Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Charles Chauvel’

Election Eleven – Saturday

26 November 2011 12 comments

.

Election Eleven – Saturday

.

.

.

National has won the election, and, seemingly increased it’s Party vote from 44% to 48%.

Despite running a policy-based campaign based on important issues, Labour has suffered a major setback.

The Greens, meanwhile, have done stunningly well.

And Winston Peters was the sole beneficiary of the  “cuppa tea” meeting in Epsom.

Some initial observations…

.

ACT

.

The “cuppa tea” meeting between the Two Johns has proven to be a futile exercise. The sole gain for ACT was to return John Banks (a former National MP) to Parliament – but with no extra MPs “riding on his coat-tails”.

In effect, there was no profit for National to support ACT. National might as well not bothered and simply supported Paul Goldsmith.

ACT’s continuing existence is now at the pleasure of Dear Leader, John Key.

By 2014, ACT will most likely disappear.

.

Green Party Voters – Ohariu

.

Green Party members in the Ohariu electorate – you people need to learn to count and to understand the concept of tactical voting.

By giving your electorate vote to the local Green candidate, Gareth Hughes, instead of Charles Chauvel, you have allowed Peter Dunne to return to Parliament and give National an extra coalition partner.

National wishes to thank you for your assistance in returning a centre-right government to power.

Similar results have occurred in other electorates, where Green supporters voted for their Electorate candidate,  instead of voting strategically, with a Labour/Green split.

For example; Waitakere:

Paula Bennett (N): 12,310

Carmel Sepulone (L): 11,961

Steve Tollestrup (G):  1,582

1,582 wasted electorate votes for the Green candidate could have helped the Labour cadidate defeat Paula Bennett. Instead, Carmel Sepulone – a very talented Labour candidate – has lost her seat in Parliament.

Similar instances abound in other electorates.

*facepalm*

Next time, Green Voters,  ease up on the wacky-bakky before you vote.

.

Asset Sales

.

By voting National, New Zealanders have given National the mandate to sell state assets. That’s our assets. Or rather, they used to be our assets. Pretty shortly, they will belong to Americans, Germans, Chinese, Australians.

Congratulations, fellow New Zealanders, you’ve succeeded in giving away our best performing; most profitable publicly-owned; assets.

After our electricity companies are sold off,  wait till you get you next power bills. When power prices begin to rise, as overseas owners demand higher and higher returns on their investments, you will be reminded that we did this to ourselves. No one forced us to sell.

Aren’t we a clever bunch?

Not.

.

Maori Party

.

Pita Sharples has stated that the Maori Party will oppose asset sales as National’s coalition partner.

Oh dear lord…

Sharples needs to look at the rules of Supply & Confidence. Specifically, if National makes asset sales a part of their budget; and the Maori Party votes down that budget; they will have denied the National-led government Supply, which in turn will force a snap election.

Does the Maori Party want to force a snap election and suffer the wrath of the voting public?

Do they want to risk electoral annihilation at the hands of annoyed voters? I doubt it.

Checkmate.

.

Horizon Polling

.

The biggest loser of the night, few will take Horizon Polling seriously after tonight’s election results.

.

MMP

.

The BIG winner of the night; New Zealanders have voted to retain MMP. This was due in part to “Vote for Change” mounting the most pathetic, incompetant, and and mostly invisible campaign in this country’s history.

And Jordan Williams had the cheek to blame the media for “not having a debate” on the issue?

Jordan Williams needs to take responsibility for his Claytons-campaign. Blaming the media  may work for Winston Peters – but coming from others, it is not a good look.

MMP won because,

  • It is relatively  simple to understand,
  • The alternatives were unfair; unworkable; or hellishly  complex to understand,
  • New Zealanders simply didn’t feel inclined to change.

.

Labour

.

Was this a defeat for Labour?

No. I see it as a postponement of a victory.

In the next three years, as National’s policies really start to bite low and middle income earners, and those at the top increase their wealth, Labour’s time will come in 2014 (if not earlier – see Maori Party above).

I am picking a snap election in a years’ time, or mid-term.

And this time, National will lose.

As for Phil Goff – I hope he doesn’t step down. I think he’s actually grown in stature over the last few weeks. He won two of the three Leader’s Debates handsomely, and is able to pin down John Key on issues.

With the media/Key honeymoon well and truly over, Goff now has a chance to show up National’s weaknesses to the public.

The campaign for the next election starts on Monday.

.

Additional

Post mortem #1: Green Voters in Electorates

Post mortem #2: Phil Goff

.

.

.

State-sponsored voyeurism? No thanks, Mr Key.

The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill is perhaps one of the shortest pieces of legislation ever brought before Parliament. The text is barely three paragraphs long.

Yet, the implications of this Bill is far-ranging in it’s impact on our society which supposedly values freedom, privacy, and civil rights.

With this Bill, the government is effectively over-riding a Supreme Court decision, and re-writing law to suit itself – and the Police force.

