United Future Blogs | Peter's Position

Post Act?

Wed, 09 May 2012 10:45:50 +1200

Speculation about the imminent death of ACT, and its replacement in National’s affections by the Conservative Party has all of the flavour of out of the frying pan into the fire.

Why would a small “c” conservative Party like National want to rid itself of a right wing extremist group like ACT, with all of the problems that has caused over the last five years, only to replace it with an even more extreme moral jihadist group like the Conservative Party? The strange people in ACT are nothing compared to what lurks within the Conservatives, with their odd mix of populists, economic right wingers, and religious fundamentalists. None of them seem to fit the National flavour that John Key has created, and any union between them would simply replace the current set of difficulties, with an even greater set in the future.

Of course it could be said, with some legitimacy, that politicians will do anything to stay in power, so an alliance with the Conservatives, or even a rapprochement with New Zealand First for that purpose cannot be ruled out. The obvious response would be that the inherent instability of both options (the Conservatives are totally untried, and New Zealand First has never lasted the distance in a governing arrangement) makes both at best extremely short term, inevitably unsuccessful, steps to take that will simply end up embarrassing and humiliating National. So why would they be the author of their own destruction?

All of which raises another possibility. Every now and then, ever since the demise of Sir Joseph Ward, there is a call for the re-establishment of a Liberal Party in New Zealand. Occasionally, the flame flickers a little more brightly, as in 1963 when a Liberal Party actually contested the election that year with minimal success.

The essence of modern liberalism, or radical centrism as it has come to be known in Britain is two fold – a commitment, as always, to personal and economic freedom, through open market economies and free trade, but balanced by the acceptance of government responsibility to look after the vulnerable through the education, health and welfare systems. The party which most accurately qualifies for the description of New Zealand’s version of a modern Liberal Party is UnitedFuture. Its economic credentials are certainly clear, and the Party’s principles show strong commitment to personal responsibility and the role of the state in caring for the less well off.

Such an option is easily and readily written off by all the media commentators, but needs exploring. A genuine modern liberal party, and not a neo-liberal quasi libertarian variation like ACT used to be before it became riddled by scandal, might yet be the antidote National needs to stave off the extremism of the Conservatives. But for it to become a reality, National will have to do more than just wish for it.

We can't help but wonder...

Tue, 01 May 2012 20:54:05 +1200

First published by "Keeping Stock" blog 1/5/2012

" Charles Chauvel is Labour's Justice spokesman, and the shadow Attorney General.So we can't help but wonder; has anyone called for him to stand aside from his shadow portfolio, given that he was referred to the Police in August 2011 over an alleged breach of the Electoral Act? You see, he too denies any wrongdoing:

Labour MP Charles Chauvel is being investigated by police for allegedly breaking new election advertising laws with a survey.

The Electoral Commission has ruled the Ohariu Census pamphlet breaks the Electoral Act because they do not explicitly state who authorised their publication.

The independent body, which supervises election campaigns, referred the matter to police two days ago.

New laws introduced last year tightened up rules. Breaking the law carries a maximum $40,000 fine.

Last month Labour was referred to police after the Commission decided their Stop Asset Sales postcard broke the same rules.

About 800,000 of the flyers were sent out to campaign against National's plans to partially sell off state-owned energy companies.

It followed the pledge card scandal of 2005 when police were called in after Labour broke election spending rules.

Chauvel was unaware of the police investigation until telephoned by a Fairfax journalist this afternoon.

"I do not agree that the publication breaches the Act,'' he said.

The Police investigation has not yet been concluded (to the best of our knowledge), so Charles Chauvel is entitled to the presumption of innocence, just as John Banks is.

Sure; Chauvel is not a Minister, but is it a good look for Labour to be calling for John Banks to stand aside when their own most senior MP in the legal side of things is also being investigated by the Police for legal irregularities? "

Liberal Democrats and Kermit the Frog

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:21:48 +1200

There are times when I empathise with Kermit the Frog.

While Kermit sometimes laments that it is not easy being green, I sometimes lament that being in the political centre is not always easy.

The liberal centrist approach requires a sensibility and a pragmatism that often does not sit comfortably with the prevailing political debate. It is inevitably much easier to be “for” something, or “against “ it in a sort of soapbox way, than it is to take a more discerning approach based on the particular circumstances of the time and the best response to them.

To the cynic such detached objectivism is not only passionless, and therefore lacking commitment, but also unprincipled and opportunist, easily dismissed as “wishy-washy”, or “standing for nothing”, or “just having an eye for the main chance.” Far better, the cynic argues to be unmistakeably “right” or “wrong” as the case may be, because at least that way everyone is left in no doubt as to where you stand, regardless of the consequences.

In fact, in the cynic’s eyes, that is probably the cardinal sin of the centrist – the ability to see the beneficial points in both sides of the argument and to pick one’s way carefully through a course that focuses on achieving those, rather than becoming bogged down in the points of disagreement. Even worse, there might be occasions when the centrist changes course, because circumstances have changed. To the cynic, this is tantamount to capitulation. Far better it would seem to doggedly and rigidly stick to a course that is wrong or outdated, because that at least provides clarity, than to change tack in the light of new circumstances and work to achieve one’s objectives within that.

And then there is the argument about principles. Principles, it would seem, are the millstones ideologically based political parties attach to their own necks. To the liberal centrist, however, principles are enduring values which enable one to decide how to respond effectively to changing times and the actual situation. To the cynic, being rigidly “for” or “against” something is principled – whereas using principles to guide behaviour is “convenient” or “pragmatic” in the most disparaging way.

All of which brings me back to Kermit. He endures, not because he is a green puppet frog, but because the persona his character reflects is one many people relate to – a decent, honest guy, doing his best for those around him, and gently pricking the balloons of the more self-important, ridiculous and pompous characters he associates with. Similarly, the liberal centrist espouses and operates by the values of decency and honesty, and getting things done, while pricking the balloons of social and political pretension.

While, like Kermit, it is not always easy, it is invariably worthwhile.

Time to put the ?local? back into local government

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:46:57 +1300

UnitedFuture believes in the powers of communities, be they neighbourhoods, suburbs, towns or cities to make the decisions that affect them.

But too often in recent years that has happened because local government has been anything but – pursuing agendas that while suiting its elites often have little to do with communities they are supposed to serve, who simply end up paying ever increasing rates, and wearing the debts.

So, it is time to put the “local” back into local government, to ensure it primarily serves its communities and meets their basic needs as its priority. But it is also time to recognise that central government has its responsibilities too, and is equally obligated to meet those in the interests of the nation as a whole. Any reform of local government cannot mean that central government takes the easy way out at the same time, with the consequence being essential services are no longer provided.

Proposed reforms announced recently by the Minister of Local Government are on the right track, but the devil will always be in the detail. UnitedFuture supports the retention of a power of general competence, but also supports the prioritisation of responsibility the Minister is proposing. The regime of fiscal responsibility that central government has operated under for almost twenty years ought to be applied to local government as well. This is especially relevant for many asset rich, cash poor (elderly in the main) people who want to stay in their own homes, but risk being forced to move out because they can longer afford the rates bill.

Some have suggested freezing rates as a solution, but this is too blunt an instrument, which will simply run local government into the ground, so UnitedFuture rejects that option. We also reject the do-nothing option that some are favouring, because local government has been in a state of flux since the late 1980s. Labour’s 1989 reorganisation was never fully completed, and National’s gutting of regional councils in 1991 was short-sighted. Labour’s 2000 changes failed to tackle the basic problem. And the political squabbling over the Auckland super-city was simply unedifying all round.

Efficient, well run local government is an important way of ensuring our communities’ voices can be heard, and of contributing to wider economic and social development. But that cannot become an excuse for duplication of services, mounting debt, inefficiency, and the pursuit of pet hobby horses.

It is also time to look at how major regions like Wellington, for example, are organised. How feasible is it for a region of 450,000 people (including the Wairarapa) to have seven territorial authorities, at least five community boards, one regional authority and nearly three district health boards? The more local government we have, does not of itself mean that the more local that government is.

UnitedFuture on Asset Sales

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:00:20 +1300

I see some are suggesting that UnitedFuture has abruptly changed its position on asset sales since the election, having previously been opposed to all such sales.

This is simply not true, so let me outline UnitedFuture’s long-held position, clearly and simply. While wholesale asset sales are not UnitedFuture policy, we had as long ago as the 2005 general election promoted selling shares in selected state assets to promote their expansion. This was similar to the mixed ownership model National was to promote at last year’s election.

In fact, I had discussed the arguments in detail in a blog over a year ago. I had written that,

“…. the nub of the issue is what is the best way to expand the capital base of certain government owned trading and commercial organisations so that they can compete effectively in today’s business environment. Should that investment be directly from the government (and if so, how should it be financed – higher charges, higher taxes, more borrowing)? Are we as taxpayers prepared to accept any or all of the above solutions as the price of retaining New Zealand ownership (“sovereignty” to some) of our assets? And, for a start, do we even agree with the proposition that they need to expand and grow, or are we quite happy to leave things as they are? If we accept the capital expansion argument, but do not like the idea of more government money going into them, what alternatives are there? The most obvious one is simply to sell the whole lot, lock, stock and barrel to the highest bidder. Apart from the ACT Party no-one is seriously suggesting that. So, what are we left with? Share floats of minority holdings, aimed at local investors, and with some controls about limits on overseas ownership come to mind here. That seems to be what John Key is talking about. In this regard, it is worth noting that groups as diverse as New Zealand First (up to a maximum stake of 24.9%) and Labour’s finance spokesperson (for subsidiary investments of state companies) have floated similar concepts in the recent past.”

Our stance on National’s plans, made public before the 2011 General Election, was that, as a government support partner, UnitedFuture’s responsibility is not just to contribute its own policies, but to help keep a government to a reasonable, centrist path. Our pledge then and since was to respect that the public had returned a National-led government with this policy, but to moderate any asset sales in a way that would make them more acceptable to most New Zealanders. (See our campaign launch video at www.unitedfuture.org.nz/four-key-election-issues-animated-video-1/)

As a party we had therefore ruled out ever supporting any sales – partial or whole – of Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand or our water supplies.

We further said (on 1 November 2011) that in the case of the four energy companies and Air New Zealand, which National was proposing to sell a portion of, that we believed the Government should retain a minimum of 51% control, and that there should be limits on the holdings able to be purchased by individuals or entities, and that New Zealand household investors be given preferential purchase rights at time of issue. (See www.united.future.org.nz/asset-sales-1/).

UnitedFuture’s confidence and supply agreement, negotiated with National after the election, confirms all these points and is therefore consistent in every regard with our pre-election policy. That is why UnitedFuture will support the Government’s plans to introduce a mixed-ownership model for the four energy companies and Air New Zealand.

A Liberal Party for New Zealand?

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:14:56 +1300

Every now and then, ever since the demise of Sir Joseph Ward, there is a call for the re-establishment of a Liberal Party in New Zealand. Occasionally, the flame flickers a little more brightly, as in 1963 when a Liberal Party actually contested the election that year with minimal success.

The call has been made again in some quarters following the ACT Party’s near demise at this year’s general election, but is not without its problems. For a start, the assumption that ACT was a Liberal Party to begin with is highly dubious, and, second we actually already have such a Party on the New Zealand scene.

ACT may well qualify on the personal and economic freedom grounds, but fails the test completely in terms of social policy commitments. Indeed, the form of liberalism it espouses is more in line with that of 1870s Britain, and today is arguably more libertarian than liberal. Given that, and its apparent looming flirtation with the Conservative Party (the new religious right of New Zealand politics) it cannot credibly claim to be even just the ashes from which the phoenix of a new Liberal Party should arise.

There is another party which far more accurately qualifies for the description of New Zealand’s version of a modern Liberal Party, and that is UnitedFuture. Its economic credentials are certainly clear, and the Party’s principles show strong commitment to personal responsibility and the role of the state in caring for the less well off.

So, as the debate about whither the true Liberal voice in New Zealand politics picks up, it should be not so much a case of trying to create a “new” Liberal Party in New Zealand, but more one of recognising the one we already have, and bolstering its position.

Voters decide ?deals?, not politicians

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:40:51 +1200

UnitedFuture has just held its annual conference here in the Ohariu electorate as we prepare ourselves for the coming election both nationally and locally.

Our guest speaker was Prime Minister John Key. People have a sense of him as a straight-up Kiwi bloke who you can back and trust. I have to say that is exactly my experience from three years of working very positively with him.

Pundits and self-appointed experts everywhere read symbolism and intent into all these things – including him coming to our conference – and that is fine.

My political opponents on the left here in Ohariu have feigned great indignation at 'deals' being done and the likes, all the while between them saying 'don't vote for me, vote for the other guy'. Apparently months of such instructions do not amount to a deal by their cute definitions!

I find that a little confounding, but they are right about one thing. Ohariu is a bellwether electorate for whether voters want a centre government or a left-wing government.

And to be blunt, it is about whether you want a Minister in the next government fighting for your interests and Wellington's interests, or whether you want your MP to be part of a weak and increasingly dysfunctional Labour opposition.

Ohariu will not get a strong voice in government with the latter choice, nor will Wellington.

So, yes, come November, Ohariu voters will get a very clear choice for the centre and a second-term National-led Government in which John Key has clearly signalled that he wants to include UnitedFuture as a valued support partner, or into the political abyss with a Labour MP who will not be in a position to achieve anything for Ohariu.

I never have bought the line about politicians doing deals. The voters work out the 'deal' they want. They always have and always will. It is called democracy.

As I said in my conference speech, my role in this Government has been highlighted by knocking Kronic out of the picture, being pivotal as Revenue Minister in lowering taxes, and now being charged by the Prime Minister with delivering a fairer, better Child Support system which New Zealand desperately needs.

So yes, the Prime Minister and National have said they want the party and electorate vote almost everywhere, but they are only seeking the party vote here in Ohariu. I take nothing for granted, however. They say the best indicator of future performance is past performance and I will stand on my record.

Kiwis should be able to choose their retirement age

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:09:22 +1200

I have been very happy with the response UnitedFuture’s radical superannuation policy that I announced last week. The word among the Parliamentary Press Gallery journalists was that they were all doing calculations of the ‘what would it mean for me’ variety!

Our policy is to give New Zealanders a choice that they do not currently have, to retire with superannuation anywhere from 60 to 70, rather than the current flat non-option of 65.

And the beauty of our policy is that it will cost government no more than the current scheme does.

People would be able take up superannuation at reduced rates from 64 down to 60, or enhanced rates from 66 to 70, or if they prefer, just as it is now at 65.

To give this choice, KiwiSaver – which has been adopted at a phenomenal rate by 1.75 million New Zealanders already – would be made compulsory.

New Zealanders already recognise that KiwiSaver is the anchor of their retirement savings, and will only grow in significance.

Our policy is effectively a circuit-breaker on the whole superannuation sustainability argument and the growing debate on whether it needs to be pushed out from 65 to 67.

That simply becomes redundant with a compulsory KiwiSaver scheme, and a full choice for New Zealanders aged from 60 to 70 on when they retire and take their super.

Superannuation is also fundamentally a hip-pocket issue for people, and our policy recognises that.

On current superannuation levels, a couple who get $522 a week when they turn 65 could choose to wait to 70 and get $840 a week. Equally if they instead chose to wait until, say, 67 and get $630 a week.

“If they wish to retire earlier than 65, then they would receive a slightly reduced amount at 64, and lesser again at 63 and 62, down to 60.

Similarly, a single person could still collect the current $339 per week, or on today’s figures get $410 if they waited to 67 or $546 at 70.

Kiwis would then be able to manage their retirement age and lifestyle and, as I say, it is cost neutral with the current scheme.

People can work out what works best for them based on their lifestyle and aspirations.

Guest Post: Marty Gibson, UF Regional Spokesman, Gisborne/East Coast

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:19:35 +1200

Read below for an op-ed Marty wrote for the Gisborne Herald on Petrobas and offshore prospecting. Great thinking, great writing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE was a much nicer tone at Thursday night’s “What Lies Beneath?” meeting to discuss the gas and minerals that might lurk in and around the East Coast.

It was good to have the exploration advocates here face to face, allowed to put their case forward to some of those who have been protesting against the Government’s done deal with Petrobras for prospecting rights in the Raukumara Basin.

It was a shame Greenpeace’s “climate change campaigner”, musician Steve Abel couldn’t make it.

Many of those Greenpeace-type folks who fired up the locals and sabotaged the initial survey are not keen on any big industry other than protesting, so where does that leave us as a region?

To read Greenpeace’s New Zealand website is to experience the “oppressive father” complex, which gives some folks the urge to find victims they can herd and defend from what they perceive as patriarchal authority.

“Stop climate change!” it demands. “Stop fossil fuels!” “Stop nuclear power!”

All would be nice, all are impossible right now, without a Pol Pot solution including massive world depopulation.

“Give us money by direct credit!” zealous young Greenpeace collectors periodically demand of the folks on Gladstone Road who struggle to pay power bills rising thanks to the global climate taxes cheered on by New Zealand actors on behalf of Greenpeace.

They offer no practical alternatives to coal, gas, oil and nuclear power because their buzz is to sensationally point out problems, not offer solutions.

I’m not necessarily pro-drilling or pro-mining but I appreciate their benefits every day, as do all the protesters.

With my degree in geology, and work experience that includes plastics engineering and setting up and running a big quarry, I could be mining up a storm in Perth by the end of next week.

Although I would make much more money than I do here, this is my home, and my family have lived peacefully and worked hard here for eight generations.

I love our bush and ocean, but know they are not pristine. I worry about the spiritual, social, economic and environmental health of our region — and it takes more than slogans, bad information, and doing nothing to find solutions.

It is understandable that ahi kaa Maori feel left out of the process, but their lawyers and leaders must have known about it, because the people who objected to their claims being absorbed by runanga asked them why they had signed a deal that said nothing about mineral wealth.

Rather than forming an orderly herd of victims, why don’t we ask what’s in it for us and soberly consider the point at which it might be worth it?

How about if it funded biofuel development? If every river bank and gully in the district was planted, reducing erosion and improving kaimoana on the coast? If mills could be built to process the district’s pines here? If more predator-proof mainland islands were made to preserve our native ecology? What if it meant a government department and its $100,000+ jobs moved here?

Our leaders did not champion any such arguments, but the message the professional protesters gave Petrobras on our behalf was: “Go Away!” which is as bad as our leaders’ message of “Do what you want!”

Faced with the expensive interruption of their survey Petrobras justifiably said to the Government: “You encouraged us to invest in this area and we did so in accordance with your laws and brochures; these people don’t have their facts right, are you going to enforce the law or what?”

So the navy turned up.

Being herded and defended ain’t necessarily the same as being empowered to exercise mana motuhake.

