Monthly Archives: Oct 2015

Why New Zealand should condemn Australia’s asylum seeker stance

Posted on by
1

For many moons, Australia has been a proudly developing first world nation. It has economic wealth, social freedoms and opportunities for its population that many nations can only dream about. It has an ethnic diversity of immigrants who have come to Australia from all over the world at different times, whose contribution to the socio-economic structures that we know to exist in Australia today, are difficult to overestimate. Australia is also a nation that many New Zealanders have moved to over the years and which we enjoy some of the closest economic ties as can be imagined whilst still being sovereign nations.

But that Australia has the most appalling stain when it comes to dealing with some of the worlds most vulnerable people. Despite the many hundreds of thousands of people who have arrived from elsewhere as immigrants being given permanent residency or citizenship, Australia has this almost paranoid fear/hatred of asylum seekers fleeing war zones, be they Rohingya from Myanmar, Afghani’s, Syrians, Iraqi’s. The rampant fear is a deep vein that has driven numerous Liberal Party election campaigns, giving them a platform of scare mongering to run.

In 2001, with an election campaign going badly, the then Prime Minister of Australia John Howard was looking for something that might galvanize his supporters. It came in the form of an asylum seeker boat that had run into difficulty carrying a load of Afghan refugees fleeing their brutal war. A freighter called the M.V. Tampa had answered the distress call and gone to their aid. It had in compliance with international law contacted the Australian marine authorities and asked them for help. Now commonly known as the Tampa Freighter incident, it was Australian paranoia at its worst. In response the Australian Government sent the Royal Australian Navy to make sure that – contrary to maritime law – neither the Tampa or the asylum seeker boat could reach an Australian port. They sent troops to board the boat. The Norwegian Government told Australia not to make the ship turn around against the will of the captain.

Since Mr Howard was beaten in the 2007 elections, Australian Prime Ministers have maintained this stance. No we cannot have them says former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. No, we cannot have them said former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. No we cannot have them said former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. We cannot have these terrorists, these rapists, these militants, women bashers – they’ll breed like flies and there will be hell to pay. No, no, no! Or so seems to be the (il)logical thinking of the Australian Government regardless of stripe.

Australia – and New Zealand – would be much better served by dealing with the problems that lead to these people wanting to seek asylum in the first place. By failing to do so, they are in effect ensuring that not only will asylum issues continue, but that they might grow worse and potentially lead to a major tragedy on the high seas.

New Zealand has a chance to undo some of the damage its reputation has suffered in the last decade by telling Australia that we consider their maltreatment of asylum seekers to be unbecoming of a nation that fought for the freedom and well being of millions during World War 2. As one of two wealthy first world nations in the South Pacific we have a responsibility to show the developing nations in our corner of the world how a responsible nation acts on the world stage. Right now that is not happening. As a tax paying New Zealander with a social conscience I cannot tolerate this non-acceptance of our responsibility.

The one man bands propping up John Key

Posted on by
Reply

Prime Minister John Key has two allies in Parliament he owes the continuing success of his Government to, at a time when the rest of New Zealand is beginning to finally tire of Brand Key. These are two one man band parties who have stubbornly – often against their philosophy, and certainly against the pollsters views – supported National’s tenure in office, even when nearly every electorate in New Zealand has outright rejected them.

Much as Peter Dunne has completely sold out on his supposedly centrist platform, Ohariu Belmont seem to be keen to keep him in office. United Future began life under Mixed Member Proportional just before the 2002 election, as a result of the Future New Zealand party and a more liberal United New Zealand party merging. Mr Dunne’s strong performance in a televised debate during the election campaign that year drew away supporters from several other parties, and United Future increased its size to nine Members of Parliament. It almost immediately lost a Member of Parliament when Kelly Chal was made to resign after being found not to be a New Zealand citizen. In 2005 it was cut down to three Members of Parliament as a result of a resurgent National Party. Mr Dunne chose to support Labour in confidence and supply, enabling the Helen Clark led Government to last a third term. United Future was cut down to one Member of Parliament in 2008.

For the last 7 years United Future has been a one man band. Sitting on the cross benches, Mr Dunne has used his position to enable legislation that would have otherwise been defeated pass through the House of Representatives. It will be interesting to see how long Mr Dunne can hold out in Ohariu before another party rolls him there.

