At least you can still say these things in NZ — for now, anyway.

In NZ this would be a clear breach of Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act:

“Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment

• Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.”

One hopes that, as authoritarian as she is, Jacinda won’t change this if her party is re-elected…

Law enforcement has the legal power ‘to remove anything (including underwear) that the relevant person is wearing’ if it’s determined that that person must be vaccinated.

Full article

This new, re-energised Maori Party is laying out policies that are intergenerational they are not incrementalist. We can be overt, straight up and honest about our dreams and aspirations. –John Tamihere, co-leader of the Maori Party

A Party with a separatist basis   

by Roger Childs

The Maori Party probably wouldn’t exist if there were no separate parliamentary seats for the ethnic group. These seven special electorates are an undemocratic feature of our political system because only people who have some Maori blood can vote for the MPs.  For elections, Maori can opt to be on the general roll or the Maori roll – a choice not available to any other ethnic group. 

Part-Maori people make up about 16.5% of the country’s population – there are no full-blooded Maori remaining. In the current parliament 28 MPs have some Maori blood — over 20% of the total number. So if it regarded as important to have Maori representation in parliament, why do we need a Maori Party?

The mainstream political parties claim to have the interests of all New Zealanders at heart, but not the separatist Maori Party.

What does the Maori Party stand for?

In John Tamihere’s statement at the top the “our” means people with some Maori blood. The Party is all about “their people”, as stated on their website.

The Maori Party is all about caring for our whanau and future generations. As Maori political movement we are guided by our kupapa, and the interests of our whānau, hapū and iwi in Parliament and Government.

One of the Party’s policies coming up to the October election is that 25% of Covid recovery money be given to businesses led by Maori. But Maori have already have received $56 million immediately before lockdown and then $900 million in the May budget. There is definitely no need for the ethnic group to have a separatist party agitating for them when the government is being more than generous. Furthermore, Maori companies already have huge assets.

Maori trusts and businesses have a massive stake in the New Zealand economy. A 2017 estimate put the value of the Maori economic asset base at over $50 billion. This has been greatly assisted by multi-million dollar claims made by different tribes against the Crown, approved by the Waitangi Tribunal and paid out by successive governments. Many Maori run businesses are also unfairly assisted by having charity status, so pay less taxes than non-Maori enterprises.

Aotearoa and stolen land

Further aspects of Maori Party’s policy include… it has called to officially change the name of the country to Aotearoa and reopen Treaty settlements to cover land that was stolen during colonisation but is now privately-owned. –Marc Daalder, Newsroom, 25 September 2020

The word Aotearoa did not appear in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The name used for New Zealand in the Treaty was “Nu Tirani’. Aotearoa was not the traditional Maori name for New Zealand – pre-Treaty Maori had no concept of New Zealand as a nation. As British Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, in his 1839 instructions to Captain Hobson put it: the natives were… a people composed of numerous, dispersed and petty tribes who possess few political relations to each other… Aotearoa was the invention of English ethnologist, Stephenson Percy Smith in the 1890s to go with his fictional tale about Kupe. It is only in recent decades that the name has been used as a Te Reo word for New Zealand. Most polls on the question of renaming the country Aotearoa have shown less than 30% in favour.

As regards “stolen land” there are no specifics in the Party policy and no mention is made about land annexed from weaker tribes by stronger iwi in the Musket Wars.

No need for a separatist party

Maori as a separate group have been incredibly well looked after by successive governments.

As stated above, the present Coalition government has already allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for Maori to help with the Covid-19 recovery. Most New Zealanders would see this as more than generous. Furthermore Maori have for decades being singled out in legislation enacted in parliament — over 90 laws have special provisions for their interests and culture. And in the area of communications, Maori television and radio stations are all funded by the state. 

There is also a separate Maori Affairs Department and all the other ministries have policies related to Maori needs and interests.