- Marty Gibson

DNA testing a must in paternity disputes

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:44:56 +1200

I had an article in the opinion pages of the Dominion Post today. It read as follows:

There are many reasons why relationships fail and parents separate. Those reasons are complex and invariably unique to each couple and relationships in the end are not and should not be the business of government.

The ongoing welfare of the children from those relationships, on the other hand, is and should be the concern of government.

The reality is that nearly one in three New Zealand children are growing up in a house without both of their biological parents.

Many children have never lived with both their parents, and it is often their father who the children do without, while many, sadly, do not even know who their dad is.

There are mothers who do not want the father on the scene for any number of reasons, some good, some not so good. And there are fathers who do not want the responsibilities of fatherhood, in the middle, there are children who have the right to be supported and loved by both their parents.

In the case of all children, but boys in particular, the absence of a father can be extremely detrimental. Research has shown time and again how important a strong male role-model is to a boy’s social development.

While the Government has no control over the causes of broken relationships, I believe it can do a much better job in helping both parents to stay fully engaged with their children.

This is one of the foremost reasons why I have reviewed the child support system.

I have always said that entering the child support system should be a last resort for parents; it is always better that people come to their own co-operative, reasonable arrangements for the sake of their children. Child support is there for those who cannot do this.

Being in the child support system requires both parents to have at least some engagement in their child’s life. The unfortunate reality is that there are many parents out there who cannot even get that far.

They cannot either prove that they are a parent and be accepted as such in a child’s life, or they are able to avoid that responsibility.

Compulsory DNA paternity testing is a good place to start.

Compulsory DNA paternity testing would allow a man who has reasonable grounds to believe he either is or is not the father of a child to make an application for a paternity order.

Equally, a woman would be able to bring to account a man in denial about being the father of a child, and make him face up to his responsibilities.
These orders would empower the Family Court to make it compulsory for a buccal sample – in layman’s terms, a swab – be taken from the child and those persons whose parentage is in dispute.

Under the current law, unless both potential parents agree, a DNA paternity test cannot be carried out. Difficulty arises where a parent with guardianship rights and responsibilities withholds consent to the child being tested. This usually involves a mother withholding consent, but not always.

Up until the 1980s, parentage testing was done with blood tests. At best, this could dismiss the possibility or assess the degree of probability that a person was a parent. Modern DNA testing where all parties (father, mother, and child) submit a sample is almost 100 percent accurate in identifying the father.

So, why are DNA paternity tests not already compulsory given that one of the most basic rights of a child is to know who its parents are?

The last Labour Government tried to justify a lack of action by arguing that they were protecting children’s ‘common law rights’ not to undergo a DNA test and hence a cheek swab.

In my opinion this was a total cop-out.

All parties have a right to know who a child’s biological parent is.

It really is a matter of applying some commonsense, and recognising that there is a greater good at play that far outweighs rather academic civil liberty concerns over a cheek swab.

My former UnitedFuture colleague and MP Judy Turner drew up a Member’s Bill that would make compulsory DNA paternity testing law. Unfortunately, while the Bill was introduced, it did not manage to get to the First Reading stage before the last election.

As a Minister, I am not able to sponsor a Member’s Bill, so I was delighted to see National MP Nicky Wagner recognise the need to do something and subsequently take the Bill on.

I am thrilled that the Bill has a sponsor, and I hope that it is drawn from the ballot and makes it back to the House.

In the meantime I urge the Government to stop sitting on its hands, take the Bill up as Government legislation and get it passed as soon as possible.

The future children of New Zealand will thank us for it. They deserve to know who their dads are.

UnitedFuture: Keeping National anchored in the centre.

Mon, 09 May 2011 13:13:41 +1200

Late last week Don Brash successfully completed his hostile takeover of ACT, and I said at the time that his victory may well delight one in twenty voters, but it would ring alarm bells for the other nineteen.

I stand by that.

A Don Brash-led ACT in a position to push National to the far right after the next election will concern the vast majority of New Zealanders who are not of a far right disposition.

Behind Brash’s gentlemanly ways and old school manners is a rigid far right ideologue whose right wing economic ‘purity’ means he will not hesitate to ‘burn the village to save it’.

Make no mistake, if Don Brash has influence over the next government just watch the New Zealand that we know become a harsher, more brutal place.

In saying all this, Ohariu voters are actually going to have a unique say in the composition of the next government in a way that few other electorates do.

I work hard for this electorate and all the people in it, and I stand by my record of achievement for Ohariu. But I also lead the UnitedFuture Party, and if the ACT threat is to be countered, then it is the centrist UnitedFuture that can do it.

Quite apart from the electorate vote for an MP, people will need to consider in the next few months just what party they want supporting National (and yes, it will be National leading the next government – Labour is in total meltdown).

New Zealanders generally, and the people of Ohariu, will need to decide if they want ACT driving National to the right, or UnitedFuture keeping National anchored firmly in the centre.

As I say, nineteen out of twenty New Zealanders will most assuredly be horrified by an ACT-driven government.

People have a lot of thinking to do before now and the November election. The very type and shape of the government we have will depend on it.

Arrogant Old Men

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:57:54 +1200

The breathtaking arrogance of the right wing of politics never ceases to amaze me.

The clumsy, Don Brash fronted (but no doubt manipulated by others) attempt to take over the leadership of the ACT Party is a classic case in point. The purity of the cause seems always to outweigh the practicalities, let alone the sensibilities of those involved. In earlier times, it was the type of grandiose pomposity that led to the great imperial conquests that sowed the seeds of so much of the bitterness our world now struggles to redress. Or, in its most sinister form, it gave rise to the pursuit of lebensraum that led to the enslavement of most of Europe and the most despicable ethnic cleansing the world has ever seen.

Now, admittedly, both of these examples are a long way from the current travails of the ACT Party and the intrigues of Dr Brash and his boy scout conspirators. However, there is a fundamental link worth noting – the rigid adherence to ideology. In this instance, it is apparently because John Key has not been sufficiently right wing as Prime Minister that is the point of irritation (not the more salient political fact that he is the most popular right leaning Prime Minister in living memory). So, he has to be given a good dose of ideology (a little bit like the ghastly concoctions our parents used to ram down our throats to ward off winter ills) to bring him back on course. And that cure can only be provided by a good dose of hard right medicine.

This latest hapless band of (dare I say elderly) brothers rail against the political correctness of the left as nanny state interventionism, and mother knows best politics, while at the same time arguing it is time to do “what is right for country”, rather than what people want and thought they voted for. And through it all they fail to see the extraordinary irony of their position. Their cure is the modern “doctor state” interventionism. This blindness to reality is what happens when one becomes so blinkered by ideology to see the world for what it is any more.

All this would be a pathetic joke, if it were not so serious. These political Don Quixotes might be left to tilt happily at windmills into their dotage, except for the possibility that they might gain a toehold of political power, and therefore drag the Key government unwillingly down their path as the price of support. A National-led government beholden to these extremists would be just as bad as a Labour-led government held hostage by the Greens and Hone Harawira.

That is where UnitedFuture comes in. Our moderate liberal centrism based around sound economics, good social policy and a commitment to preserving our heritage accords with the aspirations of a good many New Zealanders, and we can be their bulwark against extremism, if given the opportunity. John Key’s next government does not have to face the prospect of having to accommodate the sterile, harsh politics of the past the far right now offers up once more. And Labour voters who have written off their party, but who may grudgingly accept a moderate National-led government, also have a way out.

It comes down to this – if UnitedFuture is not playing a significant role in the next John Key government, then what currently looks like a political comedy on the far right, will become a national nightmare of significant proportions. The classic no-brainer, really.

Zealandia gem out of touch and out of reach?

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:46:06 +1200

Wellington City Councillor John Morrison has recently been talking some good sense on the Zealandia wildlife sanctuary in Karori when he says it does not seem to know if it is a tourist attraction or a wildlife sanctuary

Unfortunately, he thinks it seems to be falling somewhere in the middle.

I think he is right.

And in the midst of that confusion, Wellingtonians are getting a little done-over, as ratepayers getting hit up yet again to provide more funding on top of the original $10.3 million interest-free loan that helped launch Zealandia on the one hand, and facing high-end admission fees when they wish to visit it, on the other.

Zealandia should be a jewel in the crown for Wellington. It is a fantastic resource, and anyone living in the hills nearby – as I do – can only enjoy and appreciate the renewed native birdsong.

Zealandia should be right up there with Te Papa and Weta Studios and the Botanic Gardens as a ‘must see’, not just for us locals, but when we have guests from out of town.

But at $28 for an adult and $14 for a child, or $70 for a family if you want to do anything more than just walk through, we are talking a pricey trip. Indeed, if you do just want to walk through with none of the whiz-bang technology, you are up for $18 an adult and $9 a child.

Add in any out of town family or friends you might want to take, and be prepared to take a serious hit to your weekly budget.

I wonder how many people do the maths and just look for the next – and cheaper – attraction? Anecdotal evidence that I hear suggests plenty.

We are living in financially straitened times as a nation, and most certainly as families.

Everyone everywhere is tightening their belt – both the Government and ordinary New Zealanders.

There is a new air of financial responsibility in New Zealand today, and Zealandia need to demonstrate some very sensible and innovative stewardship over the next few years, in its thinking about how to run Zealandia, what it is, what it should be and what they expect people to pay through rates or admission fees.

Let's get back to basics

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:32:34 +1200

When I was a kid we had a poster on the door of our toilet which read “When you’re up to your arse in alligators, it sometimes hard to remember you set out to drain the swamp.” It is a salient reminder to all of us, politicians particularly, about not losing focus, and always remembering our basic purpose.

Over the last couple of weeks there have been three issues which I see coming within this category. They are all good initiatives, fundamentally focused on making live better for New Zealand families.

First was my announcement that the sale and promotion of synthetic cannabis products is to be restricted to persons over the age of 18 years. While an outright ban might have been preferable, it is as far as we can reasonably go at present, but I am hopeful of law changes in the future that will enable us to do more. The bottom line is that these so-called legal highs are dangerous, as a number of newspaper articles since have evidenced, so whatever restrictions we can place on their availability is a good thing – for families, parents, and young people.

Then came the announcement that a Game Animal Council, another UnitedFuture initiative, is to be established. Again, when all the rhetoric about the whys and wherefores is removed the basic point remains that this is about a better deal for recreational hunters, and giving them more say in the management of particular categories of animal. Given New Zealanders’ attachment to the wide open spaces, and the prominent place hunting enjoys in our traditional lifestyle, this is another family-friendly initiative that recognises and values a traditional aspect of our lifestyle.

Finally, there was the government’s decision to effectively underwrite AMI Insurance to the tune of at least $500 million, as it struggles with the consequences of the Canterbury earthquake. This is a company owned by its policy-holders, with 85,000 clients in the Christchurch area alone. Many of these are families struggling to get their lives together again after the earthquakes and the last thing they need right now is uncertainty about whether their insurance cover on their homes and possessions will be honoured. Underwriting AMI was, in these circumstances, a genuinely family-friendly response.

It is actions like these – good, solid, practical stuff that makes a real difference – which reminds me why I am in politics – to do what I can to make New Zealand the best place to live and raise a family. It is also why I reject I utterly the simpering, preening, dogged loyalty to a party position that passes for too much of politics today, as that is the fundamental reason why so many people are simply turning off and despairing that the political process can make a difference.

Draining the swamp is what counts, not the gnashing teeth of the alligators.

My deepest sympathies

Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:04:15 +1300

The enormity of the Christchurch earthquake and its impact, not just on the lives of the people affected, but the hearts and minds of our country as well, continues to grow in our national consciousness.

Inevitably, at times like this we think of those nearest and dearest to us, and how we might react in a similar situation. For many of us, personal safety and security for our families is paramount. That is why I pressured the Wellington City Council to release its list of earthquake prone buildings, so that people might be better informed of the risks they face, and I am pleased other Councils are now considering doing likewise. It is one practical lesson we can all learn from the Christchurch disaster.

Meanwhile, my deepest sympathy goes out to all those who have suffered as a result of the earthquake, whether it be through the loss or injury of loved ones, the loss or damage of property, or the sheer terror the uncertainty has caused. New Zealand’s priority has to be the restoration of Christchurch, its people and its services, and I am determined to work alongside all my Parliament colleagues to achieve that.

Yours,

Peter

Thank you all

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:22:54 +1300

I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for your offers of accommodation to those displaced by the Christchurch earthquake. As you may know, the morning following the earthquake, I set up my electorate offices to receive and process offers of spare rooms or accommodation for people seeking a break from the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake.

We received hundreds of offers, from all over the country. We have consolidated these offers and forwarded them to the relevant agencies. At this time, they do not require any additional offers of accommodation.

However, over the coming weeks and months, I suspect that many Cantabrians will seek a break from the on-going stress and anxiety of aftershocks and the recovery process. A short break away, in a different part of the country, will be welcome relief for those people whose lives have been forever altered by the brutal impact of the disaster.

To that end, please keep in touch. It may be the case that your generosity and goodwill is called upon again.

To all those who have already made an offer, thank you very much. It has been wonderful to see Kiwi folk from all walks of life, open their homes and open their hearts.

Regards,

Peter.

Canterbury Earthquake Accommodation Appeal

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:14:57 +1300

I have set up my electorate offices to co-ordinate offers of accommodation from anyone in the Wellington region for Christchurch people who have either been displaced from their damaged homes or are in the need of respite from the stress and anxiety from the continual aftershocks.

Right now the people of Christchurch are in the full emergency phase with rescue and recovery, but very soon they will be drawing breath and a lot of them will be anxious to spend some time away from their devastated city.

One very simple way to help will be for Ohariu residents to open their homes, their doors and their hearts and offer people from Christchurch some rest, some support and some care.

This might be giving them a weekend up here, a week or a short break – any and all offers of temporary accommodation will be greatly appreciated.

Anyone who has a spare room or the ability to host visitors from Christchurch can contact one of the electorate offices:

Maungaraki office (phone 04 560 4773 or email oharium.mp@parliament.govt.nz)

Johnsonville office (phone 04 478 0076 or email ohariu.mp@parliament.govt.nz)

A list will be compiled of those who can offer help, and will be co-ordinated with official sources in Christchurch as soon as the emergency stage of this crisis is over and the offers will be of use.

Hon Peter Dunne

MP for Ohariu

Leader of UnitedFuture

The current foreshore and seabed debate

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:03:06 +1300

Here is my take on the current foreshore and seabed debate.

Since this issue first arose in 2003, it has been UnitedFuture's constant position that the only durable solution to the foreshore and seabed issue rests with it being held as public domain for all New Zealanders. That was the whole point behind the public march we organised in Nelson in 2003, and my position has not changed since then.

Despite initially agreeing with this approach, the Labour Government changed its stance in 2004 when it was forced by New Zealand First to declare the foreshore and seabed to be the property of the Crown, as its price for supporting the legislation. UnitedFuture withdrew its support for Labour's legislation at that point, because Crown ownership is more restrictive and allows the possibilities of both parts of the foreshore and seabed being sold to private interests, and hitherto public access being restricted arbitrarily by Crown fiat. For those reasons we voted against Labour's legislation thereafter in Parliament.

The Marine and Coastal Areas Bill effectively picks up our original concept of public domain, which is far more in tune with the expectations of all New Zealanders - that, to put it colloquially, their right to go the beach remains largely unimpeded. That was why I supported the development of the current Government's legislation and its introduction, although I considered there needed to be an amendment to make it absolutely clear that free access is preserved. Such a provision is not in the current law, which leaves access at the prerogative of the Crown. I am pleased the Minister has now agreed to make such an amendment.

Claims that this Bill introduces differential rights are not correct. In fact, the tests for proof of customary ownership and/or customary title remain as they are at present, but the assertion of Crown ownership is removed, and replaced by the concept of "shared space" or public domain. It is also wrong in its claim my vote is the critical one on the Bill. It is not. Nor is the Bill being forced through under Urgency.

I have been strongly committed for many years to preserving the rights of public access to not only the foreshore and seabed, but also to rivers, inland waterways, the high country and the conservation estate in general. I would not be supporting the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill if I felt that it in any way was contrary to that commitment.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

Save the Mokihinui: Forest & Bird's launch of e-card drive & presentation to Meridian's Chief Executive

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:38:06 +1300

As most of you will know, UnitedFuture is the party that represents the interests of Outdoor Recreation in Parliament. We take pride in our role, voicing the interests of all New Zealanders who enjoy getting out amongst the lakes, rivers, bush, mountains and beaches of this great country.

Early last year, consent was granted to Meridian Energy to build an 85m dam on one of New Zealands last true 'wild rivers' - The Mokihinui.

I opposed it then and I oppose it now.

As well as being an area of outstanding natural beauty and abundant in native flora and fauna the Mokihinui is a top fly-fishing river and one of New Zealand’s premier wilderness fishing experiences.

Last Wednesday, a group of us attended the launch of the e-card drive and a presentation to the CEO of Merdian Energy.

You can sign up to the e-card by clicking on the link to the left.

Photo: From left, Whitewater NZ representative Jo Dovey, United Future leader Peter Dunne, Federated Mountain Clubs president Richard Davies, Forest & Bird general manager Mike Britton, Labour MP Chris Hipkins and Green Party MP Kevin Hague, in front, at Meridian’s Wellington office

TV3 News item on my idea for New Zealand Day

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:36:02 +1300

It seems like that every year, usually around Waitangi Day, I get asked on my view on a seperate "New Zealand Day"

Check out an item TV3 news did on it a few nights ago.

(You might have to copy and paste it into your web browser)

http://www.3news.co.nz/Parties-divided-over-prospect-of-New-Zealand-Day/tabid/370/articleID/197461/Default.aspx

And let me know what you think!!!

My column on political discourse in the Dominion Post

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:32:05 +1300

Recently, the Dominion Post published an opinion piece I wrote on the political discourse, in both the U.S. and New Zealand. Whilst we were inundated with commentary and opinion on the Arizona shootings from an American perspective, there seemed to be a lack of comment from a New Zealand perspective. I weighed in with the following piece:

I am sure we have all been appalled by the recent sad events in the United States in the killing of six people and the attempted assassination of US congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by a deranged gunman.

Setting aside the inevitable partisan Democrat-Republican opportunism afterwards, part of that fall-out has been an intense and vitriolic debate about the intense and vitriolic debate that is American politics today.

Important questions have been raised about the often toxic exchanges full of gun-laden imagery which have come to characterise American politics. Pundits are asking if at the very least, such aggressive posturing has created an environment in which it was actually inevitable that some sad individual would go on a rampage.

The debate will continue for some time. The name of Sarah Palin will continue to be at the centre of it. The rest of the world – including New Zealand – will continue to stand agog at this peculiarly American blood-sport and their bizarre attachment to the constitutionally protected ‘right’ of every Tom, Cheney or Harry to bear arms.