A.C.T. is a party with nine lives. It has survived oblivion in more Parliamentary terms than many of the current M.P.’s have held their current jobs. It was born just before 1996 election and picked up eight seats, which became useful for National when its coalition with New Zealand First unravelled over asset sales in 1998. From 1999 to 2005 it held nine seats in Parliament before internal ructions and the departure of Richard A range of scandals over the years from 2008-2014 slowly undid A.C.T. to the point where it was widely thought to be a party dead in the water  – fraudulent use of a dead baby’s identity, failure to declare election donations (the charges for which have since been overturned), to name a few. Battered, bloodied and reviled by the majority though, A.C.T. continued to fight, first with Rodney Hide managing to hold on to Epsom until he resigned in 2011 in time for John Banks to take over before the election. Mr Banks resigned in 2014 because of allegations of failing to declare donations from Kim Dotcom and was charged before a court. Before Mr Banks resigned, Mr Seymour was selected as A.C.T.’s Epsom candidate for the 2014 election. He entered Parliament initially to fill the vacancy left by Mr Banks’ resignation, and then after the election as Member of Parliament for Epsom.

David Seymour, the solitary A.C.T. Member of Parliament has John Key to be thankful for in many ways. Mr Key could have – and if he had, many on the left would have been hugely grateful – told his supporters in Epsom to vote for Paul Goldsmith, but instead told them to vote for Mr Seymour. A.C.T. would have been out of Parliament had Dr Goldsmith won this seat.

Although I personally still hope to see the destruction of A.C.T., a party that I believe can only ever regain its values by starting over completely, I have come to accept that as long as Epsom wants an A.C.T. Member of Parliament when the rest of New Zealand does not, it shall survive. Although I think United Future has sold out on its supposedly centrist values by failing to check key pieces of legislation passed by National, it appears Peter Dunne has the support of Ohariu Belmont and a purpose as a cross bench Government supporter.

Why the Christchurch quakes are not over

Posted on by
2

There is something people need to know about the seismic faults around Christchurch. We have been in a quiet period for a few years now, since the earthquakes of 2010-11, and no doubt all of you are hoping that it is all over on the Christchurch faults for another several thousand years.

Unfortunately it is not. The disturbing truth is that effectively the Christchurch earthquake sequence is only in a recess of an unknown length of time. Although the earthquakes appeared to be happening all around Christchurch, the major events that defined the sequence occurred on faults around the fringes of Christchurch.

If one imagines Christchurch to be in a crude box, it can be defined by a set of faults that act as the sides. Now imagine the box being a sort of parallelogram being slowly twisted and distorted by an invisible force (plate tectonics). The complex sedimentary geology underneath Christchurch, which is a mixture of alluvial gravels washed down by the Waimakariri River, Port Hill volcanics and marine sediments make up the floor of the box, and Christchurch sits on top of it all.

On 04 September 2010, the western portion of the Greendale Fault ruptured near Darfield in a magnitude 7.1. The rupture extended east to a point a few kilometres from Rolleston.  Research infers that the fault however does not stop there, but continues out towards Lake Ellesmere, where it meets the Port Hills Fault. Although the fault runs roughly west-east, the footprint of aftershocks around the fault means it denotes the western side of the parallelogram.

On 22 February 2011, the Port Hills Fault ruptured under the Port Hills in a magnitude 6.3 earthquake. This denoted the south side of the parallelogram. The location of the end of the rupture marked the edge of a gap between the Greendale Fault and the Port Hills Fault, of similar length to the portion that ruptured in 2010. During research done in 2010-11 it was found that an obliquely angled secondary fault merges with the Greendale Fault in this gap. The function of the fault is not known, but one possibility is that it acts as a reliever for stress on the Greendale Fault.

On 13 June 2011, a fault running at right angles and intersecting the Port Hills Fault near Lyttelton, ruptured with a magnitude 6.4. This fault, along with ones further to the east, off the coast which ruptured in December 2011 may help denote the eastern side of the parallelogram.