Many New Zealanders who understanding the ramifications of this Bill are not just unhappy – they are scornful of John Key’s government. That scorn was publicly expressed today (Saturday, 1 October), when a protest closed much of Victoria Street in down-town Wellington, opposite the Central Police Station.

The protest was peaceful and made it’s way to the nearby Wellington waterfront.

Mainstream media – except for the Radio NZ website – did not report any of todays’ protest event.

From Radio NZ,

.

Source

.

Meanwhile, the Dominion Post fed this to the Happy Folk of Wellington,

.

Full Story

.

Now don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against the military. (Even if they have mis-spent $20 million of our tax-dollars on advertising and PR campaigns.)  The NZDF generally do a damned good job.

Then, for the media to report on the pomp and ceremony of our Armed Forces – whilst ignoring protest activity  opposing a Bill that is both invasive of our privacy and contemptuous of the Courts – is frightening. And lazy. There is a tinge of subtle “stalinism” in this affair; public displays of our clean-cut, brave boys (and girls) in uniform – whilst in the back-rooms of government offices, politicians are doing sneaky things to undermine our civil rights.

Thankfully, there are those who are not prepared to take such an affront to our freedoms lying down, like sheep-in-a-paddock.

***

.

Something of immediate importance that did make it into the Dominion Post,

.

.

Never under-estimate the media’s priorities in presenting critical, news-worthy stories to the public.

.

***

.

+++ Updates +++

.

Source

.

Whilst this is a slight improvement, it still doesn’t resolve serious concerns that are held about this piece of legislation.

New Zealand has become a much-surveilled society in the last 20 years, with cameras everywhere, including your local public library.

If people had seen this coming in 1984, I wonder how they would have reacted? With horror and anger I am guessing.

.

+++ Updates +++

.

As part of the campaign opposing this atrocious piece of  “1984ish” piece of legislation, this Blog lobbied several ACT and Labour MPs to encourage them to vote against it.  Charles Chauvel (Labour) was one of only two MPs to respond,

.

from:    Charles Chauvel Charles.Chauvel@parliament.govt.nz
to:    [email]
date:   Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM
subject:    RE: Video Camera Surveillance Bill!

Good morning

Thank you for your email regarding the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill.

Labour has strongly opposed National’s attempt to push through legislation on this issue under urgency and without giving the public a say. We were instrumental in forcing National to send their original legislation to a Select Committee. We made clear that we could not support the Bill that was introduced by National as it had unacceptable retrospective provisions and appeared to widen the powers available for surveillance.

After hearing evidence from experts and other interested parties the Select Committee has significantly altered the Bill.  This has addressed a number of significant issues:

1. In order to allow the Police to resume covert video surveillance from the date of the Bill’s assent, their powers to do so are affirmed, but only on the basis of the law as it was understood prior to the Supreme Court decision, no more broadly than that (as the draft government Bill did), and only on the basis of the most serious offending. Labour would have liked the Bill to go further, and provide a warranting procedure, but the Government left the drafting exercise needed too late to make this happen;

2. The legislation will apply for a maximum of 6 months only, meaning that legislation that can deal with a proper warranting procedure for surveillance will be passed;

3. Cases currently under investigation, whether or not yet before the courts, will not be interfered with by Parliament. The Courts must be left free to determine under existing law whether evidence gathered in support of any such prosecutions is admissible. The overwhelming evidence before the committee was that s30 Evidence Act and s21 NZ Bill of Rights Act give the courts this power, and that there is no justification for Parliament to try to intervene.

With these significant changes, Labour is able to support the Bill.  We believe we have struck a balance between allowing the Police and other investigating agencies to use video surveillance where it is needed, but not giving them wider power or interfering with cases that are currently before the courts.

Persons convicted in cases where covert video surveillance was used in the past cannot now seek to overturn their convictions, or seek compensation from the Crown for wrongful conviction or imprisonment, only by reason of the use of covert video surveillance.  In other words, the law that applied at the time of conviction must clearly continue to apply, rather than the conviction being measured against a later standard.  

I appreciate that this position might not be all that you want. While it would be good to live in a world where video surveillance by the Police was not necessary, sadly we do not live in that world at the moment. Equally, if we are to give powers, we need to ensure they are used only for the most serious cases, and with the appropriate safeguards and procedures.

Labour believes that we have greatly improved this Bill, and a number of the legal academic experts who appeared before the Select Committee have acknowledged that the changes we insisted on have resolved the main issues (though not quite all) they had with the Bill.  I am attaching links to two of those blogs for your information.

http://pundit.co.nz/content/some-praise-for-parliament-rare-though-that-may-be

http://www.laws179.co.nz/2011/10/covert-surveillance-labours-bottom-line.html

Many thanks for taking the time to write. I appreciate you voicing your views.

Yours sincerely

Charles Chauvel

Labour List MP based in Ohariu
Spokesperson for Justice and the Environment

Lets hope that when the “sunset” clause takes effect, that no government of any hue will attempt to resurrect it. New Zealand is a thoroughly surveilled society without adding more to Big Brother.

.

Additional Reading

Welcome to 1984

1 October:  Citizens Marched against the new Police Surveillance Bill

.

.