It is a debate that should be had. Cross-hair targets on maps, calls to “reload, not retreat”, and talk of “Second Amendment solutions” have no place in a decent political environment, and if nothing else comes from the current firestorm, then let us hope that some self-censorship begins to apply across the US political spectrum.

It would be easy to look from afar at all of this and feel that it has no real relevance to us in New Zealand

It would also be wrong.

In fact, coming as it does during the summer break, it is probably a good opportunity to look at how we “do” politics in this country.

While we do not have the bare-chested populist bravado of a Vladimir Putin (although Speaker Lockwood Smith in his Speedos surely runs him close), the unpredictable war-mongering psychosis of a Kim Jong Il, or the dubious and dangerous ‘Mama Grizzly’ magnetism of a Palin, we have no shortage of dissembling, half-truths, distortions and fear-mongering.

We are in the midst of just such a campaign today with the opponents of the Marine and Coastal Area Bill, or an issue that in the public parlance is still the re-heated foreshore and seabed debate.

As a thinking New Zealander, let alone as a Parliamentarian, I get angry at the – not to put too fine a point on it – deliberate fear-inducing tripe that those campaigning against this bill put forward.

Their attempts to convince non-Maori New Zealanders that they will lose entitlement and access to our beaches is a cynical, low-level campaign that involves all four of the political low-life’s handbook – dissembling, half-truths, distortions and fear-mongering.

It is not the first such campaign we have seen, and unfortunately it is unlikely to be the last.

It needs to be said, too, that past Winston Peters campaigns around immigration – particularly some of the viler and more damaging verbal volleys against Asians and Asian New Zealanders – were a particular low point in New Zealand politics.

Ugly does not just have to mean guns.

Politicking for personal political advantage at huge cost to a nation’s social fabric is particularly repulsive, and needs to be challenged at every point.

The smacking debate of a few years ago was also not one of our finer political hours.

And before anyone takes umbrage, I deliver that broadside firmly at both sides of that particular debate.

One side painting the other as family-wrecking liberals, and the other deliberately and dishonestly inter-changing the terms ‘smacking’ and ‘beating’ as if they were one and the same thing.

Sloganeering and over-shouting those with a different view was the name of the game. It killed any real discussion that could have involved informed opinion-making and helping New Zealand mature as a nation.

In the end, it, only served to entrench existing positions on all sides.

And that was no accident; that is exactly what the protagonists intended. They were prepared to get their desired outcome any way they could – and brow-beating, bullying and discrediting opponents were seen as legitimate tactics.

The result in all three of these instances has been more heat than light on the issues concerned, and a New Zealand significantly less informed, enlightened and mature than it could be.

If good legislation ever comes out of such debates, it is purely by chance.

When we look back at the smacking debate, who would call it a quality moment in New Zealand’s political life? How were the public served and informed?

How did Winston Peters gives us a more integrated, bolder New Zealand, when preying on elements among us of a quivering, fearful New Zealand?

And when the ink dries on the Marine and Coastal Bill and we are all enjoying New Zealand beaches again next summer, will we have been enriched by intelligent, thoughtful political debate along the way? Will we be a more united people?

While some will argue that it is all fair game in a robust political system, a more holistic view will count the price that we pay for it.

Ultimately such ugliness might afford the protagonists short term victories, but it leads to one thing – a cynical electorate that becomes increasingly disengaged from the political process.

We will all be the losers if that occurs.

As per usual, it generated a lot of positive interest. People often made the comment that NZ analysis of the Arizona shooting was conspicuous by its absence for a week or so.

What do you think? I am interested to hear your views on the political discourse in New Zealand......

To sell, or not to sell

Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:24:45 +1300

I have always been wary of people – politicians especially but not solely – who see issues in absolute terms. One of the things I have learnt in life is that there are seldom unequivocal right or wrong answers to a particular question, and that, unless one simply wants to live on the basis of adherence to blind prejudice, the real test is to find the best outcome in each case.

I was reminded of all this by this week’s debate about asset sales, spurred by John Key’s plans to sell shares in some public utilities after the election. For a moment, we were right back in the heady days of the 1980s’ and 1990s’ debates, with all of their attendant language (“selling the family silver”, “Richardson era economics” etc) being tossed around once again.

It is tempting to join this debate on that basis and fling around all the same old arguments once more. It is tempting to remind Phil Goff that more assets were sold under the fourth Labour government than any subsequent government. Or to taunt John Key with the failed railways privatisation, or the disastrous restructuring of the electricity sector. But it is all a little pointless, and adds nothing to the “debate” we are all supposed to be so much more capable of having now.

As I see it, the nub of the issue is what is the best way to expand the capital base of certain government owned trading and commercial organisations so that they can compete effectively in today’s business environment. Should that investment be directly from the government (and if so, how should it be financed – higher charges, higher taxes, more borrowing)? Are we as taxpayers prepared to accept any or all of the above solutions as the price of retaining New Zealand ownership (“sovereignty” to some) of our assets? And, for a start, do we even agree with the proposition that they need to expand and grow, or are we quite happy to leave things as they are?

If we accept the capital expansion argument, but do not like the idea of more government money going into them, what alternatives are there? The most obvious one is simply to sell the whole lot, lock, stock and barrel to the highest bidder. Apart from the ACT Party no-one is seriously suggesting that. So, what are we left with? Share floats of minority holdings, aimed at local investors, and with some controls about limits on overseas ownership come to mind here. That seems to be what John Key is talking about. In this regard, it is worth noting that groups as diverse as New Zealand First (up to a maximum stake of 24.9%) and Labour’s finance spokesperson (for subsidiary investments of state companies) have floated similar concepts in the recent past. Aside from the assumption that “ma and pa” investors would be interested in such investments in sufficient numbers to make it all worthwhile, the fundamental question to be resolved here is whether there can be sufficient safeguards put in place to ensure that this does not become too easy a path for overseas control of assets as “ma and pa” are quickly made offers they cannot refuse by voracious overseas pension funds, for example. I would have thought, however, that some form of Kiwi Share arrangement, akin to that developed at the time of Labour’s Telecom sale, could be developed to overcome that prospect.

As the debate unfolds over the next few months, these are the issues to focus on, not the re-run of the 1980s and 1990s arguments too many seem keen to substitute for rational analysis. Have your say on this through the current poll on the UnitedFuture website.

My column on Public Access in the Gisborne Herald

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:08:50 +1300

Over the holiday period, I was afforded the opportunity to express my thoughts on Public Access to recreational areas, in a cloumn in the Gisborne Herald. It has generated huge interest and support. My column read:

While the media’s attention is firmly focussed on the perceived threat to the seabed and foreshore there is a far more real threat to our public right of access going largely unnoticed. It is the deliberate locking up of publicly owned resources, such as rivers and lakes from public access. The most sinister representation of this is through the commercialisation of these public assets by way of ‘exclusive capture’.

‘Exclusive capture’ is a term used to describe the actions of land occupiers who are using their occupier rights through the Trespass Act to basically lock the general public out of publicly owned trout fisheries that exist on or adjacent to their properties. They can then charge exclusive access rights to guides and clients to access that fishery.

The fact is that all New Zealanders own these resources. For anyone to stop ordinary Kiwis enjoying publicly owned assets is a form of theft. By law no-one in New Zealand can own a river or at least the water in it and the game fish within the water are by definition owned by those who hold a fishing licence.

The tragedy is that many rivers, lakes and forests are becoming inaccessible to ordinary New Zealanders because of the greedy attitudes of a few. A growing number of the premier fishing rivers and lakes around the country are now locked up through ‘exclusive capture’ arrangements.

Legally no-one is allowed to sell access to fishing in New Zealand yet many are getting around this by claiming the charge is for track maintenance or vehicle access.

Many waterways around New Zealand have marginal strips owned by the Crown, commonly called the ‘Queen’s Chain’ that can be accessed free of charge by anyone. It is the ability to get across private land to these marginal strips that has become the problem.

Over the past few years we have seen the number of rivers that anglers are no longer able to fish increase dramatically. I am now aware of nearly 40 rivers and lakes where access is being denied or charged for. It is not just any rivers or lakes these operators are targeting; it is the very best fisheries.

In the past there has always been a ‘go for your life’ attitude when anyone asked permission to fish on someone’s property, we are now seeing ‘no trespass’ signs going up along rivers and the public’s right of access being sold to those who pay big money to have exclusive use of the resource.

For a while we thought exclusive capture was only a North Island problem but we are now hearing stories across the country of landowners charging up to $100 per day for each angler to cross their land to reach a river. This does not meet the New Zealand tradition of rightful access to publicly owned resources.

A further threat to public access has recently emerged through the actions of plantation forest managers. Last month over 200 people turned up to a meeting in Rotorua to protest against Timberlands’ Kaingaroa Forest management closing access to the famous Rangitaiki River and its tributaries including the world famous Flaxy lakes. Rather dubious fire risk assessments and health and safety hazards were cited as a justification for the closure.

The Timberlands situation sets a very dangerous precedent. Until very recently plantation forest owners and managers have been happy to work with local communities and Fish and Game staff to maintain access to river and lakes through their forests, however that era of cooperation and understanding seems to be coming to an end.

I for one do not want to be part of the generation that sees us move the way of the UK and much of the rest of the world where fishing and hunting rights are bought and sold. What I will fight for is a closure of the loopholes within our public access law that allow situations of exclusive capture and public closures to arise.

We owe it to this and future generations to ensure that the egalitarian principles of our outdoor heritage we inherited from our forefathers are not lost. This will be a major policy for UnitedFuture at the next election.

Among the numerous responses and messages of support I received, two of the most interesting were from overseas fisherman, expressing their dismay.....

Dear Sir

I wish to publicly support you for your first rate article in the Gisborne Herald regarding public access to your famous fisheries. I have visited, along with 7 of my friends, the Murapara region twice in the last couple of years and stayed locally to enjoy what was a fantastic 10 days of fishing on the Rangitiaki and Whirinaki river systems along with the Flaxy Lakes. Last year access was difficult and I can only see that tourism and visitation numbers are going to be non existent to the area if this access problem does not sort itself out. It can only be overridden with the foresight of people such as your self and the continuing lobbying of the tourism sector such as motel operators and fishing guides etc ie those with a vested interest.

I hope that sanity prevails and normality is restored to such a brilliant area.

Keep up the good work as it appears that you are heading in the right direction.

All the best

Peter Burr

Devonport

Tasmania 7310

And this one from the US.....

Sir,

Simon Mossman, motel owner in Murupara where I stay for a month every year forwarded me your excellent 12/11 article "Public Access is not for Sale" in the Gisbourne herald For almost 20 tears I have traveled from the United States to your fair country every year for a month to visit good Kiwi friends and fly fish your quality lakes and streams.

I am deeply disturbed in how private interests refused public access to forest lands surrounding Murupara. Frankly, what has happened is that it is forcing everyone to fish a limited number of streams that still have access and the quality of fishing has decreased substantially in the area making it a far less desirable location for Kiwi fishermen and foreigners such as myself.

This is not only occurring in Murupara but also other areas in your country and this makes your fair land a much less desirable country to travel to and fish. This of course means less fishermen and less travel revenues which inject much needed foreign dollars into your economy. For example, I will be in your country for one month and will spend approximately $3500 US $ which currently equates to 4480 NZ $ directly into your economy. Offshore fishermen of means have choices other than New Zealand. I have already run into folks such as myself who have chosen to go to Canada, Alaska, Argentina or Chile instead of New Zealand. Word is getting around it is not the premier destination for a travelling fisherman as it was in years past.

I love your country and its people and will continue to visit and fish but I truly feel your Kiwi fishermen and folks such as myself are being unfairly treated concerning stream access and this has a direct negative effect on your economy and citizen rights.

Best wishes, Darwin L Isensee, Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA

Thanks to everyone who has been in touch regarding this issue.

Merry Christmas 2010

Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:49:30 +1300

A long and some times difficult 2010 is drawing to a close, and it is time to reflect on things past and look forward to what 2011 may bring.

2010 will always be marked by the enormous natural tragedies that have befallen our country this year – the Canterbury earthquake and Pike River being the most obvious examples – and there will consequently be many people for whom the coming festive season will be more difficult to bear.

Christmas is a time for families to come together, to enjoy all that is good in their lives, and to look forward with hope for the future.

From my family to yours, our fervent hope is that you are able to enjoy the peace and goodwill of Christmas, and that 2011 will be a good year for you.

Merry Christmas

National Standards - A Good Idea, but....

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:57:29 +1300

Karl Marx wrote once that the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

That is almost a metaphor for the way we make major policy changes in this country.

From the advent of the Resource Management Act, through to NCEA, and now it seems National Standards, we make the same mistake. And we never seem to learn.

Bold ideas – often containing far-sighted reforms – founder because we fail to put in the proper effort to launch these initiatives in a way that takes people with us, deals with all the implementation issues, and makes the effort to inform people why the changes are being made and how they will benefit from it.

If people understood the Resource Management Act streamlined planning procedures by overturning 54 different pieces of old legislation and consolidating our planning law in one place, they would likely feel more kindly disposed to it than they do. Instead, they see a monolithic piece of legislation that slows things down and stifles development, the very opposite of what it was intended to achieve.

If people saw NCEA as a much more flexible and responsive way of measuring educational achievement that told employers and students alike far more accurately what students had actually learned and how proficient they were, it would be embraced as an innovative piece of educational measurement. Instead, too many people still see it as a dumbing down of the education system.

Now with National Standards, if parents were confident they were an effective way of measuring a child’s comparative achievements, they would have confidence in the system. Instead, they see a looming shambles because of what looks increasingly like a rushed implementation, and contradictory advice to schools from the Ministry of Education, and an overall unwillingness to consult too widely.

It is time to learn the lesson. I am contacting all the primary and intermediate schools boards of trustees in my electorate to seek their experiences of National Standards thus far, to see what we need to be doing, even at this late stage, to get things right.

The last thing I want is to see Karl Marx proved right again.

Onslow College Waipahihi Project

Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:34:05 +1300

This is with a group of Onslow College students celebrating a grant of $6500 from the NZ Glass Environmental Fund for their Waipahihi project. The Waipahihi project is aiming to restore a stand of land on the College grounds to fully native status so that it can become a corridor for native birds in the area, and link up with other corridors right through to the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary. I was delighted to make the cheque presentation because this is a practical initiative the students at Onslow College have taken to make their local world a better place. I also acknowledge the support of the NZ Glass Environmental Fund which has been supporting like this in New Zealand schools since 1986.

Seabed and Foreshore Bill

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:05:09 +1300

I am getting more than a little tired of ACT's constant scaremongering over the Foreshore and Seabed. The current Bill picks up UnitedFuture's original concept of public domain, which vests the ownership of the Foreshore and Seabed equally and indvisibly in all New Zealanders. It is what Labour and UnitedFuture agreed all those years ago, before New Zealand First gatecrashed the show and caused the current mess.

Labour Party Conference

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:02:42 +1300

The big losers from Labour's new envy taxes will be parent sand families - parents because Labour's higher taxes will simply force their kids overseas when they graduate because there will be no incentive for them to stay here, and families because they will be split apart as a consequence.

The next issue we have to tackle.

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:00:29 +1300

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/4238519/Dunne-pushes-tax-rebate-report

Act in demise

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:49:15 +1300

A number of people have contacted me in the wake of ACT’s apparent implosion to suggest that opens up a range of possibilities for UnitedFuture.

I agree, but with some important caveats. The most obvious is that while much has been postulated about ACT’s imminent demise, it has not actually taken place as yet, although the party is obviously on the most fragile of life support systems at present, and the possibility of an even more right wing Douglasite phoenix (ostrich more likely) attempting to rise out of the ashes cannot be discounted.

Moreover, UnitedFuture is not ACT, nor do we wish to be. ACT is an uncompromising, doctrinaire party with an unfailing belief in the power of the market as the ultimate solution to a nation’s problems. UnitedFuture, by contrast, is a centrist party in the liberal tradition where individuals and families and their connection to the wider society are what matters. UnitedFuture has no interest in filling ACT’s ideological shoes just because that space may appear to be currently vacant. Nor are we interested in being fashioned into such a vehicle for political convenience.

All that aside, the ACT does raise an important aspect of our MMP system that is not without relevance or interest to UnitedFuture. For our multiparty system to work successfully, a moderate, sensible “balancing” party is required. For obvious reasons, neither the Maori Party nor the Greens can perform that role because their focus is on a particular constituency. ACT had tried to mask its true identity (an irony in the light of current events) before the last election in an attempt to fill the role, but the tensions now laid bare within it, have shattered that myth completely. And then there was New Zealand First, but it was blown apart by populist demagoguery and “good old boy” cronyism before the last election, which it will struggle to recover from.

All of which brings us back to UnitedFuture, a reliable support partner for governments for all but three years since MMP came in. Our steadiness and reliability has been our byword, but ironically we have been so reliable that no-one much has noticed the contributions we have made in so many differing areas of government, and how much UnitedFuture policy has been implemented over the years as a consequence.

So, in the current environment, my message to voters looking for a brake to keep National honest and on track, is that UnitedFuture is that party. But we only succeed if those now opining that UnitedFuture “now has a great opportunity” and that the country “needs you guys more than ever” actually go further and get involved with us to make it happen. Joining us (go to

[www.sjecretkary@u2nitedjfuturse.orgi.nzj]

) is the first step towards making it happen.

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:42:08 +1200

Prime Minister David Cameron wants to make Britain the most family friendly country in Europe. It is a laudable goal ? which is not too far distant from UnitedFuture?s ambition to make New Zealand the best country in the world to live and raise a family.

In both cases, the challenge is how to achieve these noble sentiments. One approach which caught my eye recently, and which could be applied in New Zealand, is the production of an annual report card to show how we measure up in this regard. Britain?s Family and Parenting Institute, a non-government agency, produces the annual score card, rating the government A to D on ten key indicators, and then producing an over all Family Friendly rating. For 2010, the ratings ranged B and D, with an overall Family Friendly rating of C-.

The ten key indicators the Institute adopts are:
? Cost of raising a child
? Maternity and paternity leave
? Elderly care
? Work/life balance
? Affordable transport
? Affordable housing
? Commercialisation of childhood
? Neighbourhoods and green spaces
? Child and pensioner poverty
? Our most vulnerable children

I understand there is some consideration being to developing such a register for New Zealand, although it may take a little while. In the meantime, I would be interested in feedback on an A to D basis of how we currently rate, in your perception, on each of these items.