On 23 December 2011, magnitude 5.8 and 6.0 events 80 minutes apart indicated the presence of faults off the coast from New Brighton. Unlike the 13 June fault rupture there is no suggestion from available data that these faults are connected structurally to each other or to adjacent faults.

That leaves the northern side of the parallelogram, and the portion of the Greendale Fault in the Rolleston gap. One possibility is the Ashley Fault, which has been identified on the surface, and which has been the subject of investigative work by local councils. Another fault is the Cust Fault, which is thought to be capable of a magnitude 6.4 earthquake. Other onshore faults are known to exist around Kaiapoi, but have not been identified.

Enjoy the peace while it lasts because we do not know when the seismic recess will end.

Time for medicinal cannabis

Posted on by
1

 

There was once a time when I thought all cannabis was bad. I thought it was a drug that simply did not need to exist, and when there were reports on the news showing officials destroying cannabis crops I was pleased. But over the years, as the availability of other pain killing medicines becomes an increasingly contentious issue for severe medical problems, I have begun to waiver.

I began to waiver after seeing stories of people who otherwise had no criminal record, being arrested and charged for cannabis possession. Whilst many of them might have had illegal plans for what was in their possession, there were a few who had fallen out with the medical system and were simply using it as a last resort. As a humanitarian who hates seeing people in pain, I came to realize that cannabis can have benefits after all.

It will not bring back Lecretia Seales, and it may be too late for Council of Trade Unions spokeswoman Helen Kelly who is fighting terminal cancer, but the decision of Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne to back medicinal cannabis trials can only be good.

Some will argue against the morality of using a drug that is illegal to be in possession of, sell or obtain. They will argue that it sets a bad precedent for future generations, and some may even go as far as saying that if cannabis is to be made legal in a medicinal form, then harder substances such as heroin might as well be made legal. It is an argument that from the perspective of financial or criminal gain might have had some credibility, but when one talks to a dying cancer patient who just wants their last days to be as pain free as possible the argument falls flat on its face.

What I support is:

  1. A cross party work group being established to prepare a scoping report about the feasibility of medicinal cannabis in a New Zealand context
  2. In conjunction with the working group, a set of field trials to be conducted into the development of cannabis crops suitable for medicinal use
  3. A second report exploring and making necessary recommendations regarding any legislative changes needed should cannabis be found to be feasible and appropriate medicinal cannabis can be developed
  4. How to make it available – will it simply be sold over the counter with a regular prescription, or will it require additional permissions

As this is already a contentious issue testing New Zealand law, there is no justification for any delay as the likelihood of further tests of the law as it currently stands are a certainty. In June permission for Nelson man Alex Renton to undergo cannabis treatment was granted due to the severity of his condition, which had him in a coma.

 

Holding the Government to account over the Trans Pacific Partnership

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last three years I have made my opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (T.P.P.A.) clear. It is an agreement between nations that is not about trade, contrary to what the Minister of Trade, Tim Groser, will have one believe.

Human rights are an area of considerable disagreement with regards to the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement because of concerns that international treatizes that nations including New Zealand are signatory to might not be applicable under the T.P.P.A. Before I went overseas on holiday, I submitted an Official Information Act request with the help of a New Zealand website run by volunteers called For Your Information to the office of Mr Groser. I wanted to ask him a couple of questions about how human rights would be impacted in a New Zealand context. The request for information, the response and counter response can be seen here.

Mr Groser met the statutory timeframe for responding to my letter, and did so in depth. However it was not until I had a proper read of his response, that I noticed he had completely avoided answering the questions. Whereas I had a quick acknowledgement of the first request from his office, there has been nothing this time. Whereas I had a response within the statutory time frame for the first request, I am on track to not getting even an acknowledgement of my second request inside the required time frame.

This is notable because whilst overseas T.P.P. critic and Auckland University Professor Jane Kelsey filed papers in the Auckland High Court against Mr Groser’s handling of information regarding the T.P.P., and asked the High Court to order him to review how he dispenses information about it. The High Court ruled in her favour, which has implications for how he dispenses information in response to other requests. As this could affect my request for information – I informed his office that its initial response was not satisfactory and resent the initial request back verbatim.

How this continues to develop is up to the Minister of Trade. If he comes clean and answers my questions, it will stop there. If not, other options are being considered.