Having a Maori Party perpetuates the concept of separatism and the principle that Maori are deserving of special treatment. As it has happened the Party has only ever garnered 2% –3%  of the party vote in elections and are currently polling around 1.5%. There is no raison d’être for its continued existence.

Whereas many Christian leaders and groups are against the Dying with Dignity legislation, the Minister of St Luke’s Presbyterian Church in Auckland has come out in support of assisted dying in the interests of compassion.

By the Reverend Glynn Cardy

In a couple of weeks from now New Zealanders will vote in a referendum on the End of Life Choice Act. Both sides in this debate are motivated by compassion. Those in favour are motivated by compassion for those who are dying and are experiencing unrelievable and intense suffering. Those opposed are motivated by compassion for those who might be vulnerable to being coerced or misguided into agreeing to end their life prematurely.

Both sides also express fears. Those in favour fear unbearable suffering. They fear too that they might find themselves caught up on a relentless medical treatment treadmill. Those against fear that the legislation’s safeguards might prove ineffective, and vulnerable people will be murdered. They fear too that government and doctors will have a license to kill.

Of all these fears, the only one for which there is solid evidence is the first. While hospices and palliative care do invaluable work, they have their limits. A report by Palliative Care Australia in 2018 stated that despite excellent care, a small but significant group of patients suffer unbearably as they die – somewhere between 2-5%. This is also borne out in other studies. As Drs Munglani and Bhaskar eminent UK consultants in pain medicine have said “some pain is unresponsive to the most powerful analgesics.”

Individuals need to be in charge of their own health

Increasingly the medical profession and ethicists recognise that individuals are best placed to make decisions about their own care and treatment. There is also a strong religious ethical stream that would want to honour individuals’ consistent desire to remain in charge of their lives and dignity for as long as possible, and to take responsibility for their life.

Imago Dei asserts that human reasoning, autonomy, and responsibility are reflective of God. Theologies that somehow portray the sacredness of life as removed from the dignity and autonomy of every individual are flawed. 

The sanctity of life is not the sanctity of suffering, or disregarding steps to avoid it. As Rabbi Romain said, “it is a cruel God who uses human agony as a divine blackboard for relatives looking on.”

The issue of protecting the vulnerable

There will though always be concerns that a minority of individuals might not be mentally competent, or that they are being unduly pressured by family or other factors. This is the primary motivations of the majority of churches here and overseas who oppose assisted dying legislation, namely to protect those who are disabled, feeling coerced, suffering from depression, the chronically ill, or the confused.

And this is why rigorous, independent safeguards need to be in place. Please look at https://www.referendums.govt.nz/endoflife…/summary.html

for the criteria of who is eligible for assisted dying, and then at the safeguards proposed.

What laws overseas can tell us

The experience of other countries is valuable for studying the consequences and unintended effects of assisted dying laws, which are now available in four European countries, Canada, Columbia, Victoria, Australia from 2017, Oregon for the last 20 years, and other US states. It is now available to one in six Americans.

Despite stories to the contrary, consistent overseas data shows that voluntary assisted dying laws are safe and not a ‘slippery slope’ – the vulnerable are not targeted, suicide does not increase, and trust in doctors is not eroded. 

There are no studies which reveal coercion to be a problem.

The Hospice Association in Oregon opposed that state’s assisted dying legislation [1997]. In the years since it was enacted hospice though changed its mind. Its dire predictions had not been realised. Instead they had experienced a massive expansion of palliative care.

The Oregon legislation allows the patient, after meeting the set criteria, to be prescribed a pill. The patient must self-administer the pill. Their experience is that only 1 in 25 who made the formal request actually used the prescription. The presence of a pill in itself gave relief.

Although this self-administering would exclude some who would meet the criteria in the End of Life Choice Act, it does have the advantage of removing the doctor or nurse practitioner from the role of administering the lethal dose. One of my hesitations about our Act is the effect, conscious or subconscious, on the medical personnel involved.

