The Riverman Reports - Inc. Huttz World : Phil Goff

Showing posts with label Phil Goff. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

John Key, leader of the New Zealand National Party

Image via WikipediaNew Zealand MPs given a conscience vote on the legal drinking age would probably allow 18-year-olds into bars and pubs but return the off-licence purchase age to 20...

The National Party caucus yesterday decided that the vote on raising the drinking or alcohol purchase age from 18 to 20 will be up to individual MPs in a conscience vote.

But National would vote as a party on other alcohol reforms in legislation expected to have its first reading late this year.

The caucus meeting also decided that any votes on drink-driving laws, including Labour MP Darren Hughes' private member's bill to reduce the blood-alcohol limit, would also be along party lines rather than a conscience vote as suggested by Prime Minister John Key last week.

Asked how they intended to vote on the alcohol purchase age, many MPs, including Mr Key and Opposition leader Phil Goff, said they were likely to vote for a split age which would keep the purchase age on licensed premises at 18, but raise the purchase age at liquor stores, supermarkets and other off-licence premises to 20.

Mr Goff also said it would be up to each Labour MP how they voted on the drinking age, but he supported a split age because it was better to have 18 and 19-year-olds drinking under supervision rather "than out of the back of a car in a reserve somewhere".

Of 44 MPs who expressed a preference on the subject to 3 News, 29 favoured the 18/20 split, seven preferred keeping the age at 18 and eight favoured returning it to 20.

Labour MP Lianne Dalziel, who will be leading her party's response to the Government's alcohol reform legislation, also favoured the split.

"It takes the debate away from the age which is not so much the issue but whether people are drinking in a supervised versus unsupervised environment."

Other considerations included alcohol prices, outlets and access to takeaway alcohol.

"If we don't have a debate about accessibility and have a debate only about age, we will not fix the problem."

Mr Hughes said he was disappointed the Government would not allow a conscience vote on his bill - which would lower the drink-drive limit from 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 0.05 - if it was drawn out of the ballot.

"It would have been great to have all the politics put aside and National MPs voting for it as well."

But Mr Joyce said Mr Hughes was "playing politics" himself.

"This is a party that had nine years to make some changes in this area ... and they didn't bother and now it's the most urgent thing since sliced bread."

Mr Joyce said National's caucus felt the Government had made a call to revisit the issue in two years once additional research had been completed "and they were keen to back the decision with a party vote".

Other drink-driving measures planned by the Government included a zero drink-drive limit for recidivist drink-drivers and drivers under 20 years of age and tougher penalties for people who drink and drive causing death.

National would also look at alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drive offenders.

THE NUMBERS

*44 MPs polled

*29 preferred the 18/20 split for clubs and off-licences

*8 preferred raising age to 20 for both

*7 wanted age kept at 18

But the New Zealand public may want the age increased to 20 years for all drinking, as it was before the last drinking law changes in 1999. Their opinion could be interesting, one year out from the next elections.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Official photo of Russel Norman, Co-leader of ...

Image via Wikipedia

Brutal truth behind China's pleasant smiles and New Zealand lawmaker finds out the hard way ...

"Russel Norman has done us all a favour. He got roughed up for flying the Tibetan flag in front of he visiting Chinese vice-president, but he leaves us an image and a symbol of great value. He showed the real face of the Chinese police state, not the smiling one it wears at cocktail parties and diplomatic ceremonies. The goons who pushed and shoved him and tore the flag out of his hands also tore off China's mask. The Chinese state oppresses not only the Tibetans but its own people. It does to protesters what it did, astonishingly, to an elected MP in a foreign land: trampled on his rights and treated him with brickfaced contempt. And all in front of TV cameras. This will remain as aa glowing reminder of brutal truths and as a counterpoint to the vapidities of official ritual. Vice-President Xi raises his wine glass and gives a pleasant smile. He shakes hands with John key, carefully angled for the cameras. He has a pleasant talk with Phil Goff, another "great friend" of China. Inside the gilded halls,Xi is surrounded by fawning smiles. Outside, his guards smear our sovereignty and spit on on our democratic values.

Everybody knows, of course,that New Zealand needs China's money. Politicians of both main parties have worked for years to win a free-trade deal with the emerging Chineses super-state. Without China as a market, New Zealand would be much poorer than it is. Without the growing Chinese markets in future,New Zealand's economic prospects would be much dimmer. New Zealand cannot restrict its trade to democracies. We must sell in the real world, which contains more despots than elected leaders. And this presents a problem."

The opening paragraphs in the New Zealand Sunday Times editorial of June 20, 2010.