Of course, measuring performance is only one aspect. The bigger challenge is taking the steps needed to correct performance in areas where it is currently lacking. Again, there are some things we learn from Britain under its new coalition government. Its new Department for Children, Schools and Families has taken on the role on establishing a fresh partnership between the government and families to reduce families? pressures and enhance their capabilities. It is based on four key principles to empower families to achieve their potential; be proportionate; support families regardless of form or structure; and, be socially equitable.

There is much UnitedFuture can draw on here, to achieve our objective to make New Zealand the best country in the world to live and raise a family.

Income Sharing Legislation Before Parliament

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:32:32 +1200

The response to the income sharing legislation I have introduced to Parliament has been overwhelming.

My office has been flooded with messages of positive support, and it has been a big topic of conversation at every meeting or function I have attended since Monday.

Many people have been keen to tell me their story of the impact income sharing would have on their households and families. Here are a few examples of what they have said:

?I have never asked for a handout and have been in relatively high paying (and therefore paid a lot of tax) jobs all my life. I have also been the main breadwinner all my married life too and fortunately, it?s something that does not concern my husband who more than pulls his weight when it comes to managing the family and children.?

?Good on you for your Income Splitting Bill..! I sit amongst a vastly larger group of NZers who along with my partner: doesn't earn anything like $140K, earns too much to qualify for Working for Families, by all accounts, shoulders the country's tax burden, struggles to raise two wonderful children and help then realise their potential.?

?My daughter is forced to stay at home, her son diagnosed Type 1 diabetes at age 7 months, is now just over two and requires 24hour full time care. Her efforts now to control his diabetes are saving huge future medical costs. She is fortunate to have a degree in mathematics and I am a Medical Scientist so she has a good understanding of what is required for his care. Apart from a small monthly allowance there is no state help to compensate her for loss of income providing care that ultimately benefits the state.?

?As one of many older Mums (38) I have worked hard to date and happily paid high tax rates my entire career... I think your bill will encourage people to make better choices or provide them with an economic buffer, particularly whilst their families are young.?

What is most surprising, therefore, is the virulence of Labour?s opposition to the move, with one of its spokespeople managing to insult every woman in New Zealand by dismissing income sharing as no more than a benefit for the wives of rich lawyers. The irony is, of course, that the work to develop this legislation began during the term of the previous Labour-led government, as part of UnitedFuture?s confidence and supply agreement with that government. So you can draw either of two conclusions about Labour?s current attitude: either, they were merely paying lip service to the idea while they were the government, or, now they are in Opposition their blind mentality of oppose, oppose, oppose has taken over. Either way, it is not a good look for their credibility.

Many National MPs (and one or two Ministers) have told me privately they support income sharing and will be pushing their party to support the legislation through all its stages in Parliament. I am encouraging everyone who supports income sharing to continue lobbying their local National MPs to back this legislation, right the way through. If they listen to the public mood, they will.

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:34:36 +1200

Child Support has been in the news recently. Here is my position on the current debate:

? Every child has a right to the love, affection and care of both their parents, whatever their situation, but no child has any control over the circumstances in which they are raised.
? All parents, living together or apart, are responsible for their care of their children.
? If parents separate, it is their joint and primary responsibility to make suitable arrangements for the care and ongoing support of their children. They have no right to take-out the emotion of their break-up on their children.
? The state?s Child Support scheme should be the back-up for when these arrangements fail, not the automatic default position.

I think there are problems with the way our current Child Support scheme works ? it is too inflexible, fails to take sufficient account of today?s social circumstances, and does not do enough to encourage shared care between parents. As Minister of Revenue (responsible for collecting child support payments) I have been working on a review of the scheme since 2008. Last year, the Cabinet deferred my proposals for change, so I have been working on revised plans which I hope to put forward shortly.

My focus is simple ? the wellbeing of the children, for they are the most vulnerable ones when relationships break up. But sadly, too often, child support is more often about the tug-of-war between embittered parents, than the wellbeing of their children. I want to change that.

Income Sharing

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:46:50 +1200

Later this month, I hope to introduce legislation to Parliament to permit couples raising children up to the age of 18 years to share their incomes between them for tax purposes, meaning that many of them will end up paying lower tax bills.

This is UnitedFuture?s flagship policy, and I am delighted we are now in a position to get it before Parliament for consideration. Under our confidence and supply agreement with National, we secured agreement that the government would support the introduction and reference to a select committee of such legislation. While that is still a long way from ensuring it eventually passes into law, it is nevertheless an important start, and an opportunity for a widespread public debate about the best way of supporting families raising children. I am constantly amazed that at virtually every meeting I speak at, someone raises the issue of income sharing, and what a good thing it would be. So I have confidence that once it is introduced the income sharing legislation will create a groundswell of support that any government will find difficult to hold out against. My aim is that the income sharing legislation, if passed, will take effect from 1 April 2012.

Much of the legwork for income sharing was done during the last term of the previous Labour-led government. Under its 2005 confidence and supply agreement with UnitedFuture, Labour agreed to the issuing of a government discussion canvassing ideas on how income sharing might work. That paper was produced in 2008, and the responses to it have largely shaped the proposal that is my current Bill.

So, given its essentially contrarian current approach to political discourse (where everything that happened between 1999 and 2008 was unquestionably right, and everything that has happened since 2008 unerringly wrong ? even if it began during Labour?s time) Labour?s recent decision to oppose the income sharing legislation comes as hardly any surprise. Labour says income sharing is too narrowly focused. It overlooks the latest census data showing that there are just under 425,000 two parent New Zealand families with children 18 years old or younger living at home. Of that number, 287,000 families – 68% – have either one income; or, a full-time income supplemented by a part-time income. These are the people who will benefit from income sharing, but they are obviously not part of Labour?s new mainstream.

I may be na�ve, but I would have thought giving potentially two of out of every three families a few more tax choices, and trusting them to make the best decisions for themselves was something to be encouraged, not ridiculed. After all, we have always let business partners share their incomes between them to minimise their tax liabilities, so why not extend that to life partners, engaged in the most important business of all, raising their families?

Deja Vu in the British Election

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:44:59 +1200

Nick Clegg?s and the Liberal Democrats successes in the British General Election campaign so far offer some interesting insights for UnitedFuture.

It is hard to escape the parallel with UnitedFuture?s 2002 campaign where, on the back of a television debate, we too came from nowhere to hold the balance of power.

In both instances, the success was due to the parties? filling a perceived vacuum in the political environment of the time. In 2002, UnitedFuture succeeded because of our message about families and a commonsense approach. Nick Clegg?s success today is due to apparent public fatigue with the old politics of both Labour and the Conservatives.

As UnitedFuture found after 2002, however, such vacuums can be short-lived. Once Labour?s Working for Families package came along, UnitedFuture?s professed concern for the well-being of families became a little pass�, and we failed (partly because of the narrow pre-occupation of some of our MPs of the time on should constitute a family, rather than how we might we make New Zealand the best place in the world to raise a family, as per our 2002 aim) to move on to the next phase of building a family friendly society and filling the perceived gap. Similarly, if the Liberal Democrats do achieve the balance of power, they will need to be mindful of both Labour and the Conservatives stealing their political reform clothes, and leaving them on the sidelines.

What Nick Clegg?s rise has shown ?again ? is the importance of a centre party being able to fill a political vacuum. Looking ahead to 2011, the challenge for UnitedFuture will be to determine where our political vacuum lies, and how we should fill it. I think that vacuum will be amongst both conservative Labour voters who think their party is unlikely to win, and liberal National voters who are confident National will win again, but who both worry about National being too beholden to ACT?s extreme right wing agenda, and therefore wish to see National with a more centrist partner in the next Parliament.

In Britain, the Liberal Democrats, who have not tasted political power since 1922 and who have been written off frequently ever since, stand on the verge of historic achievement. In New Zealand, UnitedFuture, similarly written off and equally frequently dismissed, stands ready to pick up their mantle next year.

Deja Vu in the British Election

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:44:37 +1200

Nick Clegg?s and the Liberal Democrats successes in the British General Election campaign so far offer some interesting insights for UnitedFuture.

It is hard to escape the parallel with UnitedFuture?s 2002 campaign where, on the back of a television debate, we too came from nowhere to hold the balance of power.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to dance on the head of a pin?

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:30:07 +1200

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to dance on the head of a pin? Or to start a debate to which there seems no end, with all of the arguments becoming ever more tortuous and irreconcilable?

I often feel both these sensations whenever the issue of family is raised. For a concept that is so basic to our very construct as human beings, I am constantly amazed at the amount of angst the term seems to generate.

In some quarters, the term family is held as code for right wing moralism, and therefore anyone who expresses an interest in promoting the broad interests of families is immediately dismissed as of that ilk. And there are those at the other end of spectrum who insist not just that the diversity of their family structure be recognised, but that it lauded and actively promoted.

It is all so tiresome and irrelevant, really. The blunt truth is this: each one of us knows what family means to us, and who are family is. Full stop, end of story, actually. For all of us, family are the people that matter most to us ? the people we like to share our successes and failures with, those to whom we look for support when times are bad, those who are closest to us.

Human society has always been organised on the basis of family, and then community, ultimately leading to the modern nation state. At its heart, family structure owes more to biology than anything else, and the rest simply flows from that.

So, let us stop the never ending dance on the pinhead, and the constant efforts to redefine what we mean, and focus on what matters. Tonight, as with every night, people will go home at the end of their day, to their houses in the suburbs, their flats in the inner city, or their boarding houses and hostels, to catch up with those they live with, and take a bit of time out from busy lives. That is the ultimate expression of family. It does not require a special definition of how they are constituted, or who should be included or excluded.

It is simple reality. And one thing is for sure. When they are together, all these families are not spending time discussing who and what they are, whether they fit some pre-determined definition. They are far more likely to be talking about their day at work, what happened to the kids at school, what is coming up at the weekend, and what bills have to be paid. The humdrum of daily life, if you like.

It is what we call family.

A COUPLE OF UNPLEASANT POLITICAL FACTS TO PONDER

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:03:47 +1300

The understandable tributes being paid to Jeanette Fitzsimons on her retirement mask a couple of unpleasant and contradictory facts, which a party like UnitedFuture needs to bear in mind.

First, no member of the Greens has ever held office as a Minister in a government. That sets them apart from every other small party that has emerged under MMP. The Alliance, ACT, New Zealand First, the Maori Party and UnitedFuture have all had Ministers in government, able to push through key aspects of their respective parties? policies. In contrast, Jeanette?s self-confessed Parliamentary career highlight was chairing the Local Government Select Committee. The usual hallmark of political success is being part of a government, and on that basis the Greens have been our most unsuccessful small party under MMP.

The second unpleasant and contradictory fact is that the above notwithstanding, the news media and the commentariat have failed consistently to acknowledge this point, let alone draw it to public attention. Moreover, they have actually gone to the other extreme and generally lauded the Greens for their ?success?, although they have been noticeably light when it comes to pointing out what those successes have been.

The point of all this? Quite simple really. At its most basic, politics is about presenting a story and a view of the world people can relate to. Caring for the environment and worrying about the state of the planet is such a story, even if the Greens? actual record in practical policy terms has always fallen well short of that story. By contrast, UnitedFuture can, over more than 10 years now, point to a solid record of achievement of virtually all its key policies, and through its ongoing involvement in government will be able to continue to do so. But we have been far less successful in selling the story that goes with the policy achievements.

Yet the UnitedFuture story is actually quite a simple one. We are here for the families and kids of New Zealand, who simply want to get on with life, without the government telling them what to do all the time, or favouring one set of vested interests over another. We are the party of the mums and dads in the suburbs, who seek a decent standard of living for themselves, the best opportunities for their kids, and the prospect of security in retirement, and who are sick and tired of all the ideological nonsense the accompanies politics these days. We are the party of people who like living in New Zealand because of the opportunities and outdoor lifestyle it offers, and we want just want to enhance all that. That is why we focus on practical policies that will deliver tangible gains for these New Zealanders.

Sadly, that is not the story the media portrays. In their eyes, and through them in the eyes of many people, our commitment to families is code for a right-wing, prescriptive moralist agenda, trying to recreate the past, rather than focus on the future. Admittedly, the antics of some of our earlier extremist MPs, who did actually want us to go down that path, did not help, but those days are well behind us, although their legacy lingers and frankly scares off too many people. We are here to represent the values of decent New Zealand families today, not to tell them what their values should be.

Coming back to the Greens, UnitedFuture is arguably the most successful small party under MMP. We have spent more time in government than any other party, and we have probably achieved more too. To be truly successful though, alongside our policy achievements, we now have to focus on promoting our story, to create a sense of purpose and reason for supporting us.

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:45:55 +1300

One of the things I have always felt about UnitedFuture is that we do not practice politics as usual. That was reinforced for me to day when the debate on the Emissions Trading Bill began. The Labour spokesperson, Mr Chauvel, admitted that Labour had only minimal differences with National, and would have compromised in National's favour, but for National beginning separate negotiations with the Maori Party. In other words, all Labour's huff and puff now, is no more than a simpering smokescreen for the fact that National did a deal with the Mori Party, and not Labour. A classic case of little-boy "not fair" prancing tantrums, with no regard for the public interest. Utterly hypocritical behaviour by shaloow people.

ACC AND MOTORCYLE LEVIES

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:44:49 +1300

The recent protests by motorcyclists over proposed massive increases in ACC levies highlight a problem that occurs all too often.

Upfront, I think the proposed increases are too steep, and should be revisited. I also think there is an essential conflict between the ?no fault? principle which underpins the whole ACC philosophy, and the argument that the costs to ACC from motorcycle accidents outweighs the levies collected from that sector. ?No fault? is one of the great strengths of ACC, and to discard it is to fundamentally overturn ACC?s most unique feature.

However, leaving all that aside, there is a more fundamental issue.

Too often, governments make decisions on the basis of particular items or machines, and not the people who use them. So, we decide that because, for example, guns are dangerous and can kill or maim people, every single gun has to be licensed, even though a gun without someone to fire it is relatively harmless. Similarly, with motorcycles, we decide that each one of them has to bear an ACC levy, even though they have to be ridden dangerously to cause harm. In short, we blame the machines for the foibles of the users.

Where does personal responsibility fit into this? Should not the onus be on the individual, rather than the equipment they use? And should the licensing regime reflect this? After all, you can only fire one gun, ride one motorcycle or drive one car at a time.

In the 1950s and 1960s people used to have a separate radio (and then television) licence for every item they owned. That was on the basis that people probably owned only one radio or television, but as times changed (and transistors arrived, followed shortly after by portable televisions) that quickly changed too, and now we do not even pay a broadcasting fee at all.

While I do not envisage there will ever be a time where people pay no ACC levies, I do think the current debate provides an opportunity to have a fresh look at the way these levies are imposed. Instead of basing the system on individual items, maybe we should be looking at a flat charge for all motor vehicle owners that could be struck on an annual basis. I acknowledge the potential complexities inherent in such an approach, but I also understand the inequity of the current system.

We need to strike a better balance, and more of the same in this case simply will not do.

ACC and Elective Surgery

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:44:07 +1300

I wrote this thinkpiece for the National Business Review, which published it on 23 October 2009:

The emerging debate about the ACC scheme presents an opportunity to take a bolder and more lateral approach to the future provision of healthcare services in New Zealand.

Leaving to one side for the moment the philosophical arguments about whether ACC is effectively a form of social insurance or a comprehensive taxpayer funded scheme, the fact remains that it has been very successful at using its collective purchasing power to provide a wide range of services to the victims of accidents. This is an aspect of ACC that deserves far greater attention in the current review, as it has the potential to bring about far more significant patient gains overall.

Elective surgery waiting times in New Zealand are currently unacceptably high ? at a minimum, twice as long as in Britain, and almost three times longer than waiting times in Holland and Spain. At the same time, there is significant under utilised capacity in our private surgical hospital sector. For its part, ACC has already developed a successful model of tendering various services to private providers. The current review presents the opportunity to expand this aspect of ACC services, to make a real, sustainable and permanent impact on elective surgery waiting times.

While the traditional ?cradle to the grave? approach of the public health system in New Zealand makes it difficult to immediately shift to a system akin to that in Holland, based solely on public insurance, there is nevertheless the opportunity to consider some form of mandatory levy for non-acute secondary treatment, enabling the more effective use of public and private surgical facilities to bring down waiting times.

A starting point could be to expand the existing ACC framework to cover a range of procedures (for example, hips, knees, cataracts, angioplasty) for patients over the age of 65 years. That would need to be accompanied by a specific policy requirement that those procedures be provided within a specified time frame (initially, say, six months, reducing to three months and below). Both the range of services and the age cohorts covered could be expanded over time, with the ultimate aim being a comprehensive national service for all New Zealanders. At the same time, as a transitional move, existing private health insurance provision could be encouraged by the introduction of tax deductibility for health insurance premia, again starting with those 65 and over, who currently face the greatest difficulty keeping up their payments, at the very time they need the cover provided most.

Around the world, governments of all philosophical hues are grappling with the increasing costs and demands of healthcare, and their own diminishing resource bases. New Zealand is no different. Our ACC system is regarded as world class, and the current review provides the chance for an innovative approach that not only secures the future of ACC, but also ensures that New Zealanders have access to high quality healthcare services.

What are the top issues facing families today?

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:27:40 +1300

In a recent blog I reasserted UnitedFuture's claim as the family party – here are some excerpts from that:

"We are what we always have been ? the family party. We are the only party that can be relied on to put the interests of families first in all policy areas, and to keep policies focused on the families and households that make up our country. But the family party is not the ?family values? party. We are here for all New Zealand families, whatever their situation, recognising the pressures upon them in their daily lives, and doing our best to support them and the communities in which they live and work. By contrast, ?family values? carries the taint of conservative religious values .... (yet) the one thing we do know about families is that no two families are alike. That is hardly surprising, given the diversity of humanity. Our individuality is what distinguishes human beings form the animals, so it is logical that while we all have a family structure, it is by no means a uniform situation. At best Those, like the extremists, who focus on family form, rather than function, miss the point. What families do, and how they function, is far more important than what they look like. So UnitedFuture?s commitment is to families in their generic form. When Norman Kirk spoke in the early 1970s of the primary role of government being to promote policies in the interests of families, he did not then go on to define what constituted a family, or what values a family should hold. He did not need to ? he knew then what we know now that family is a bigger concept than that. So while UnitedFuture is unapologetic for being the family party, we are equally explicit that we are here for all families, whatever their shape, or their circumstances, or their concerns. Every family contributes to the rich tapestry that is New Zealand, and every family deserves encouragement to be the best it can be.
You cannot stand for anything more powerful or inspirational than that."

Against that backdrop, I would like to know what you think are the top or three issues facing New Zealand families today.

BALANCING THE SCALES OF JUSTICE

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:57:44 +1200

Over the weekend we saw once more the awful effect that violent crime has on its victims and their families. I am referring, of course, to the Sensible Sentencing meeting where the justice system was symbolically put on trial and unanimously found guilty of failing the victims of crime.