My hope

My hope is that no one will ever need to call upon the provisions of this Act. Like most of us I hope, when my time comes, to die quickly and peacefully, preferably at home, preferably beside those who love me. But I’ve been a minister long enough to know that this ideal is not the reality for many. 

There are a few in their terminal stages who experience prolonged and unrelievable pain. It is for them, despite the hesitations I still might feel, that I will vote in favour of this legislation.

by Geoffrey Churchman

Last week I met with Glen and Vicky Cooper over the Council’s intended Guru Gateway, a.k.a. the ‘Kaj’. The couple run the Kapiti Island Eco ferry service to Kapiti Island and it was clear that they consider the ‘Kaj’ a huge threat to the viability of their business. I asked how many days of the year they can operate to the island, and in contrast to the full year that the KCDC Chief Executive W. Maxwell and the present Mayor claim, the season is less than half the year — about 150 days.

I suggested that rather than one lengthy article, we post a few smaller ones each dealing with an aspect of this plan. The council intentions involve the removal of 17 carparks out of 32 in the area shown in the photo above. This carpark is usually full during the weekends with shoppers and visitors to the beach.

Below is a letter the Coopers sent last week to all the councilors:-

Dear Councillors,

The Maclean Park Reserve Management Plan 2017 is a document that has been consistently referred to throughout the Gateway Project.  In several press releases, in the KCDC website and the submission to the PGF.  We would like to know how the recommendations and issues raised in this document around parking are being ignored.  17 public car parks are being removed for the Gateway in its current form. Clearly this carpark is heavily used by the public, when it is full cars do not migrate down to the Boating Club carpark which predominantly remains empty, this highlights the importance of this carpark in its current form to Maclean Park.

The proposition of Kapiti Island visitors paying to park at the Golf Club is another cost that will need to be added to the ticket price on top of the proposed $10 per adult and $5 per child for biosecurity. This is not a cost we can absorb and will result in less visitors to the island.  The Golf Club carparking is not public parking, it does not replace the 17 car parks that are being removed.

The Councillors keep referring to this document as public engagement and the strategic plan for the park encompassing the Gateway, the document clearly sets out that carparking is critical as a destination park and at capacity and in fact should be intensified in the northern end of the park.  How do you then ignore your own strategic document while using it as a supporting document?

I have attached the document and referred to multiple sections below where parking is highlighted:

Page 19. 6.4 Parking The current parking areas are insufficient to cope with the demand for parking at the reserve…

Page 41 – Project Area A: The Gateway

3. Potential Drivers and Issues

In terms of the overall park and village, the development of a significant visitor facility on this site has the potential to compound emerging issues with parking and access for large vehicles.  Park and servicing for this facility needs to be provided and contained within the northern area of the site so as not to adversely affect the recreational values in other parts of the reserve.  For this reason, it is recommended that the roundabout area be included within the project area.

Page 45 – Project Area C: Relax & Vista

3. Potential Drives and Issues

Parking provision has been raised as an issue for the township as a whole…..  Currently the park carries a significant parking load, and is the only non-time restricted parking close to the commercial area.  The provision of adequate and well located parking which is not detrimental to the quality and experience of the foreshore presents challenges for this project area and for the successful park-wide integration of the destination park with the commercial centre.

Can you please respond.

Regards

Vicky & Glen Cooper

Owner

Kapiti Island Eco

Most readers will have seen the Colmar Brunton poll results broadcast last Tuesday on TV One: Labour 48%, National 31%, ACT 7%, Greens 6%, NZ First 2%. See here.

Although opinion polls are tools of analysis and not prediction, partly because of the margin of error, but mainly because they do not take account of undecided voters, at 3 weeks out from the election, they present a fairly clear picture of how people are thinking. Here two of our editors offer differing thoughts on what this poll means.

Opinion by Geoffrey Churchman

In the 2017 election, the Labour Party got 37% of the vote, up from 25% in 2014. Early this year in the opinion polls it was slightly up on that again. Then the constant exposure that the Labour leader got during Lockdown beginning in late March on both TV1 and Newshub saw a big jump on that into the early 50%’s where it stayed until this latest poll.