Russell Norman the young co-leader of the New Zealand Greens Party had protested on the grounds of New Zealand's Parliament against Chinese policies regarding Tibet and had waved a Tibetan flag. He was then manhandled by Chinese security guards and had his flag taken off him and trampled into the ground. Russel Norman is an elected member of New Zealand's Parliament and should not have been physically manhandled. That was offensive and is actually assault under New Zealand law. NZ police provide all official security and protection for visiting dignatories such as the Chinese vice-president and his entourage. His security guards should have remained at his side and not become involved in any fracas. Also under New Zealand law foreign security guards cannot be armed. The NZ Diplomatic Protection Squad provides armed protection for foreigners. These security guards breached New Zealand law and could have been liable for prosecution. Of course they won't and not much will be said by those who govern New Zealand at present. They will bend over backwards not to offend Vice-president Xi, who could become the next president of China. This action offended not only members of New Zealand's parliament, but the New Zealand people who are represented by members of parliament such as Russel Norman.

Related articles by Zemanta

Friday, March 26, 2010

Richard John Seddon, Prime Minister of New Zea...

Image via Wikipedia

Will Australai and New Zealand amalgamate, is it inevitable...

Australia and NZ merger 'inevitable'? Perhaps, but such a discussion would not be an isolated one; it would be be part of a wider discussion on republicanism.

Part One: Polls and opinion

Some 40 per cent of Kiwis supported a debate about New Zealand becoming a state of Australia. Photo / Steven McNicholFormer Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon believes a merger with Australia is inevitable.

A recent poll has found 40 per cent of New Zealanders support a debate about becoming a state of Australia.

The UMR Research poll surveyed a thousand people on both sides of the Tasman.

Approximately a quarter of Kiwis favoured the country becoming part of the Australia with 71% opposed to the idea.

37% of Australian respondents supported the merger, compared 52% against it.

Sir Don - who is also a former Foreign Affairs Minister and chair of the Trans-Tasman Business Circle - told TVNZ's Q&A programme that it was just a matter of time before a formal agreement is reached with Australia.

"We've got nearly half a million New Zealanders living in Australia anyway," he said.

"By the time the next generation comes around, technology and the movement of people everywhere, New Zealanders won't want to be in the situation of paying taxes in both countries and all the time going through immigration and Customs.

They'll want to try to eliminate all those things."

Sir Don believes the shift will be people-driven, rather then politically motivated.

"It's a debate that's going to go on, but no political leader in New Zealand is going to win an election advocating this issue."

But Labour party leader Phil Goff said there was no reason for a union with Australia.

He said although Australia had nothing to lose from it, joining with a much larger country would mean giving up our national identity.

"New Zealanders are proud of their culture, they are proud of their history, they are proud of their sense of identity."

He said working towards a single economic market between the countries could be achieved without a merger.

"When we can get the benefits of a closer economic relationship and a single economic market, what are the additional benefits of simply being the seventh state?

"It's about making decisions in New Zealand for New Zealanders by New Zealanders that really matter. We can have a closer relationship, we can get the best of both worlds. Submerging ourselves into Australia is not required to achieve that."

Former Prime Minister Mike Moore said New Zealand simply had to "toughen up".

"We will not solve our economic problems by becoming a state or two states of Australia."

Part Two: The Kiwi Riverman's opinion:

The above report is an interesting one. But as I said from the commencement of this post, such a discussion would be part of a wider discussion on the merits of republicanism. Australia will drive this discussion, and New Zealand would have to consider whether it could continue on on its own. When, not if, New Zealand as a society decides its future, the discussion will move to one of a merger with Australia.

It wouldn't be a simple merger as another state of Australia, but how New Zealand would fit in with a future expanding Australia. There could well be two states, or even three when considering Auckland's role. Auckland is becoming a "city state" with a quarter of New Zealand's population. The South Island is slowly becoming a different entity to the North Island. And its true that over a half a million New Zealanders already reside in Australia.

We should consider the origination of the Commonwealth of Australia: It was originally conceived as a "Commonwealth of Australasia", but the then Premier of New Zealand, Richard Seddon, pulled NZ out of the colony amalgamation discussions and our country went on to become a dominion on its own. Australia became the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, and New Zealand became a dominion a few years later. But of course neither country really becoame fully self-governing for a few years after that.

And the matter of a republic? There will be a bit more water flowing under the bridge yet; New Zealand is actually in the process of discussing the merits of a new flag, but this is actually premature when considering the possibility of an amalgamation of the two countries, and of course the republic matter itself.

New Zealand would have to consider the future of a number of pacific islands first: the Cooks Islands are technically part of New Zealand, Niue and Tokelau are territories and Samoa is getting closer to NZ every year as more and more Samoans become resident in the country. So there is more to consider than a straight amalgamation with Australia. There could well be a consideration for an Oceanic republic.

Acknowledgements: Newstalk ZB, NZ Herald, Peter Petterson.