I have always held more than a passing interest in the work of Sensible Sentencing, which, on the whole has made a valuable contribution to the debate about crime and punishment, even if sometimes it goes too far. My instinctive reaction to some of the weekend?s comments about the treatment that should be meted out to violent offenders left me feeling that way, and wondering just how long it would be before Sensible Sentencing goes way out on a limb and starts actively promoting capital punishment.

But then I began to think about the victims, and how I would feel in a similar situation. I would like to believe my response would be compassionate, if maybe not forgiving, but understanding that little point would be served by whipping myself up into in an ongoing lather of bitterness and anger. But would I? How would I really feel if it was my wife, or one of my sons that had been slain in cold blood, or mutilated or bashed beyond recognition? Would my liberal instincts remain intact, or would I too be crying for vengeance?

I think I know the answer. The faces of the people in that meeting were the saddened and unashamedly normal faces of decent, real New Zealanders whose lives have been changed forever by the wanton violence of others. In a similar situation, I could well be one of them. And herein lies the problem.

I think the justice system does fail the victims of crime in so many ways. We need to be heeding, not just hearing, what they have to say. There is still inadequate support for their ongoing needs. We need to do more in the areas of compensation and reparation, and restorative justice generally. There should be greater acknowledgement of victims? impact statements when early release is being considered. Parole should be a privilege to be earned, not an automatic right ? the presumption should be that the sentence imposed, will be the sentence served. Greater use should be made of preventive detention for the most serious violent offenders. We should never even contemplate a return to capital punishment, and be permanently wary of always increasing maximum sentences when we fail to apply fully those currently available.

That is all on the punitive side, however. It makes clear society?s revulsion at the crimes committed, and to that extent acknowledges the community?s right to extract some revenge on criminals. That is an important and proper part of the process. But it is not the solution. It does nothing to prevent the next wave of criminals emerging. Deterrence by itself is an inadequate response to violent crime. We have to focus as strongly on reducing, if not eliminating, the causes of violent crime, and providing decent rehabilitation opportunities for those sufficiently well-motivated to try to turn the corner.

Social factors, like deprivation, unemployment, drugs, are obvious areas we have to target. Even though the high rates of recidivism suggest it is a futile cause, we also have to do more in the area of rehabilitation. Former prisoners who struggle to find gainful employment after release are inevitably headed on a one-way course back to prison. Yet, we know all these things, and have done so for years. But our apathy does little to improve the situation.

All this amounts to seeking a more balanced approach to crime and punishment than we have currently. We owe that to the victims of crime seeking justice, as much as we owe it to the criminals receiving justice. The challenge remains to achieve that balance.

THE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME ? WHERE TO FROM HERE?

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:37:57 +1200

It has at last been possible to submit the report of the emissions trading scheme review select committee to Parliament, and the immediate question is where to from here. Given the range of minority reports, it is not immediately clear to see the next steps, although there are a few important bottom lines.
For a start, every party but ACT accepts climate change is a real issue New Zealand has to respond to. Every party except ACT and the Maori Party favour an emissions trading scheme over the blunter instrument of a carbon tax. Every party, again excluding ACT, favours an all-gases, all sectors approach. Indeed, the National and Labour parties agree on 32 of the committee?s 34 recommendations. That is why I said when tabling the report that it was very much a ?middle road? through some ?complex and contentious material?, and gave the government the mandate it needed to move forward.
The best way in which that can happen is for National and Labour to set aside their political differences and reach a broad agreement on the future of the emissions trading scheme, both to put in place a durable regime, and also to send a clear signal of certainty to major sectors of the economy about New Zealand?s approach. My strong view is that can only happen through Prime Minister John Key and Labour leader Phil Goff getting together to hammer out an agreement, and that it is now time for them to do so.
I am aware of the informal discussions to date between the Climate Change Minister and his Labour counterpart but, frankly, the incentives were never there for them to go very far. The Minister is seen by some of his colleagues as too much of a zealot on the issue, and the Labour spokesperson is simply too junior for his views to actually matter.
Climate change is arguably the most important long-term issue facing New Zealand today. Establishing a viable and durable political response is vitally important, because, as I said when Labour first introduced the emissions trading scheme legislation in 2007, this issue is ?bigger than any particular political party, this Parliament, or any Parliament.? Setting that tone can only come through the active involvement of the Prime Minister and Labour leader right now. They need to take personal responsibility now for the next stages of the emissions trading scheme.
This should not be too difficult for either of them, given that the issues between them are hardly insurmountable, and their profession that they want to negotiate in good faith. On that basis, they should be able to quickly agree the high level parameters of the ETS and the changes to be made to it. Once that has happened, their respective climate change spokespeople should be able to finalise the details very quickly, given that there is really little distance between their current positions.
The select committee?s report gives Mr Key and Mr Goff the platform ? now it is their challenge and responsibility to use that to resolve the matter.

What are the top issues facing families today?

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:22:38 +1200

Here are some excerpts from my recent blog about UnitedFuture still being the family party:

"We are what we always have been ? the family party. We are the only party that can be relied on to put the interests of families first in all policy areas, and to keep policies focused on the families and households that make up our country. But the family party is not the ?family values? party. We are here for all New Zealand families, whatever their situation, recognising the pressures upon them in their daily lives, and doing our best to support them and the communities in which they live and work. By contrast, ?family values? carries the taint of conservative religious values ... (but) the one thing we do know about families is that no two families are alike. That is hardly surprising, given the diversity of humanity. Our individuality is what distinguishes human beings form the animals, so it is logical that while we all have a family structure, it is by no means a uniform situation. Those, like the extremists, who focus on family form, rather than function, miss the point. What families do, and how they function, is far more important than what they look like. So UnitedFuture?s commitment is to families in their generic form. When Norman Kirk spoke in the early 1970s of the primary role of government being to promote policies in the interests of families, he did not then go on to define what constituted a family, or what values a family should hold. He did not need to ? he knew then what we know now that family is a bigger concept than that. So while UnitedFuture is unapologetic for being the family party, we are equally explicit that we are here for all families, whatever their shape, or their circumstances, or their concerns. Every family contributes to the rich tapestry that is New Zealand, and every family deserves encouragement to be the best it can be. You cannot stand for anything more powerful or inspirational than that."

In the light of all that, I would like to know what you think the top or three facing New Zealand families today are.

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:21:48 +1200

Here is a think piece on reforming our Courts system, based on a recent address I gave to the English Speaking Union:

I want to offer a few insights about whether it is politically possible to reform the Courts system, but before doing so, let me make some more general observations about the New Zealand legal system. As I do so, I am reminded of Lord Acton?s famous dictum, ?The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.?

I think the tradition of our legal system ? from the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi through to the Human Rights Act, and other specific enactments ? has been generally liberal. At the same time, however, this generally liberal thread to legislation and constitutional development has been matched by generally illiberal public opinion. One has only to look at the popular press over the years, or, perish the thought, be brave enough, or sufficiently mindless, to listen to talkback radio, or even worse, trawl through the blogosphere to see what I mean. Whereas the emphasis of our legal system has been on promoting and upholding the rights of citizens and minorities, the opinions expressed through these media have been unfailingly about curtailing existing rights or privileges. Why are ?they? getting away with ?this? (whoever they are, and whatever this is) seems to be the common refrain. This tension between a generally liberal legislative framework and illiberal public opinion has produced what might be described as a grudging approach to justice, where matters of noble principle have become secondary to the process.

With one or two notable exceptions, the great trials and court procedures of the day often seem less about seeking justice for an individual than about getting the matter resolved, and increasingly satisfying the victims. Questions of guilt or innocence are often secondary to getting on with the business, and there is an underlying feeling that ?they probably did it anyway, otherwise they wouldn?t be here in the first place.?

No matter which way you look at it, the process is failing. If you subscribe to the getting on with the business approach, there are already excessive delays in getting cases to Court ? especially major criminal and civil cases ? and there seems to be an increasing number of basically wrong decisions being made by the Courts. And the clamour for greater recognition of victims? rights is intensifying, alongside a growing feeling that the legal system pays too much attention to the offender, and not enough to the victim. If you are in the camp of wanting every citizen to have proper access to due process, then you will have long since come to the view that the system is failing.

So, against this backdrop of conflicting legal and societal aspirations, the question becomes, can the Courts system be reformed, and is this politically possible? The most obvious response is to focus on what I might call the Mussolini approach ? getting the Courts to work more efficiently. But this may not prove to be enough to make real change. Yet it may also be all that is achievable. Complicating this question is the fact that the range of new Courts, and quasi judicial tribunals, all exercising a range of jurisdictions, has grown considerably in recent years. We now have to factor in bodies such as the Environment Court and the Family Court; judicial commissions like the Human Rights Commission, the Health and Disability Commissioner, and the Race Relations Conciliator, along with the Disputes Tribunals, the various Immigration and Resettlement Review Tribunals, the Accident Compensation Corporation Review Tribunals, and other bodies like the Child Support Administrative Reviews. And it may not be long before we have to consider a separate Maori or marae based judicial system.

So when we come to talking about reforming the Courts, what are we actually talking about? All of the above? Or just the District, High, Appeal and Supreme Courts? Successive governments have embarked upon small processes of Court reform. Often, these have been limited to building new Courtrooms, or procedural changes such as the removal of Depositions hearings during the term of the last Parliament. Occasionally, there has been talk about wider reforms. The present Minister of Justice has spoken of the lower Courts sitting in the evening ? necessary, sausage-factory justice, if you like. There has also been talk of placing time limits within which major cases must come to trial, on the basis that the current often lengthy delays are a form of justice delayed being justice denied. (It is not clear, however, what the definition of a major case might be, and what the consequent process for managing those other and presumably less major cases that are bumped down the queue is to be.)

All of the above changes come under my Mussolini umbrella. But there are other changes that are worthy of consideration. The area of judicial training at all levels is an obvious one. We need judges who are well trained as to their responsibilities, and their obligations, judicial and public. The public needs to feel confident that the Judiciary not only knows the law, but is also in tune with the mood of contemporary society. There has been some progress on this front in recent years, which probably needs to be expanded.

But it immediately raises the issue of judicial accountability. To what extent do we expect judges to be accountable ? and to whom? Their peers, the government, or the general public? While I would not go so far as to promote the direct election of judges, as already happens in a number of American states, as a purported way of enhancing judicial responsiveness and accountability, I do make the point that it is the extreme end of the seemingly innocuous road to greater judicial accountability, and that any journey in that direction needs to be undertaken with extreme care. The old maxim of never setting out on a journey until you know where you want to end up applies here.

The closest we seem to have come to that type of approach in New Zealand is the on-again, off-again story of the Sentencing Council. The pressure of lobby groups like Sensible Sentencing and the uproar over the 1999 Withers petition on violent offending meant the government in the early years of this century felt impelled to respond, to be seen to be ?doing? something. The upshot was a raft of longer prison sentences for mainly violent offending to show how tough the government was, and how it was responding to the public?s more retributive calls. However, it was one thing to pass tough new sentences, and quite another to expect judges to always sentence at the upper end of the tariff as a consequence. Not unreasonably, the judges maintained their discretion, and so, with another election looming, the politicians felt they had to do yet more to prove their law and order credentials, hence the establishment of the Sentencing Council to help ?assist? judges on sentencing matters, and presumably bring them more into line with prevailing public sentiment. Its immediate fate is unclear, with the new government committed to its abolition, which presumably is likely to occur sooner rather than later.

All this goes to highlight my original point. The grudging approach to justice I spoke of earlier, because of the imbalance between a liberal legislative environment and illiberal public opinion, places a profound constraint upon governments in reforming the Court system. Reforms that ?make the trains run on time? are likely to be tolerated, while reforms that uphold the rights of citizens, which Lord Acton would have approved of, let alone extend those rights, are less likely to find public favour.

In short, therefore, as governments cannot afford to stray too far outside the tram lines of public opinion, and as touchstone issues like health and education will always the dominate the competitions for public attention and government resources, I do not hold too much hope for major Court reform in the immediate future.

The Freedom and Security of Minorities

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:41:54 +1200

The great English liberal historian Lord Acton once wrote that "The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities."

It would be almost impossible to disagree with that principle ? but what is the true measure of freedom and security in modern society? Many will cite the United Nations? Declaration of Human Rights and argue that its provisions meet Lord Acton?s tests, as the benchmark against which nations should be ranked. Others will adopt a lesser standard based on the reduction of wants and the improvement over time of individual conditions.

Be all that as it may, the most obvious manifestation of freedom is surely more straightforward ? that people are able to achieve, within safe and secure boundaries, their individual potential to the greatest extent possible, without compromise to their basic liberties of assembly, speech and belief. Implicit in this is recognition of the dignity of each person, founded on respect for individual worth, although not necessarily their particular views or situation. Against such yardsticks we can begin to assess the level of freedom and security we accord to our own society: the young, the old, the disabled, the sick, the generally under privileged, racial and sexual minorities, as well as the generally conformist majority.

But meeting these tests will often be a matter of national attitude, as much as it is a matter of legislative protection. Too often in this country we seem to have fallen back on legislative protection, without recognising that it needs to be accompanied by a positive individual attitude. It is all very well to be rigorous in upholding those laws which give protection to the rights of minorities, but this is of limited value if not accompanied by real individual and societal commitment to the principles and intent of the law in question.

Through the various pieces of civil and human rights legislation passed by the New Zealand Parliament in the last 150 years, we have built up a proud tradition and strong legal framework dedicated to the provision of freedom and security for all our people. But we have been far less positive in working to ensure that the spirit behind all these provisions has been widely embraced by our people. A quick listen to talkback radio, or visit to the blogosphere, will quickly show how embittered many of our people are, and how many existing rights they actually want to curtail.

So maybe it is time to take on afresh the mantle of promoting freedom and security ? not in the neo-anarchistic way the libertarians and the far right do, or the soft hold no-one accountable of the left ? but in Lord Acton?s principled context of individual respect for human dignity and worth? Maybe it is time to stop trying to promote New Zealand as a bi-cultural monolith, but to recognise the increasing diversity of cultures and backgrounds that we are today, and to encourage all to play their part in shaping the New Zealand of the future? Maybe it is time to set the national goal of excluding nothing as impossible, and seeking to empower all New Zealanders to achieve accordingly?

As it happens, these sentiments already find clear expression in UnitedFuture?s mission statement to promote strong families and vibrant communities: to seek a fair, and open society, free from poverty, ignorance and prejudice, and based on innovation, self-reliance, justice and integrity in business and personal dealings, where all New Zealanders, whatever their background, race or creed, have the chance to enjoy everything that is good in our country. We are surely today?s equivalent of Lord Acton?s powerful dictum.

Adult Community Education

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:09:37 +1200

The issue of the future of Adult Community Education (ACE) has been in the news recently, following the government?s Budget decision to substantially reduce funding for school based programmes (evening classes) in particular from the start of next year.

Already, this is having an effect with current programmes (including in my own electorate) announcing they are closing down form the start of next year. With over 200,000 New Zealanders currently involved in ACE to some extent or other, it could be argued that this is a heaven sent opportunity for Opposition parties, which, true to form, are running round organising community meetings and petitions, with all of the ?Stop the Cuts? fervour of the early 1990s. And they are likely to be just as unsuccessful this time round as they were then.

The reason for this is simple ? it is one thing to oppose what is being done, but quite something else to promote a viable alternative. In this instance, I do not like for one moment what is happening, but, equally, I do not believe the impact is, or should be universal.

ACE has a long and proud tradition in New Zealand. It has gone by many names: from adult education to extension services, through to the work of the WEA. Today, it is maintained at a variety of levels, from the community education centres I have referred to through to groups like the University of the Third Age. The issue is here is less about the future of ACE, than it is who pays for it.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn between a number of what I would regard as essential ACE services (ESOL, migrant resettlement, budget advice, parenting skills etc) typically provided through local community centres and specialist agencies, which arguably have a strong community benefit, and those courses which are more individually focused, and have an essentially private good focus, be it vocational or recreational. To me, it is not unreasonable in those instances for the course participant to pay a realistic fee for the course provided. That is where the debate should be focusing.

Sadly, however, by taking the broad brush approach and treating all community education programmes as the same, both the providers and the Opposition are ensuring that the outcome will be equally unsatisfactory across the board. All they are doing is ensuring that all programmes are equally at risk, which is extraordinarily shortsighted.

A more sensible and constructive approach would be to follow the course I have suggested above, of making a distinction between the public and private components. That will at least ensure the continuation of what I regard as essential community programmes, while providing a basis for more individualistic course to be continued on a user-pays basis.

The test of the critics? integrity will be the extent to which they are prepared to be pragmatic, rather than dogmatic.

Eight Months of National

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:43:32 +1200

Just under eight months ago the current National-led government took office, so it is timely to consider what progress UnitedFuture has been able to make as part of that administration in pushing our key policies.

UnitedFuture?s Confidence and Supply Agreement with the National Party included a commitment to make greater use of private surgical hospital capacity to reduce elective surgery waiting lists in the public sector. The recent announcement that the government is to contract with the private hospital sector to undertake more operations, including cardiac surgery where there are presently long waiting lists in the Auckland area, is a significant first step in that regard. Beyond that, in my role as Associate Health Minister I am currently looking at a range of long term options about how we can achieve better integration between public and private hospitals. Our policy of making private health insurance premia paid by the over 65s tax deductible is also on the table, and I see this as an important step towards the establishment of a comprehensive national health insurance scheme about which I have spoken in detail recently, and will be saying more on in due course.

Another provision of the Confidence and Supply Agreement was to proceed with the full implementation of Medicines New Zealand, the national medicines strategy I developed under the last government to give New Zealanders better access to the medicines they need. The government has already made a significant funding boost for high cost medicines, and I have established a special pharmacy sector task force, in consultation with the Pharmaceutical Society, to look at the way the pharmacy sector needs to be structured in the future to meet the challenges of Medicine New Zealand.

The Confidence and Supply Agreement also made reference to the establishment of a statutory Big Game Hunting Council to promote the interests of the recreational hunting sector. This proposal grew out of the recommendations of the game management panel we had set up under the last government, but the establishment of the statutory body had been a step too far for Labour. The current government has agreed to the idea, and now work is underway to bring it to fruition in the not too distant future.

Another aspect of the Confidence and Supply Agreement was the proposal for legislation to establish a voluntary income splitting scheme for parents with dependent children, which I note has been the subject of favourable editorials in the New Zealand Herald and Otago Daily Times in recent days. Again, this builds on work we undertook with the previous government, in particular the discussion paper I issued as Minister of Revenue setting out how an income splitting scheme could work in New Zealand. I am expecting to introduce legislation to Parliament in the first few months of next year to set up such a scheme. National has pledged its support for the Bill to go to a select committee, and if it receives support beyond that, then income splitting could be in place by 1 April 2011.