At the same time, leadership woes in National which got 45% in 2017 (47% in 2014) saw their support drop; firstly Simon Bridges was replaced by Todd Muller who quit in turn because of the stress of the job in favour of Judith Collins in July.

These shifts in party public support over the last 6 years are quite substantial, and not just for the major parties: Winston Peters and his NZ First Party has dropped from 9% to 2% over this time. The Greens got 11% in 2014, 6% last time where they still are. ACT on the other hand has jumped from under 1% to 7%.

It’s a safe assumption that ACT’s increased support has come from disillusioned National supporters over its failure to oppose Jacinda & Co.’s unjustified gun grab in 2019 (David Seymour was the only MP to oppose it), but also because David Seymour is in a lot of ways the libertarian (freedom supporting) counterpart to Jacinda’s highly authoritarian attitudes with almost opposite ideology; they also are both relatively young and articulate public speakers.

It’s also a safe assumption that NZ First has lost support to Labour, and that’s a fairly typical experience with a junior partner in a coalition government.

The Greens shun populism and maintain their core support base because of that, but because they are generally seen as extremists with questionable beliefs, they are very unlikely to see an increase on 6% — in fact much depends on whether they get over the 5% threshold required for seats. If they don’t, then the bargaining in the next Parliament after 17 October will be quite different.

Issues and commitment to seeing through policy on them are really what should determine votes — and on that basis National is definitely preferable to Labour, particularly here in Kapiti — but so much of elections these days, not just in NZ, is a popularity contest based on who has the prettiest face — at present that benefits Jacinda and David Seymour, and not the others.

Unlike Roger, I don’t buy the “we saved you from Covid” Labour Party line and the pandemic has been vastly politicised everywhere. In March it was early days with much unknown about it and Lockdown was a justifiably cautious response. What we now know is that only between 1 and 6% of those who died with Covid-19 died from it alone: the rest all had other serious illnesses that would have made them equally susceptible to any respiratory system virus, particularly pneumonia and regular flu. My view is that the cure has been worse than the disease.

Normally, an economic recession that is clearly going to worsen benefits the opposition and hurts the governing party — but not this year it seems. Neither has the government’s haphazard throwing money at its favourite people rather than giving everybody more by reducing reducing GST from 15% to 10% as David Seymour is calling for. The Mainstream Media’s bias can be thanked / damned for that.

The only other candidate who could win an electorate seat is Billy Te Kahika in Te Tai Tokerau, but he’s made clear what he thinks of the Jacinda government and won’t be a part of it.

Opinion by Roger Childs

National is not appealing as it needs to

It looks likely that a Labour/Greens combination will form the government after election day, barring a major catastrophe for Labour in the next 7 days.

Unfortunately for the Tories, there have been too many gaffes and Judith Collins does not have the unanimous support of her caucus. She is also seen as having “political baggage” e.g. –

• Being a casualty of “dirty politics” in 2014 – getting too close to Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater and losing her cabinet position.  
• Promoting her husband’s Oravida business while on an official government visit to China.
• As Minister of Justice rejecting the Canadian jurist’s recommendations on compensation for David Bain, then getting a tame New Zealand lawyer to give her the judgement she wanted.

Not a strong team

Paul Goldsmith has been a disaster as financial spokesman as the many mistakes he has made in the National costings for an economic recovery from Covid-19, have shown. By comparison Labour’s Minister of Finance, Grant Robinson, has been very sure-footed. 

It’s hard to find much evidence of the “Strong team” mentioned on the National Party billboards beyond impressive Health spokesman Shane Reti, Simon Bridges and Nicola Willis.

Deputy leader, former St Bede’s woodwork teacher, Gerry Brownlee is dangerously over-weight and not a great advertisement for the party. There were many flaws in his handling of the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake during the last term of the Key – English government.

