Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Submission on abortion law reform

May 14, 2018

Criminal aspects of abortion law

I support the person-hood of the baby in the mother’s womb from conception. This would extend to the right to life for our young ones from conception. This would mean that anyone involved in the killing of the baby in the womb would be subject to existing criminal penalties for manslaughter or murder.

Grounds for abortion

Someone who caused an abortion to occur would be subject to the criminal code. The only possible grounds for abortion would be tested under the rules for manslaughter.

Process for getting an abortion

All government support and funding for abortion would cease. This would be replaced by increased support and funding for adoption, where the unborn child’s parents were unable or unwilling to care for them. The government would introduce programs of education for teenagers reinforcing the ultimate value of every human life.

Other aspects of abortion law

Currently the rights of the father in abortion are not recognized. Both the mother and father should be equally responsible for the life of the unborn child.



Complaint to the NZ Human Rights Commission

November 7, 2013

Let’s see what the Human Rights Commission make of this. It occurred to me today that the nullification of one’s democratic vote is actually quite a serious thing.

I am complaining because I believe I have been discriminated against because of my:

Political opinion

What happened?

I cast my party vote legally and intentionally for the Conservative Party of New Zealand at the 2011 general election. The NZ electoral system, specifically the “threshold” rule took away my vote along with 59,237 other votes for the Conservative party. My opinion, collectively with other Conservative voters, should have entitled me to 3 representatives in the 120 member New Zealand Parliament. New Zealand Government legislation denied me this representation of my political opinion.

How has this affected you?

My political opinion has no expression in the New Zealand democratic parliament.

What kind of solution would you like?

Lowering of the electoral threshold to allow representation of opinions that would see 1 list seat in the 120 seat parliament, or 0.83% of votes cast.

My MMP Review Submission

May 14, 2012

Should the 5% threshold be kept or changed? Why? If you recommend change, what should it be and why?:

The threshold should be lowered. Currently we accept that up to 4.99% of voters may have their votes discarded. This is undemocratic. I am in favour of the threshold being enough votes to achieve 1 list seat.

Should the one electorate seat threshold be kept or changed? Why? If you recommend change, what should it be and why?

If a party wins an electorate seat, this should have no effect on the threshold for the party vote. With the current 5% party vote threshold, If a party wins an electorate seat, and achieves 4% of the party vote, they should still receive only one seat. Any party vote threshold should always apply. This would discourage the sort of election engineering which happened with Act/National in Epsom. In the last election, the Conservatives received much more of the party vote than Act, but all conservative votes were discarded.

Proportion of electorate seats to list seats. Is this a problem, and what should be done to fix it?:

I see list seats being a problem when list members go against the party platform which saw them enter parliament.  Also, list MPs can be virtually guaranteed a place in parliament via list position, making them less accountable to the electorate. One idea I had was that “list seats” would be vested as proxy votes with the party leader, instead of becoming MPs. This would mean that all seats are electorate seats with proportionality of parties achieved by the party leaders potentially having more than one vote in parliament. In the case where a small party achieved enough party vote to enter parliament, but did not win an electorate seat, the party leader would enter parliament with a number of votes to match the share of  the party vote.

It’s a stupid question

October 9, 2010

Talked with friends recently about the New Zealand referendum on smacking. The comment made was that the question was stupid/bad because it was “loaded”. The question was “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. Presumably this is a loaded because “everyone would say No to that”. Actually only 87.6% of respondents said “No”, 12.4% said that a smack, even as a part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence. And so it is today in New Zealand. Democracy? I think not.


August 22, 2009

A smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offense in New Zealand. Or so say 87.6% of people in the recent referendum.

The story made even made it to Fox news.

New Zealand Votes to Legalize Smacking Kids

New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly to overturn a law that prohibits parents from hitting children, according to the results of a nationwide referendum released Friday, but the government says the law is working and won’t be changed.

Opponents of the 2007 law claim it is overly intrusive and could turn thousands of good parents into criminals.

The story gets it a little wrong in that the 2007 law DOES turn thousands of good parents into criminals. It COULD turn them into convicts.

It is time for the anti-smacking lobby to shut up and let the majority frame a new law.

Perhaps just adding a new sub-section to section 59?

” a smack as part of good parental correction is justified. This sub-section overrides any other sub-sections in this section”.

But really, the best approach is simply to strike out the 2007 amendments and return to the old reasonable force law. And wonder, “What were they thinking…”

Referendum angst

June 16, 2009

Media reporters seem to have taken a great dislike to the upcoming referendum on the anti-smacking law recently enacted. Perhaps it is easy to forget that over 300,000 people said “No” to the very question to be put to the public.

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

There would be no need for a referendum if the government had not enacted such unpopular and idiotic legislation. But perhaps there is something to legisation of this sort? Suppose we apply the same technique of criminalizing positive behaviour together with the abuse to other societal ills? I know! Lets declare alcohol a class A drug! Alcohol abuse causes huge damage to society. If we make alcohol consumption punishable to the same level as heroin, that will certainly “send the message” that alcohol abuse is unacceptable to society. But never fear, we put it in the law that the police will not prosecute if they feel the effect of the abuser’s alcohol consumption is “inconsequential”.

Thinking ” If I drink this glass of wine, and that woman over there reports me, I could actually get 4 years in the slammer, if the cops don’t like me…” just might lower the rates of alcohol abuse!


February 16, 2009

Last year the Australian state of Victoria passed law to legalize abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks, and beyond that  given medical certification. Just prior to that legislation being enacted abortion survivor Gianna Jessen gave her testimony in Victoria.