One other issue, not part of our Confidence and Supply Agreement, but important to UnitedFuture nonetheless was the extension of the 20 hours free early childhood education scheme to play centres, and in that regard last week?s announcement of such a policy is very welcome news indeed.

After last year?s election there were one or two sceptics who doubted UnitedFuture with just one MP could play any significant role in government. The progress set out above, together with the general work I am doing across my Revenue and Health portfolios, dispels that doubt, and shows that a small party, backed by sound policy and a dedicated, determined and cohesive team can make real progress.

It's always been about families

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:19:01 +1200

A common criticism I hear of UnitedFuture is that ?you don?t seem to stand for anything ? because you?re in the middle, you flop from side to side as it suits.?

Well, leaving aside the small problem of our clearly defined principles and detailed policies, set out fully on our website, which give the lie to that claim, and prove the (often) media critics who promote it to be the lazy, ignorant poseurs we have long known them to be, there is still one overwhelming distinctive that separates us from all the other political parties on the New Zealand spectrum.

We are what we always have been ? the family party. We are the only party that can be relied on to put the interests of families first in all policy areas, and to keep policies focused on the families and households that make up our country.

But the family party is not the ?family values? party. We are here for all New Zealand families, whatever their situation, recognising the pressures upon them in their daily lives, and doing our best to support them and the communities in which they live and work. By contrast, ?family values? carries the taint of conservative religious values, typified by the scary array of fundamentalist organisations (New Zealand?s version of the Mullahs) behind the forthcoming child discipline referendum. At best they represent one distant end of the spectrum only, and their arrogance in presuming to speak for all families is breathtaking, to say the least.

The one thing we do know about families is that no two families are alike. That is hardly surprising, given the diversity of humanity. Our individuality is what distinguishes human beings form the animals, so it is logical that while we all have a family structure, it is by no means a uniform situation. Those, like the extremists, who focus on family form, rather than function, miss the point. What families do, and how they function, is far more important than what they look like.

So UnitedFuture?s commitment is to families in their generic form. When Norman Kirk spoke in the early 1970s of the primary role of government being to promote policies in the interests of families, he did not then go on to define what constituted a family, or what values a family should hold. He did not need to ? he knew then what we know now that family is a bigger concept than that.

So while UnitedFuture is unapologetic for being the family party, we are equally explicit that we are here for all families, whatever their shape, or their circumstances, or their concerns. Every family contributes to the rich tapestry that is New Zealand, and every family deserves encouragement to be the best it can be.

You cannot stand for anything more powerful or inspirational than that.

The Child Discipline Referendum

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:19:28 +1200

The farce surrounding the child discipline law citizens initiated referendum threatens to bring the whole referendum process into disrepute.

I think citizens initiated referenda are a good idea as either a safety valve for community feeling on a particular issue, or as a way of testing public feeling on a matter that falls outside the normal pattern of political debate.

But to be credible, the questions posed have to be impartial, not loaded. And our record to date in this regard has been woeful. The very first CIR (which about 88% of those bothering to vote supported) asked that the numbers of professional fire fighters not be reduced. What it really meant was that the then government?s fire service restructuring programme be stopped. At the end of the process, not only did the restructuring proceed as planned, but the number of professional fire fighters actually increased by about three, thus meeting the referendum?s request, but clearly not the intent of those behind it. I know, because I was the Minister responsible at the time.

Similarly, the famous law and order CIR that accompanied the 1999 election and received about 94% support was equally vague in its wording. It was almost impossible to oppose tougher sentences for violent offenders, although the referendum did not spell what these should be, thus again leaving the government of the day able to argue that a very modest lift in sentences meant the referendum?s message was being honoured, while the organisers were left saying the government had not gone far enough, and thereby breached the referendum decision.

The current child discipline CIR falls into precisely the same traps. Not only is its wording as vague and meaningless as the wording of the earlier CIRs, but the motives of its promoters are at variance with the stated intent of the referendum. This is not about protecting ?good? parents from being criminalised, but all about promoting a very narrow, fundamentalist agenda based on the Old Testament injunction that to spare the rod is to spoil the child, and that ?loving? physical discipline is therefore something to be encouraged, not abolished. That view is thankfully a million miles away from the views of the majority of sensible New Zealanders, regardless of whether they support the current child discipline law, so the outcome is likely once again to be confusing and unsatisfactory.

What needs to happen to tidy up this shambles is that the process for approving the wording of referenda needs to be tightened to ensure the question put before voters is intelligible, unambiguous, and capable of providing a clear message to Parliament. In this case, the question should simply have been ?Do you support the current law on child discipline?? Anything less specific than that is a meaningless waste of time, and $9 million that could be better spent on parenting programmes.

The Assault on Reason

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:24:51 +1200

A couple of years ago Al Gore wrote a book entitled ?The Assault on Reason.? It was primarily a thinly veiled attack on the Bush Administration and the perceived prejudices by which it operated, but the point behind it had some overall validity nonetheless.

Politics and public discourse today have become dominated by passions and feelings, rather than rational analysis of the issues involved. Evidence and the facts have long been overtaken by interpretation. For their part, politicians increasingly take electoral success to mean not only endorsement for their policies but also their personal prejudices. Funnily enough, when we observe such trends in the Muslim world, we decry them as ?fundamentalist?, but when the same thing happens in our world we tend to admire it as ?principled?.

To my way of thinking, both are as bad as each other. There used to be a classic slogan from the old radio crime dramas of ?the facts ma?am, just the facts? which is worth remembering here. How refreshing would factually based public debate be!

Take a couple of contemporary New Zealand examples. The Auckland supercity debate is being completely sidetracked by ?feelings? ? the perhaps understandable upset of a handful of Mayors who see themselves being put out of a job, and the ?outrage? of some tangata whenua that they will have to compete for electoral preference on the same basis as everyone else. Both blame the ideology of the Minister of Local Government for their predicament (a highly superficial assessment at best), and invoke all sorts of emotion in support of their respective cause. Neither seem interested in a rational and critical assessment of what is best for Auckland.

Then there is the matter of a separate penal institution for Maori. Again, the argument is focused on the emotion rather than the facts. The Labour Party screams ?separatism? (somewhat ironic I would have thought given its record) while the Minister of Maori Affairs defends it as ?good for Maori.? Where is the analysis about whether such institutions work, by helping rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism? That is the criterion on which or otherwise of this proposal should be judged.

These are but a couple of examples of what I describe as ?feel good? politics, where making the ?right? (surely a value judgement if ever there was one) decision has become more important than making a workable decision. Social policy in particular has become littered with this type of politics in recent years. For example, I was stunned to learn recently that medical students at one of our largest hospitals spend five weeks dealing with the nebulous issue of ?public health?, but only one week on cardiology, and one week on cancers. Yet heart problems and cancers remain the two biggest killers in our society.

As a liberal, I believe very strongly in the primacy of reason, where decisions are based on the evidence not the prejudice, and where we do things because they work, not because they look or feel good. That is why as Associate Minister of Health I want to see more collaboration between the public and private surgical sectors to reduce elective surgery waiting lists, not because of an ideological view that private is better than public, but simply because it strikes me as dumb to have surplus private sector surgical capacity while the public system is hopelessly overloaded and waiting lists are growing. It is why I want see our alcohol and problem gambling policies focus on dealing with those adversely affected by abuse of those products, and not curtailing the opportunities of the overwhelming majority of people who enjoy them, and will never suffer any problems. And why as Minister of Revenue I am far more interested in a tax system that works and is basically fair, rather than one which is ideologically pure.

I want UnitedFuture to become the party which safeguards reason, which ensures there is always in our political system for being governed by the facts, which provides the reality check, and stops the current hijack of principles by prejudices.

PUTTING THE CHARITABLE SECTOR CENTRE STAGE

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:59:48 +1200

In a recent newspaper column Associate Professor Susan St John expressed concern that the reform of the tax treatment of charitable donations I instigated under the last government, and which is continuing under this government, is a costly, risky and uncontrolled experiment, which could lead to the balance of social service provision shifting away from central government.

Well, she is absolutely right. That is precisely what I am intending.

The charitable and philanthropic sector already makes a huge contribution to New Zealand society in the provision of health, education, welfare and general community services, and the reality is the government could never hope to bridge the gap, if the sector was to suddenly shut up shop. In addition, there are now many business organisations working in partnership with charitable and voluntary agencies, so the model Ms St John fears is already close to being entrenched here.

The question which then arises is the extent to which the donation preferences of those who support these initiatives should be recognised. The removal of the limits on tax subsidised donations was but the first step in a comprehensive programme of reform underway in this area. It will be followed later this year by the introduction of a payroll giving scheme whereby employees can have donations credited directly from their pay, and subject to a tax rebate at the time, rather than at the end of the tax year as at present.

There has already been a lift in the amount of expenses volunteers can claim as a tax deduction, and work is continuing on other related issues, such as the tax treatment of those who gift goods or services in kind for charitable purposes. At the same time, a review is underway of the criteria by which organisations are recognised as charities and thereby tax exempt. I expect to be making further announcements on all these issues as the year unfolds.

There is nothing to fear from having a strong and vibrant charitable and philanthropic sector making an important contribution to the delivery of health, education and social services, or active partnerships between and community organisations to deliver agreed community goals. The support the sector currently enjoys shows it is a concept many New Zealanders already strongly approve of and actively participate in through their direct financial support. In many cases, it is because they believe these services provide better and more compassionate outcomes than the state alternative. From a government?s point of view, it makes good sense to encourage the support and growth of these activities, as they ultimately lessen the demand on the public purse. After all, it is far better to make good use of committed and determined community resources, where these are readily available, than to replicate them.

Ms St John worries that this policy will lead to uneven outcomes, and that the vulnerable will not have their needs similarly attended to. On the contrary, supporting strong and viable community organisations in their work not only strengthens their ability to deal with disadvantage and poverty where they encounter it, but also frees up government resources to more directly focus on these issues.

It is the classic ?win, win? situation.

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:51:46 +1300

I have just attended the High Level Session of the 52nd Session of UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna.

New Zealand is not a member of the Commission, but is a party to all the relevant UN Conventions. The Vienna meeting was an opportunity to review progress over the last 10 years, and to chart a course for the future.

One of the most contentious issues was around whether future drug policy should be emphasise supply control, or harm reduction. In essence, the argument boils down to whether the focus should be on stopping the supply the drugs, or managing the consequences of the misuse of drugs. Of course, things are not that absolute, and like all these issues, positions are quickly polarised. ?Supply controllers? are dismissed as reactionaries, while ?harm reductionists? are accused of being apologists for the legalisation of drugs.

I was given the privilege of chairing the roundtable session on harm reduction. This session was attended by well over 50 countries, and was by far the largest roundtable session of the conference. During its half day session, well over 40 countries contributed to the debate.

Let me offer the following observations based on that experience. The Dutch representative stated the position most clearly from my point of view. She said that prevention was better than cure; cure was better than harm reduction; and, harm reduction was better than nothing. In my own remarks to the plenary session the day before I had called for a comprehensive approach based on the three equal pillars of supply control; demand reduction and problem limitation. This call won support from many countries including Australia, Canada and the United States. This type of balanced approach seems to be what most countries are following, with the hard line states more strongly focused on the single pillar of supply control being countries like Sudan, Japan, Russia and Malaysia. The most interesting observation came from Iran?s representative who acknowledged that his country?s historical hard line had not worked, and they were now focusing heavily on primary prevention and education as the way forward.

So what does all this mean for future New Zealand drug policy? First, it confirms that our approach is line with the international mainstream. Second, we will not be taking a softer line on drugs, and all the existing legal prohibitions will remain in force. At the same time, we will continue to place an emphasis on minimising the personal, social and economic consequences of the misuse of drugs. I think we need to be doing more with regard to the provision of treatment services, particularly for the young, and that we need to be placing much greater emphasis on effective evaluation of the programmes we do have in place to ensure they always remain fit for purpose.

Those who try to polarise the debate as one between supply control and harm reduction miss the point. The drug debate is not one that will be won at the margins. It is one that requires a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach, based on a sound legal framework, and society?s compassion to deal with the individual consequences of misuse.

REALISM AND COMMONSENSE OR FOOLHARDINESS?

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:36:17 +1300

The media often describes me as the ?self-appointed? Mr Commonsense of New Zealand politics. (Actually, I have never made that claim for myself. It has always a title commentators have foist upon me.)

Anyway, a couple of events have occurred recently to remind me of this, and the fact that commonsense is never allowed to win, because bravado and foolhardiness are that much more exciting.

First, for over 20 years now we have had expert commentators (dare I call them self-appointed?) calling for the introduction of a capital gains tax in New Zealand. For the same period of time we have had government of all political hues steadfastly rejecting the idea, and clear signs from the public that any government that did bring in such a tax would pay an awful price at the next election.

When the slow summer period and even slower residential property sales gave the argument one of its periodic outings recently, I was minded to draw attention to these facts, and to observe that in the light of that a capital gains tax was most unlikely to ever be introduced and that therefore the notion may as well be forgotten once and for all. That seemed to me to be a realistic and commonsense view, based on our experience of the last 20 years or so.

Yet to the (again self-appointed?) commentators, it was nothing of the sort. It was instead an abdication to political expediency on my part, when what I should have been doing was showing leadership by making the case strongly for such a tax, even though I do not believe in it. It seems like a modern version of the ?full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes? approach New Zealanders came to despise during the 1980s and early 1990s, and I would have thought any responsible political leader would be heeding, not ignoring, those lessons.

And then last week there was the argument over whether payments into the so-called Cullen Fund should be suspended because of the economic crisis. Let me be clear: there is provision for the government to do this in times of stress, provided the suspended payments are made good in the future, and a strong economic argument can be made to do so at this time.

Against that is the fact that superannuation remains a volatile issue. By establishing the fund in 2001, Labour recovered some of the ground it lost through the introduction of the surtax in the 1980s. National has yet to make up ground for its cuts to superannuation in the 1990s. Many superannuitants (who would not be affected either way) and their families (who are far more likely to be affected) remain remarkably twitchy and unconvinced that whoever the government is in the future there will not be a reduction in the rate of superannuation payments, and a rise in the age of entitlement. Tinkering with the Cullen Fund now could well be seen as the thin end of the wedge and thus reignite the currently dormant superannuation fires.

The point I made in this debate was given that background, and the bitterness of superannuation politics over the last three decades, no government, particularly a National one, would be silly enough to open up this can of worms all over again. A reasonable comment, I would have thought. But, no. These same commentators decry this as further wimping out on my part.

What they all fail to realise is that leadership is not about telling people in a ?like it, or lump it? manner what is going to happen. Big-bang, foolhardy politics may well sell more newspapers and excite the television commentators (surely the most superficial breed of humanity ever) but they rarely succeed. And, most tellingly, the commentariat never have to present themselves for public approbation and assessment the way politicians do every three years.

Rather, real leadership is about working with people, guided by the lessons of history, and the overall constraints of society to make sustainable progress. In a democracy, political leadership, by definition, must always operate within the boundaries of public tolerance. The ultimate reality for any political leader is that every three years they have to face an electorate and be judged on their stewardship. That is as it should and, as a democrat, it is a reality test Mr Commonsense does not forget.

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:50:21 +1300

My comments last week about Waitangi Day, and the need for a thorough process of constitutional review towards making this country an independent republic in the Commonwealth, and changing the name of our national day along the way attracted the ire of someone called Tapu Misa in the New Zealand Herald (at least she was brave enough to put her name to her column) and some emboldened, but anonymous, editorial writer for the DominionPost, against whom no such accusation could ever be made. Both totally missed the point I was making about the need for widespread constitutional change. Instead they found it easier to sneer that my call to rename Waitangi Day was contrary to the ?spirit? of the Treaty of Waitangi. (Now, what on earth does that mean? Surely we have not now moved on from the vagueness of Treaty ?principles? to the even vaguer adherence to its ?spirit??). Moreover, they both argued a bit of dissent and argument on our national day was no bad thing, and showed how grown up we were as a nation. (So the best families are those that fight amongst themselves on birthdays? I must remember that.)

As I say, the point about Treaty ?spirit? is no more than the type of meaningless mumbo jumbo one expects to drip from neo-populist columnists? pens, while the suggestion that dissent is a normal part of the way countries celebrate their national days is simply fatuous and says more about the intellectual infirmity of its author than anything else. Be all that as it may, neither were points that I was making. I was arguing for a much broader and more determined process of constitutional review that appears to be on offer at present. A sophist deal between the National and Maori parties that enables both to save face on the future of the Maori seats is hardly that. Yet it is apparently something we are supposed to hail.

After the level of Ms Misa?s and the DominionPost?s analysis and the usual round of ?fresh, young country at the crossroads, bravely facing the future, marching forwards hand-in-hand? type speeches of recent days, I am for the first time feeling somewhat disheartened about the prospect of real constitutional change in our country. It might require too much thinking. And besides, the Wellington Sevens and beating the Aussies was much more fun over a long weekend.

LET?S HAVE A PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:43:48 +1300

Another Waitangi Day is nearly upon us. The speculation is that this year?s occasion will see the unleashing of a debate about New Zealand?s constitutional future. That sounds like a grand initiative from a new government, seeking boldly to shape the country?s future, but the reality is far more sober and uninspiring.

The great constitutional debate is nothing that sophist exercise to enable the National Party to hold a referendum on the future of MMP (to which I do not object) and both National and the Maori Party to save face on the future of the Maori seats issue, given National?s pre-election pledge to abolish, and the Maori Party?s determination to entrench them. So, what better way to avoid the crunch of having to deal with the issue than indulge in the earnest and time consuming discussion of a constitutional debate?

The sad thing, though, is that we do not need to not only debate these issues properly, but to move purposefully towards their resolution. While it could be argued that just talking about them is an improvement ? albeit a minute one ? on the studied ignoring of them as too hard that has been the case of recent years, it is still pretty inadequate. We just end up looking like a country too scared and lacking in self-confidence to debate the type of future we want.

