they portrayed Hone Harawira’s statement without the context that I read on stuff.co.nz this afternoon.

Now the truth is that Hone Harawira may agree entirely with what his nephew was saying, but that’s not how it has been reported (except by TVNZ). He picked his words carefully, even to the point of not wanting to comment on what was said because he wasn’t there and, according to numerous media sources including the ODT, didn’t hear everything that was said.

So why did TVNZ imply that he supported what his nephew had said?

Was it poor journalism? Was it a genuine mistake? Was it context that wasn’t shown in the Stuff article?

Or is it that we are wanting a villain in this election year? Winston Peters turned out to be the villain last time around with the debacle around Owen Glen, and you have to admit, Hone fits that mould pretty easily.

For me I think that Hone Harawira is not playing a smart hand right now, I don’t mean to offend or incite by that comment, I just think when you’re on the inside you can make a difference without losing your mana or compromising your principles. The people of Te Tai Tokerau love Hone, and if he chooses to run in the upcoming election he will be there next term. I just wonder how he will forward the cause of his constituents by standing on the outside throwing stones at those on the inside.