The retirement of the three capable Auckland women MPs, not great fans of Collins – Aimee Adams, Nikki Kaye and Paula Bennett – has been a great loss. Two elections ago the bid for the Labour leadership was ABC – anyone but Cunliffe – and a different ABC was the feeling of many National MPs earlier this year. A lot of MPs don’t like Crusher’s aggressive style and her weak jokes and silly put-downs of the prime minister on the campaign trail have done her no favours.

Flirting with right wing smaller parties

Many traditional National supporters see the writing on the wall that Judith Collins won’t lead the party to victory in three weeks, so they can find other places for their vote this time around. 

ACT will have a significant presence in the next parliament – perhaps as many as 9 or10 MPs. David Seymour is well regarded and has had plenty of publicity and exposure on various issues this year, most notably as the sponsor of the Die with Dignity legislation. On the political right, his party will take plenty of votes from National and New Zealand First. Winston Peters won’t be the kingmaker this time and will very likely not even be an MP come late October. 

Other parties like the New Conservatives and Advance New Zealand are also attracting interest on the right.

The Covid-19 response is the clincher

Historians will look back on the 2020 poll as the Coronavirus election. Although there have been some mistakes in the government response to Covid 19, the majority of people have supported the way things have been handled by Jacinda Ardern, Ashley Bloomfield, Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins and the rest of their team. They have been successful in their strategies to stop the virus and virtually eliminate community transmission. Nothing succeeds like well-publicised success. 

People only have to look as the early Autumn surge in Coronavirus cases in Britain, Europe and the United States to appreciate how safe New Zealand is. 

The Covid-19 wave will very likely sweep Labour to victory in three weeks, possibly on their own. 

Despite the name, this Whittaker family-run fishing business is not based in Waikanae but in Paraparaumu, and also despite the name, no longer catch and sell crabs: basically these disappeared suddenly about 4 years ago. This is mentioned in the program.

To buy their freshly caught and fileted fish you can go to the shop in Manchester Street (off Te Roto Drive) or to the Paraparaumu Beach market on Saturday mornings.

You can watch the episode on TVNZ On Demand here (registration required).

The program features some nice backdrops of the Kapiti Coast from the sea in our area, and also there are some good scenes on and around Kapiti Island.

Probably taken for publicity, this is a colorized version of a black and white photo. The train was introduced in 1960 as a replacement for the Daylight Limited.

According to Wikipedia: “The Scenic Daylight typically consisted of DA class diesel-electric locomotives and NZR 56-foot carriages that had been built around World War II. As dining cars had been removed from New Zealand’s railways as an economy measure during World War I and not re-introduced until the launch of the Southerner in 1971, the train made refreshment stops in Frankton and Taumarunui. It also stopped for refreshments at Paekakariki, Palmerston North, and Taihape. Due to the power of the DA locomotives, the service operated to a faster timetable than the Daylight Limited.”

Some 60 years later, this section of line is still single track, non-electrified. Unless there is a change of government next month, it seems destined to stay that way.

CAIRO – 27 September 2020: Al Jazeera was exposed Saturday in a fresh stunt pulled by the Egyptian Media Group, the Qatari-run News Agency aired a protest video as an incident taking place at an Egyptian neighborhood named “Nazlet El Samman”. However, the whole footage was staged and fabricated by the Egyptian Media Group at the Egyptian Media Production City headquarters. The video was later sent to Al Jazeera along with other Turkish news channels as a protest occurring against the government at one of Giza’s neighborhoods. 

Al Jazeera aired the video without taking the simplest steps to verify whether it was real or just fabricated footage, raising a lately repeated question about its integrity and professionalism. 

The Egyptian Group announced on Saturday after the video was aired by the Qatari-run News agency that the video was a staged one from A to Z, produced by the Group to have it sent later to Al Jazeera in a bid to expose the channel’s dubious covering of the news in Egypt.

Full article

(Not only Al Jazeera is like this, several other news channels such as the BBC and CNN are known for dubious reports too. —Eds)