At the last election, UnitedFuture was the only party to put forward a comprehensive programme of constitutional review, and it bears reconsideration here. Our Purposeful Democracy policy set out a pathway for reform as follows:

? A referendum on the future of MMP, in 2010, to allow the New Zealand people to review the effectiveness of the system to date
? A referendum on the future of Maori seats in Parliament to be held in conjunction with the MMP referendum, with a view to abolishing the seats by 2014. This would give effect to the recommendation in the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System.
? Moving towards New Zealand becoming a republic within the Commonwealth by 2017, with a referendum in this term of Parliament on having our own Head of State.
? Establish a New Zealand Day separate from Waitangi Day to celebrate our nation?s history, multicultural society.
? Investigate an extension of the Parliamentary term to four years, with a fixed election day.
? Introduce a Multicultural Act, similar to Canada, for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in New Zealand.
? Ensure that school pupils understand their civic rights and responsibilities, the structure of the New Zealand Parliament and of Local Government and their means of access to them.
? Nationally televise the Youth Parliament to give credence to the efforts of young people to lift the bar.
? Require immigrants to take a civics course as part of becoming a New Zealand citizen, to promote civics understanding and teach immigrants what it is to be a ?Kiwi? & what the norms & expectations of New Zealand society are.
? Introduce a graded system towards citizenship to develop the idea that citizenship is a privilege and not a right.

This is still the most comprehensive constitutional reform policy on offer from any of the political parties. New Zealanders are ready to debate and resolve these issues, and deserve to be given the respect to do so. A half-hearted or so structured debate designed to produce particular outcomes and avoid others because they might be politi8cally awkward is no debate at all, and in insulting to the majority. The tension and division of Waitangi Days past may be behind us now, but it is to be hoped that the new spirit of Waitangi is not instead going to become one .of one of obfuscation and avoidance,

It's all in a word

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:12:52 +1300

One of the misused words in the English language must surely be the word ?liberal?.

To many, it means a virtual fetish for supporting every passing trendy international or social cause ? very much the meaning applied to it by the Americans in particular and increasingly the meaning applied in countries like New Zealand, and by those opposed to any form of social change. To the religious right, for example, to be a liberal is to be ?pro? all the things they are against. The ?liberals? are godless, anti family, anti society radicals to be scorned in very much the same way the ?pinkos? or ?commies? were a generation ago.

Others see word in terms of the neo-liberal economic approach of the New Right and its disciples, and consequently dismiss liberals as no more than blind adherents of the type of selfish, scorched earth policies associated with the Regan and Thatcher eras.

Yet there is another view of what it means to be a liberal. I have heard liberals described as people who value independence and strong character, who respect other people?s beliefs and who are committed to social justice, drawing from the community in the main, and relying on the institutions of the state as necessary.

That certainly fits with my own life philosophy. I remember vividly being told at college that free will was what distinguished human beings from animals. We each have the right to be right, and the right to be wrong, and that it is our core moral values, inherited from our families and communities, that provides the compass which determines how we live our lives. At the same our independence and freedom is qualified by the extent to which it impinges on others? independence and freedom, and, as social beings, we do have a responsibility to those in need.

That is the type of liberalism I have always sought to promote, and which I see UnitedFuture as the current sole custodian of in the New Zealand political landscape. I fully accept that in a world torn between rampant individualism on the one hand, and the nanny state protectionism on the other it may not always be a popular or widely supported position. But what is right and proper does not always equate with what the majority thinks.

Over the next few months, as the international economic crisis bites ever deeper, upholding social justice and utilising the power of the community to resolve society?s problems is likely to come into vogue once again , even if the controversial ?l? word itself does not.

Hopes for the Obama Presidency

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:06:07 +1300

I too have been inspired by the power of Barack Obama's oratory, his compassion and his vision. I too hail his election as a defining moment in American history, the ultimate triumph of the Founding Father's dream. I too admire the powerful ceremonial occasion that is his Inauguration, and note the similarities to the advent of another young President nearly half a century ago. I too celebrate with all Americans and freedom loving peoples of the world this remarkable occasion and the opportunities it provides.
Whether it be Franklin Roosevelt's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", Winston Churchill's "We will never surrender", or John Kennedy's "The torch has passed to a new generation" proclamations, that have preceded Obama's Inauguration, there can be little doubt about the power of words to excite the human spirit, and to unleash a sense of optimism and hope, and a fresh yearning for freedom and progress. Barack Obama tapped deeply into that vein in his own Inaugural Address.
But while the tumult will die away, the memory of the words become blurred, and the sales of the memorabilia start to slow, life's tiresome realities will remain, and the challenges they impose will still require resolution. And that, as always, will provide the real test of leadership.
I too have high hopes for the Obama Presidency. War, economic recession, and reuniting a divided nation are awesome enough challenges for anyone to take on, even in the most normal of times. But the biggest challenge Brack Obama faces is none of these things. The swooning sycophancy of the world's media has created an almost impossible set of expectations for him to satisfy.
I desperately want Barack Obama to succeed, not just for America's sake, but for the sake of democracy, freedom, and the human condition. He is not a media creation to be made and broken as they see fit, but the democratic choice of a free people. I want him to succeed to reclaim the now quaint notion that ultimately it is the people's choice (not the scornful news media) that determines the course of events, the fate of peoples, and the destiny of nations.

Christmas Message

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:03:17 +1300

Christmas means many things to many people. But it is essentially the main family event of the year. Whether it be gathering around the tree on Christmas morning to see the kids' excitement as they open their presents, or catching up with relatives and far flung families, or even just a few beers with some good mates, it is all about togetherness and friendship with those closest and dearest to us.

So my message to you in this my last blog for 2008 is whatever Christmas holds for you, wherever you may be, is that you enjoy the occasion as one of genuine peace and goodwill. But spare a thought too for the lonely, or the dispossessed for whom this may be a time of particular sadness or hardship.

If you are travelling, do so safely. And may 2009 bring you all that you wish from it.

UnitedFuture will be back next year, as strongly as ever, promoting our issues of concern with vigour and compassion.

But until then, there are some festivities to be enjoyed, some sun to be lazed in, some books to be, and some sleep to catch up on .....

Time for Action, Not Talk

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:09:22 +1300

Let me put is as simply as I can.

If you believe in ?

? Freedom of political choice through free elections;
? Freedom of speech, information and assembly;
? Freedom of belief and religious expression;
? Self-reliance, personal responsibility and independence;
? Proper reward for effort.

If you believe ?

? Family and communities are at the heart of a sustainable society;
? Every child deserves the best start in life;
? New Zealand can become the world?s best multicultural society;
? The promotion of innovation, creativity and wealth is vital to our country?s future, but must be balanced by a recognition of wider social responsibility and the need to protect a sustainable natural environment.

Then it is time to do something about it. UnitedFuture is the party for you! But talk is not enough – now it's time for action, to give effect to what you believe in.

So, follow this link to join up and become involved today:

www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,94,get_involved_with_united_future_membership_donations.sm

UnitedFuture - where to from here?

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:45:31 +1300

Since the election many peolpl,e have asked me where to from here for UnitedFuture. My response is best summed in the comments I made in a post-election speech to the Rotary Club of Central Wellington, as follows:

"There is still a place in New Zealand politics for a party committed to the enduring liberal principles of freedom of expression, conscience and belief, which promotes economic and individual freedom but accepts these must be tempered by social responsibility, and which regards families and communities as the basis for a thriving society.

There is still a place for a party that speaks for those many thousands of politically dispossessed New Zealanders who see the National Party as simply too conservative, the Labour Party as too focused on promoting the power of the state, and the rest as too hard-line or extreme to be a credible political home.

And there is still a place for a party that is proud to seek New Zealand?s future as the best multicultural country in the world, and is unafraid to promote the political and constitutional changes necessary to achieve that.

While the UnitedFuture flame may flicker faintly at the moment, it will continue to burn, so long as there are people keen to see these values and principles represented on our political spectrum."

My invitation now is straightforward. This is the time for everyone who agrees with those principles to get involved with us, to help rebuild the Party to ensure these values can continue to be represented in the New Zealand political scene. I look forward to your response.

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:14:59 +1300

It was a bittersweet election for UnitedFuture. While I am pleased to have retained the confidence of enough Ohariu voters to remain their MP, I am bitterly disappointed we did not attract sufficient party votes to retain Judy Turner in Parliament, or to add exciting new talent like Denise Krum to our team.

I congratulate John Key on his decisive victory and on the impressive way he has put his new government together. I am naturally very pleased to be continuing in my roles as Minister of Revenue and Associate Minister of Health and to be able to push a number of key UnitedFuture policies through our confidence and supply agreement.

My congratulations to Helen Clark on nine outstanding years as our Prime Minister and my best wishes to her as she embarks upon the next stage of her journey. To Phil Goff Annette King, best wishes for the challenges ahead.

To the men and women of UnitedFuture, I have nothing but admiration for your loyalty and dedication to our cause. Our candidates and support teams all worked extremely hard to promote our message and I acknowledge your efforts.

While this election was not one of our more successful efforts, I have been encouraged by the many positive messages I have received over the last few days, encouraging us to keep on with our cause. In that respect it is worth recalling our party principles as the values that drive us forward:

We stand for freedom of political choice through free elections; freedom of speech, information and assembly; freedom of belief and religious expression; self-reliance, personal responsibility and independence; proper reward for effort.

We believe in an open market economy, and the promotion of innovation, creativity and wealth, balanced by a recognition of wider social responsibility and the need to protect a sustainable natural environment.

We put the family at the centre of policymaking, as the primary unit for a sustainable society. We acknowledge the interdependence of the family and strong, caring and compassionate community organisations.

We aim to build a modern multicultural society
which encourages social harmony and unity through respect for individual differences and cultural diversity; which recognises New Zealand?s bicultural heritage arising from the Treaty of Waitangi; encourages responsible citizenship based on mutual respect; where the framework and rule of law applies equally to all; where every child has the best possible start in life.

We uphold the right of all citizens to participate fully in the process of government. We welcome the contribution of different political parties and other groups to the overall political process.

There is still a place in the New Zealand political spectrum for a party espousing those liberal values, and that party is still UnitedFuture.

A Simple Question

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:52:29 +1200

Here's a thought.

The wasted vote at this election is actually the vote for Labour or National. They're the big guys who will be there anyway, whatever happens. So why waste your vote on them?

The most important vote is the one for the little guy who will keep the big guy honest – and on track. So, who can that be?

The party that's already been fired from government twice, and is now suspended, because it cannot tell the truth? Would you rely on them to keep anyone honest when they can't even keep themselves honest and on track?

Or UnitedFuture, the party whose word it its bond, who's always being derided as just too sensible and reliable but gets its key policies implemented, the party the media call the gold standard of support parties?

It's a bit of a no-brainer, really.

MEMO TO HELEN CLARK & JOHN KEY

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:34:41 +1200

So you both agree this election is about trust. So do I.
But you both seem to think it is about which one of you two people can trust. Well, it is to some extent, but it also about your parties.
In government, over the years, both your parties have become arrogant and have lost touch with ordinary New Zealanders. Both your parties seem to think they know best what the typcial New Zealander wants. You talk at them, rather than with them.
So, Helen, while people are desprately tired of your government and are lookinbg for a change, they do not feel, John, that things would be that much better if you were in charge. That creates a bit of a problem for you both with the trust thing.
From where I sit, people just want a down to earth, no nonsense government, that allows them to get on with their lives, without all the mudslinging, and the shilly-shallying over political donations, or the trendy causes, or the ghosts of the past. They just want some commonsense and good judgement. No high wire acts, just straightforward government.
When I hear people talk of trust, it is about who they can trust to keep both you guys honest and in check, so that power does not go to your heads.. Who is the one party over the years, that has not overplayed its hand, or lied to people, but which just got one with the job of keeping the government honest?
Helen and John, there is only one answer to that question, which is why I am really looking forward to the election.
See you on the hustings!

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:30:30 +1200

HAVE A GREAT NIGHT OUT ON SATURDAY 23 AUGUST!

Calling everyone who will be in Wellington that evening and who relishes the idea of a superb evening of Indian cuisine in great UnitedFuture company ....

You are very welcome to join us from 6:00pm at the Royal India Restaurant in Allen Street (just off Courtenay Place), Wellington. Tickets are $50 a head, drinks extra, and availabkle from Susan Butterworth, [apphijst@acktrix.2co.nzj]

Soooo, grab your friends, make up a party, and come along to our party. Hope to see you there!

Our time is coming

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:35:45 +1200

There is certainly a mood for change in the air. All the polls show it, most people talk about it. But it is not all that clear what the change is about. While, naturallly, after three terms in office the government has its foes who want to see the back of it, there is no great enthusiam for the alternative, or what it might mean. It looks more and more like a case of change for change's sake.

And that is what presents UnitedFuture with its greatest opportunity. We are a voice for a very different style of politics. We are a party of fresh ideas, not old ideology. We put families and communities first, because they are what make our country tick. We respect the dignity and freedom of each person, and accept our common responsibiliites towards each other. We are a party of change that listens and discusses, then acts.

Our commonsense and reliability are legendary. We make politics work for the community at large. At a time when our country seems ready for change and new leadership, but is uncertain of what that might mean, we are a genuine beacon of hope for the future.

We offer the assurance of supporting progressive change, without surrendering to the dictates of rigid dogma. We are the oil governments need to run smoothly. Because we are not in hock to vested or monied interests, we can act with assurance and integrity, to do the best for the people of New Zealand.

Our values are the rock on which future change can be built. That is why UnitedFuture's time is coming.

Facebook

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:17:04 +1200

Check out Peter on *Facebook*

World Youth Day

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:14:46 +1200

Peter's popping up everywhere. Here's his message for Sydney's *world Youth Day*

A Matter of Fact

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:13:22 +1200

I am sick and tired of people who wilfully or otherwise seek to portray UnitedFuture as something we are not. We are not an extreme, narrowly based group as some like to pretend, but a legitimate mainstream political party. To put us into an international perspective, have a look at the the mission statements of Britain's Liberal Democrats, Ireland's Fine Gael and New Zealand's UnitedFuture Parties. I defy anyone to spot the differences!

Britain?s Liberal Democracts ?
?exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.?

Ireland?s Fine Gael (United Ireland) Party is a party of the progressive centre?
"That means we act in a way that is right for Ireland, regardless of dogma or ideology. Fine Gael bases its policies and its ideas for the future of Ireland on its core beliefs. Fine Gael wants to create a fair and caring society where everybody is engaged in democracy, and where there are no barriers to equal opportunity. Fine Gael stands for investment in our public services and sees health and education as rights, not privileges. Fine Gael encourages initiative, innovation, investment and self-reliance. The Party also believes in preserving, enhancing and sharing prosperity. Fine Gael stands for a vibrant, competitive economy. To that end, we believe Government policy should encourage initiative and reward hard work, thus driving economic activity and creating jobs. Fine Gael wants to build a safe society in Ireland by protecting citizens and enforcing the law. The Party also believes in strengthening families, in all their modern forms, and in fostering communities. Fine Gael stands for law and order. We believe in tough sentences for criminals and more Gardai on the beat while also tackling the root causes of crime like poverty and educational disadvantage. Fine Gael believes in being truthful and courageous in what we do, and in promoting and upholding both the rights and the responsibilities of people. Fine Gael stands for integrity in public life. We believe in ensuring all of us live up to our responsibilities as well as enjoying our rights as Irish men and women. Fine Gael wants to build an Ireland of excellence and ambition. We hope to do this by promoting a shared vision of a confident and sustainable future for Ireland, both at home and abroad. Fine Gael stands for a climate of hope. To achieve this, we believe in enhancing Ireland's international reputation through our support for the European Union, protecting communities through balanced regional development and safeguarding our children's future through protection of the environment."

New Zealand?s UnitedFuture Party is a modern centre party, focused on New Zealand's best interests. We promote strong families and vibrant communities. We seek a fair, and open society, free from poverty, ignorance and prejudice, and based on innovation, self-reliance, justice and integrity in business and personal dealings. We promote a sustainable environment, and a competitive economy which encourages growth, prosperity, ownership and opportunity through market policies where possible, and government where necessary. We want all New Zealanders, whatever their background, race or creed, to have the chance to enjoy everything that is good in our country.

So whenever our position is misrepresented or we are described as something we are not, confront the critics with the above, and challenge them to explain why we are supposedly different.

Service & Duty

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:24:56 +1200

President Kennedy's great inaugural address in 1961 ended with the ringing cry," Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." UnitedFuture draws a lot of its political inspiration from that statement. We are not a party that seeks to pander to selfishness or vested interest, by scratching every itch or fuelling every prejudice. We are instead a party that believes our rights and freedoms are balanced by our repsonsibilities to each other; that service and duty are still noble concepts to be promoted; and, that listening to and trusting the people is still the best form of leadership. As we watch the fight between Labour and National become more ferocious, more personal and more bitter, we see their collective irrelevance to New Zealand's future intensify. Replacing one set of prevailing prejudices with another set is not the way to lead a country. UnitedFuture's policies are all about empowering New Zealanders to make their own decisions where they can and to be repsonsible for them. A stakeholder society, if you like, where people feel they belong and want to participate, rather than a perpetuation of James K Baxter's famous Ballad of Calvary Street ?Where two old souls go slowly mad, National mum and Labour dad.?

small minded Politicians at their Worst

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:38:02 +1200

I am sick and tired of small minded politicians whose pursuit of a headline gets in the way of the best policies for New Zealand. Earlier this week, John Key announced a National government would invest $1.5 billion in rolling out broadband to every New Zealand home. Everywhere I go, people grizzle to me about how slow our broadband is, or about the fact they are still using dial-up internet. Why can?t we have a decent broadband service, they ask? Yet when John Key announces a plan, the response from Labour, New Zealand First, and Act is universal and total criticism. Yes, Key?s plan is potentially a massive subsidy to Telecom as the network operator. Yes, they have exploited their monopoly to the limit over the years. Yes, maybe this is type of infrastructural investment is best left to the private sector. They might all be legitimate criticisms of the Key proposal. But nowhere have I heard any of the critics put an alternative idea of how to roll out broadband nationwide in a timely and efficient manner. And nowhere have I seen any signs of interest from the private sector. It reminds me of the old Lloyd George saying, ?Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no-one wants to die.? Everyone agrees broadband is a priority, but no-one has put forward any other way of achieving it. Nor have any of them explained why if this is such a great idea the private sector has not leapt at the chance to invest so far. I am not a great fan of massive state investment in things like this, but I know broadband is one of the main tools we need to progress in the future. So, rather than knock National for at last putting forward an idea of its own, I say we should be focusing on the end point we all say we agree on ? better broadband. If this is the only way to get there in a timely way, let us go for it. If not, then let us see an alternative plan. Either way, would it not be nice for once to see an end to the bickering, and a focus on getting the job done?

Finance Companies - How many more failures?