After abortion was legalized in Victoria, in November 2008 Pastor Nalliah recorded a prophetic vision he received:

I saw a man firing randomly with a weapon at people on the streets and many were falling dead. I was very disturbed and was crying. Then the scene changed and I saw fire everywhere with flames burning very high and uncontrollably. With this I awoke from my dream with the interpretation as the following words came to me in a flash from the Spirit of God,  ‘My wrath is about to be released upon Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of the innocent children in the womb.  Now, call on My people to repent and pray!’

Pastor Danny Nalliah has now testified in relation to the recent devastating bush fires in Australia that:

…these bushfires have come as a result of the incendiary abortion laws which decimate life in the womb.

Would God punish the state of Victoria in such a way, merely for legalizing abortions? A lot relies on the credibility of Pastor Danny Nalliah, is he a true prophet?

Gary Bates gives his perspective on the bush fires on the site.

Election debrief

November 21, 2008

I had a hard time at the polling booth. I always had a hard choice in my mind between two parties: the family party, and National. National was the safe choice, as the party which was always going to be the bulk of any non-Labour government. But I liked the Family party policies. They most closely represented my views in New Zealand. Things like:

  • Honour the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In doing so, we recognise that the state is not the ultimate authority.
  • Seek legal status for the unborn child
  • Require parental knowledge and consent for child/teen abortion procedures
  • Protect, esteem and encourage the traditional institution of marriage through policy and legislation
  • Reduce all personal tax rates to a lower and flatter tax structure to keep more money with the earner and in the home
  • The Family Party will fix current legislation that makes responsible smacking a crime. To that end, the Party aims to reinstate Section 59 of the Crimes Act that affords decent, loving parents’ protection from criminal liability in circumstances where corrective discipline is reasonable in the circumstances.
  • The Family Party calls for a total repeal of the Electoral Finance Act to restore confidence in New Zealand’s democratic election process.
  • The Family Party favours transparent Family Court processes that fairly balance the rights of both parents.
  • The Family Party will seek a total repeal of the Prostitution Reform Act, which was passed in 2003 by a single vote and effectively decriminalised soliciting, pimping and brothel keeping in New Zealand.
  • The Family Party is very concerned that sentencing measures do not reflect the seriousness of crimes committed. Sentencing and time served must accurately reflect the seriousness of the crime.

I wanted to vote for these policies, but in the end I voted National. There were a few main reasons for this:

  1. New Zealand could not afford another three years of Labour/Green social engineering
  2. The 5% threshold is too high. 4.2% of New Zealanders who voted New Zealand First have my sympathy.
  3. The Family party were clear on their strategy to seek an electorate seat. They did not need my party vote to obtain representation this election.
  4. National actually appeared to be a reasonable choice, although John Key professes no belief in God, which is a bad start.

With hindsight, I absolutely did the right thing. Had another 4% of the conservative vote given their party vote to either the Kiwi party or the Family party, we could well have had another three years of anti-family, anti-Christian policy.

One concerning feature of this election though, was how little an impact the Family party made in the electorates they targeted. The Mangere seat, which could have been a tight three way race between Family, Pacific and Labour, was nothing less than a landslide for Labour. The Family party candidate only achieved 856 out of 21687 votes cast. This is incredibly disappointing given their strategy, and calls the Family Party’s viability into question. 856 votes from the flagship electorate is too few for this party to be taken seriously in the future in my opinion.

So where to from here for the Christian voter? The jury is out on National. The big test will be to see how they react to the referendum on the anti-smacking legislation. If they ignore the will of the people here, it will be difficult to vote for the new-National again. I can only pray for a new Christian voice to arise in the public arena in New Zealand. Either as a standalone party, or as a God-fearing influence within one of the parties currently in parliament.

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

A better New Zealand electoral system?

October 5, 2008

My suggestions to fix some “issues” with our current proportional system.

Issue#1 – Parties can stack the top of the list to assuredly get their favourites into parliament. Notwithstanding how obnoxious they are to the voting public.

Issue#2 – List MPs voted in on the party vote can end up voting against party policy.

Issue#3 – Voters cannot vote for who they want, because the 5% threshold is too high.

1. Remove list MPs, with the sole exception of the party leader. The party vote over and above the number of MPs actually elected would be given to the leader of the party.  So if National gets enough votes for 50 MPs, and 45 are elected, including the leader, then the National Leader has his own vote plus 5 “party” votes in parliament. What about an extreme case, where a party garnered 20% of the party vote, but no electorate seats in a 100 seat parliament? In this case there would be 101 MPs, with the party leader having 25 votes in parliament.

2. Remove the 5% threshold. If a party gets enough votes for one MP, the party leader gets in.

Who to vote for in 2008?

October 3, 2008

Act? An OK choice, but the worldview that sees corporations as moral entities is a bit silly.

Greens? Sue Bradford? Environmental achievements such as the anti-smacking bill and civil unions? No.

Family? An unashamedly Christian party. Mangere vs the 5% threshold. The heart choice.

Kiwi? Support Gordon Copeland? The schismatic slayer of the “single christian party”? No.

Labour? Can you be born again and still vote for Helen Clark and her crew? Yes, but Nooooo!!!

Maori? A legislated race based party? No.

National? Better by far than Labour, but still secular. A good choice as the safe vote against Labour.

New Zealand First? A better voting record, shame about the Peters circus. You could do worse.

Progressive? Too close to Labour. No.

United Future? The Treasurer, Mr Dunn, who voted with Labour against the nation and his own party’s policy to pass the Anti-smacking bill. No.

National or the Family party? Hmmmm.