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:05:55 +1200

Almost 20 finance companies have failed in the last two years. Maybe it does not sound much when you put it that way, but what about the tens of thousands of investors who have lost millions of dollars of their lifetime savings as a consequence? That brings it home to you. It is easy to talk about the global credit crunch, and unwise investment decisions, but behind each one of these company failures lies a myriad of personal stories, of lives shattered, or dreams unfulfilled. And very few of them have any realistic chance of ever seeing their money again. Sometimes I think it is a little easy for the directors of these companies who simply resign or put the company into receivership when the things go horribly wrong and walk away almost unscathed personally, while others suffer. A correspondent reminded me recently of I a letter I had sent him when Associate Minister of Justice way back in 1990. I had written of recently passed legislation to "investigate fraudulent or recklessly run companies" and of the need to "clean up New Zealand's 'wild west' corporate image." While times have changed, there is still an awful sense of deja vu. UnitedFuture is urging the government to take immediate steps to deal with the current crisis, and to restore a sense of public confidence in the finance sector.

Kingmaker TV Debate

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:19:18 +1300

The first tv political debate was held over the weekend on TVNZ's new channel 7, featuring the leaders of the MMP parties.

If you don't receive TV7 then you can view the debate through this link http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/497100/1612045.

Caution: there is a strange count-down featuring immediately before the debate. It lasts about 4 minutes, but you can jump ahead of it.

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:32:23 +1300

Around the world a mood for positive change is apparent at present. From Australia to the United States, the thirst for change has become apparent. New Zealand is not immune from this, with the prospect of change very much in the wind, as we approach our election later this year. What particularly interests me though is the nature of the changes people are seeking. In almost every case it appears to be a yearning for something better to look forward to, rather than looking to restore a past we have moved on from. UnitedFuture is a party of change – our very name suggests that – and we look forward to playing our part in the changes New Zealand will face. But all change is not always positive – it needs to be built on a sound foundation and with real purpose in mind. As a centre party, UnitedFuture is about moving ahead deliberately and sensibly, rather than lurching from one extreme to the other. That constructive approach has been behind what we have done so far, and will be what guides us in the future. In a nutshell, we look forward to New Zealanders being able to get on with their lives, while the government backs out; where life is a positive experience, not a set of rules to be navigated around; and where governments trust the people, not second guess them in case they get it wrong. Now, that would be a real change, one we could all believe in.

Peter on why UF is important

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:30:46 +1300

With the latest polls focussing on the two old parties, Peter points out why UnitedFuture is still important in the formation of New Zealand governments that really care about New Zealand. See his argument here.

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:23:10 +1300

Political commentators are increasingly suggesting we are headed for a four party political system, comprising Labour and National, with the Greens and the Maori Party in supporting roles. Were that to be the case, the consequences are well worth considering further.

Given that the Greens and the Maori Party by their own admission already agree on 75% of the issues, and the talk of increased co-operation between the two, the immediate likelihood in a four-party Parliament is that the Greens and the Maori Party would be a permanent coalition partner for a Labour-led government. This would especially be so if it were be achieved through overhang situations where the Maori Party consistently won all the Maori electorate seats but secured a far smaller proportionate party vote. In such a situation, the National Party could find itself almost permanently shut out of power, even if, more often than not, it emerged as the largest single party in parliament after an election. Voters would be potentially worse off than even under the two-horse scenario of First Past the Post, because the contest would be just a one-horse race. Being Labour-lite might suit National in 2008, but runs the real longer term risk of making it too politically irrelevant.

All of which makes vital the role of a centre party ? like UnitedFuture. Aside from keeping Labour and National honest and on track, the existence of a strong centre party is vital for at least two other reasons. First of these is the desirability of providing a credible coalition option for National so that it will be able to govern from time to time, as the public wishes. And the second is to provide a moderating option for Labour, when the public tires of it being drawn left by the Maori/Green axis.

There is a market in New Zealand for the traditional liberalism (as opposed to the neo-liberalism of parties like ACT) of political philosopher John Locke and the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution; and more recent thinkers and social commentators like Lord Beveridge, the social architect of post-war Britain; or Sir Jonathan Sacks today. The sensible centre voice UnitedFuture promotes draws heavily from their collective thinking.

MMP introduced market forces to politics. It would be the cruellest of ironies if media obsession with the two old crones that discredited FPP ended up making MMP the most monopolistic system of all.

Peter's interview for an American TV documentary

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:45:41 +1300

Recently, Peter was interviewed for an American TV documentary on MMP in New Zealand. His unedited interview can be seen here.

Peter Dunne's opening Parliamentary speech 2008

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:25:56 +1300

Peter opened the Parliamentary year for UnitedFuture with a call for good parenting to be recognized as the core of a good society and for a much wider constitutional debate to allow New Zealanders to better assert their national identity. The video is here.

Waitangi Day - Looking Forward

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:25:30 +1300

Every year, one certainty about Waitangi Day is that it will be mired in some form of controversy ? be it protest of one form or another, debate about who has speaking rights on the marae and who does not, or comment about whether the day even merits the status we give it.

It is all so irrelevant. None of these arguments contributes anything to the development of our nationhood, or to our coming together as different peoples under the common flag of being New Zealanders. Because it is all so predictable, Waitangi Day is in danger of becoming another national yawn ? nothing more than a good holiday break once everyone is back at work, for either one more trip to the beach or barbecue with friends.

Leaving aside the separate argument of whether we should have another National Day, it is time to move on from the tedious annual introspection over Waitangi Day. While we should commemorate what was an important historical occasion in the development of our country, we also need to move forward.

It is time to talk for more seriously than we have done to date about who we are, and what are our aspirations for the future shape of our country. This is a bigger issue than many of the short term matters so much current political debate obsesses on.

We are a young, exciting multi-ethnic country, with a unique Maori heritage, bolstered by European, Pacific and Asian influences. New Zealanders today are no longer anyone else?s carbon copy. We are like no other people on earth, a trend that will become even more marked in the future. We should welcome and embrace this, rather than slip into the comfortable conformity of middle age, or draw up the ramparts against further change.

This is the moment to begin the process of developing a constitutional framework and system of government that reflects the emerging face of contemporary New Zealand. The culture of a move to more open government that the Official Information Act has encouraged; the move to proportional representation in our Parliament through MMP and the adaptations we have made to it over the years; the maturing role of the Ombudsmen as guardians of the public interest; and, the increasingly sophisticated approach to Treaty of Waitangi issues over the last 30 years have all shown we are already well advanced in developing a genuinely New Zealand system of government.

But there are other issues we have to face up to. The high quality of recent local vice-regal appointments raises the inevitable, glaring question of how much longer we can accept the incongruity of a Head of State from another hemisphere, and in many senses another world. The move towards a republic is more than likely inevitable, but that does not mean it should occur without the active input of all of us. We need to start the national debate about the type of republic we want (whether, for example, do we have an elected Head of State, or one appointed by Parliament) and the process by which it is established. While these are not decisions for governments to make, but for the people of New Zealand to decide through a binding referendum, governments do need to take the lead in getting the process underway.

A serious commitment to doing so would not only recognise our growing sense of national identity, but would also take the process of constitutional development the Treaty of Waitangi began to its next stage. It is time to start the journey.

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:06:26 +1300

In 2002 UnitedFuture reintroduced the issue of family onto the New Zealand political landscape. It had become a dormant issue over many years as family form had changed and what we now describe as political correctness had increased to the extent that family had joined politics and religion as one of those issues ?best not talked about.?

Since 2002, the issue of family has become mainstreamed, with all the major parties now claiming to be family friendly and flagship policies like the Families Commission and the Working for Families tax credits introduced. All that is good and should be welcomed. But more needs to be done yet before we can truly say that parents and families are properly valued in our society.

Less welcome and more disturbing has been the emergence of extreme, right wing groups seeking to highjack the family message for their own ends and to portray those who do not subscribe to their narrow agendas as anti-family. All they do alienate so many people with their rabid message, and turn away many others of more moderate persuasion, wary of promoting issues about parenting and families, lest they become tarred by the extremists? brush. And family will then surely become a ?best not talked about? subject once more, to the detriment of our society.

Good parents and good families come from right across the political and socio-economic spectrum. It matters not whether they are radical or conservative, rich or poor. What links them together is that they all share the common defining characteristics of being the source of love, nurturing and connection for children, and the point of identification, support, comfort and joy for all of us as we grow older.

Those features. not some rigid pre-determined form, define the institution of the family and give it its worth and relevance as an institution well worth preserving. In an ever changing world, we must never make the mistake of treating the family as having one shape only, for all that will do is alienate and embitter those who do not fit that model. And the losers from that intolerance are the children because every child, whatever their circumstances, has a right to the love and attention of both their natural parents, regardless of the form of their relationship, because no child has the luxury of being able to choose their parents.

Sadly, parents and families are the most overlooked group in our society at present. If you buy a car or a household appliance, it will come with not only a warranty, but also a full set of operating instructions, and detailed after sales service provisions. But become a parent and you are on your own. There is no after sales service programme, or warranty period ? you are assumed to know it all. And if you dare ask for help or advice, then our caring society comes down on top of you as though you are the problem, you are the one who cannot cope, and you are the one failing as a parent.

The challenge for family policy for the future is not the narrow-minded preoccupation with family form, but the wider focus of family function, and how that can be enhanced. Policies around good parenting, valuing children, affordable housing, decent incomes, inclusion and openness are what will count and excite people?s interest. That means respecting people for what they are, not what we might think they ought to be, and encouraging to get on with their lives to the best of their abilities. In short, the classic Kiwi ideal.

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:59:23 +1300

Following the death of Sir Edmund Hillary, much thought is being given to the best way to commemorate the life of this unique and remarkable New Zealander. What made him so was the extent to which we all saw him as encapsulating the best of Kiwi values. Well, let me link two ideas together. Over the past few years I have been raising the issue of what an appropriate National Day for our country should be. Amongst the various suggestions made to me, has been the persistent suggestion that May 29th – the day Sir Edmund conquered Mt Everest in 1953 – should be our National Day. So, is it now time to revive this idea as the most appropriate way to honour the life of Sir Edmund Hillary?

A last message for 2007

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:03:13 +1300

2007 has been a turbulent political year. Peter Dunne and Judy Turner take time out to reflect on what's been achieved and what lies ahead over the summer break. See their views here.

The Death of Reason, Tolerance and Courtesy?

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:49:26 +1300

There is a disturbing trend developing in public discourse in New Zealand which makes me wonder whether the virtues of reason, tolerance and courtesy that we have long prided ourselves on as a nation are at an end. Every issue today seems to become polarised as a crisis, with the capacity for a balanced and reasonable approach correspondingly diminished. In terms of ensuring an engaged society that is hardly healthy or helpful. For example, I made some comments in error on our blog site about provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill. I am personally annoyed with myself for doing so, but have freely admitted my error. Yet the responses to that admission go way beyond that, and make patently absurd claims that this proves I have no idea what the Bill is all about, or that I am merely acting on briefing notes from the PM, or both, or similar variations. None of which are at all true – I simply screwed up. I am big enough to deal with that and take it on the chin, but what worries me more is that the way in which public discourse is now conducted leads to such debates inevitably becoming personal and bitter, when there is simply no need for that. Indeed, I have always taken the view that where people indulge in personal comments in debates their views should be correspondingly disregarded, because they have not been able to put their arguments in a reasoned, tolerant and courteous manner. Surely, it is time, in the interests of civil society, to restore reason, tolerance and courtesy to public discourse, and deal with things as they are, not what one's prejudices might lead one to imagine them to be. And I make no apology for the fact that UnitedFuture will always seek to be a leader in that regard.

Peter Dunne on charitable giving and taxes

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:14:46 +1300

UnitedFuture believes the charitable and voluntary secor is central to New Zealand society. So the party is delighted it's making such progress in reforming the tax system to encourage charitable giving. Peter Dunne outlines progress so far.

Bouquets to Turners Car Auctions

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:30:43 +1300

My congratulations to Turners Car Auctions. They're doing their bit for sustainability – right now, they will sell your deregistered car for free. http://www.turners.co.nz/VehicleScrappingInitiativeFAQ/tabid/370/Default.aspx
Apparently there's strong demand for old bombs from wreakers & Turners are very confident your car will sell. The scheme is really similar to a UnitedFuture policy that would pay $200 to car owners to get their rust buckets off the road. I guess we were thinking ahead of our time! The only downside to Turners promotion is its lifespan – it only runs from now until the end of January 2008.

On a broader theme: if we're to avoid the nastier effects of climate change, then this is the kind of thing that needs to happen. Governments can't fix it all. Change needs to happen from us the people and that includes buinesses.

UnitedFuture and tax reform

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:42:49 +1300

With tax reform high in the news, Peter and Judy used a recent Question Time in the House to remind everyone of the crucial role UnitedFuture plays in getting New Zealanders the tax breaks they're looking for. See the video here.

Peter targets political hypocrisy

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:40:35 +1300

Urewera terror raids! Parliamentary punch-up! Accusations of supporting apartheid! There's plenty for politicians to sound off about, but Peter's advising putting the brain in gear before the tongue.
Click HERE to see his comments

Raising the Driving Age

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:25:34 +1300

My Bill to increase the driver's licence age is likely to come before Parliament next week. The Bill raises the age at which one can obtain a learner licence from 15 to 16 years, and the minimum period one can hold a learner licence from 6 months to one year, but does not change the 18 month minimum period for holding a provisional licence. this means that the earliest age a driver can obtain a full licence will raise from 17 years at present to 18.5 years.

Support for my proposal has been widespread as the attached article from the Waikato Times shows. I am also expecting a TVNZ poll on the issue to be released next week, possibly the evening before the Bill is debated by Parliament.

Peter on electoral financing

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:47:07 +1300

Peter Dunne gives UnitedFuture's position on the controversial Electoral Financing Bill now before Parliament. See the video here

Peter's video blog to sept 22

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:26:24 +1200

Get Peter's thoughts on political events in the week ending September 22. Peter's video blog

Is 15 too young?

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:23:30 +1200

The driving age is back in the news again, following the recent awful accidents in Christchurch where the three fifteen year old girls were killed.

I am proposing a Member's Bill to raise the earliest age at which a young driver can gain a provisional licence from fifteen years to sixteen years, and to extend the length of the learner licensing period from six months to two years. A recent poll in the New Zealand Herald showed 87% support for such a move, and the many messages I have received in my office over the last week are running at about 90% support. I am aiming to try to introduce the Bill to Parliament later this week.

It strikes me as perverse to say the very least that we have higher age limits for many other things, but our limit for learning to drive is amongst the lowest in the world, when motor accidents have the potential to do so much damage to young people.

Tax Reform

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:10:50 +1200

"It's time to start a real debate about tax reform. Everyone talks about tax reform, but very few people ever spell out precisely what they mean. The last time personal taxes were cut in New Zealand was over a decade ago, under the National/United government. Since then, both National and Labour have put personal taxes up. UnitedFuture's business tax cuts this year are the first cuts in business taxes in almost 20 years. The only times taxes have down in the last decade or so have been when we've had a hand on the tiller.

Now, we're ready to do it again, but let's have a real debate first, rather than just relying on the cheap slogans too many glibly offer. So, here are some questions to consider:

1. Are tax rates more important than tax thresholds?

2. Should GST go up to pay for big personal tax cuts?

3. How progressive should the tax system be?

4. Should government spending be cut to pay for tax cuts, if so, where?

5. What do you think of UnitedFuture's plans to align the top personal tax rate, the company tax rate, and the rate for trusts at 30 cents in the dollar?

Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:22:26 +1200

The Children's Commissioner's plans for mandatory inspection of young children to see if they are suffering from child abuse is the wrong answer
to the right question. She is right to be concerned that young and vulnerable children are being abused and that this is not being discovered
until it is too late. But mandatory inspection, especially by a state agency like Child,Youth & Family is not the answer. Instead, what we ought
to be doing is empowering voluntary organisations like Plunket to carry out more home visits, and for their assessments of family circumstances to
carry more weight than they do already. Cindy Kiro's solution may not be acceptable, but at least she recognises there is a problem requiring a
solution, a point which seems to have escaped Family First altogether with the "butt out and leave this to parents" approach Bob McCoskrie was
pushing. That is precisely the type of approach that saw the neighbours stand by and do nothing while little Nia Glassie was pegged on the clothes
line next door. Doing nothing, or leaving it all to parents is, sadly, not the way to stop child abuse.

Best Ever!

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:59:18 +1200

I worked out yesterday I've been going to political party conferences for about 25 years, but this last weekend's UnitedFuture conference was undoubtedly the best I have attended.

The enthusiasm, commitment, vigour and positive energy were evident from the time of the National Council meeting on the Friday, and it carried on through for the conference as well. There are many people to thank for this – our speakers, our organisers, our workers, and above all our party members who gave so much of their time to make it possible.

We've put UnitedFuture's stake in the ground as a modern centre party with the policies and people to match. Now, we simply have to persuade as many like minded New Zealanders as we can of that. It certainly is an exciting time to be part of this party!

The Real Business for this MP

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:16:51 +1200

My comments about the unrelenting war on sleaze between National and Labour have attracted a strong and positive reaction. People have had enough of the name-calling and muckraking that has been going on of late, and unfortunately, for many, that is about all they see in politics today.

So it is good every now and then to step out into the real world, and appreciate the very good things that are going on. Last Saturday was such an occasion. We held the annual North Wellington Voluntary Service Awards dinner to make presentations to 10 local volunteers (with over 200 years community service between them to local organisations). I set up the Awards (which basically cover my Ohariu Belmont electorate) in 2001 just after the International Year of the Volunteer as a practical way of supporting local volunteers. Our strong supporters include the local Licensing Trust and the Police, and we are very grateful for their ongoing involvement. Last Saturday's Awards bring to 83 the number of local volunteers we have recognised since 2001. Each Awardee receives a formal citation, a commemorative plaque and a lapel badge to mark their achievement. Occasions like this remind you of the important role volunteers play in our community and how little we recognise their contribution. We have about 97,000 community organisations in this country, and around 1 million volunteers.
Without them , our communities simply would not survive.

These are the things we ought to be talking about, not flinging mud with the gay abandon of recent week.

Parenting That Works

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:52:21 +1200

"Made in New Zealand: Kiwi Parents" is the name of a new UnitedFuture discussion we have released covering a whole range of issues affecting Kiwi parents, and offering ideas and seeking comments about them. From taxation to housing, education and health to welfare, and building and strengthening relationships, we have set out our thinking about the way forward in each of these key issues affecting Kiwi parents today.

But we're not just telling you what we think, nor laying down the law. We're much more interested in good policies that work, so we want your comments on the ideas we have and we want to hear from you about the parenting and family issues that you feel most strongly about.

"Made in New Zealand: Kiwi Parents" is a comprehensive document, probably the first if its type by any New Zealand political party, which underscores our commitment to supporting parents and families in a practical and comprehensive way.

This is an important approach where one size definitely does not fit all, but where it is equally important we get it right. So tell us what you think, and we'll do our best to make sure we reflect that in our next confidence and supply with whoever the government is after the next election.

We can't offer Kiwi parents a better chance than that!