ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC
P.O.Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
PARLIAMENTARY
SELECT COMMITTEES A SHAM
MAORI AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE – A SHAM
Parliamentary Select Committees only hear or report on the submissions
they want Parliament and the public to know about. As we have stated before,
the Maori Affairs Select Committee deliberately lied to Parliament and the
public that the One New Zealand Foundation's submission contained bad language
and therefore was not heard. The One New Zealand Foundation's Submission was
heard on the 2 May 2007 and it contained no bad language. This was a deliberate
lie to suppress evidence that would show the Te Roroa claim was false and
the Crown's purchase of Allan Titford's property was under very dubious circumstances
- the Deed and Sale Agreement had been tampered with after Allan Titford and
the Crown's appointed lawyer had signed them. While we wrote to the Prime
Minister, the Speaker of the House, the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi
Negotiations, the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition,
John Key, they were all happy for this Select Committee to mislead Parliament
and the Public to allow this Bill to proceed.
See, http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/Te
Roroa Bill Blatant Lies.htm
It has also been found the acquisition of Allan Titford's property at Maunganui Bluff breached the 1993 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act, but the Crown is reluctant to act. See, http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/Crown Breaches Act.htm
JUSTICE AND ELECTORIAL COMMITTEE – A SHAM
The One New Zealand Foundation also lodged a Submission into the
"Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill" and once again, a
Select Committee, (the Justice and Electoral) suppressed our submission.
As instructed, I emailed our submission to Michele Reardon, Parliamentary Officer (Committee Support) Justice and Electoral Committee on the 20 October 2006 with a hard copy by post. My submission stated I wanted to present our submission orally.
This was acknowledged on the 8 November 2006 stating it would be distributed to the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee and asking for a phone number, where I could be contacted to present our submission orally as it would be at short notice.
I immediately replied, Original Message From: Ross Baker To: Michele Reardon Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:37 PM, "Thank you for your email. I am concerned about the short notice that I may be called to attend a Select Committee Meeting as I live at Maroochydore in Queensland, Australia. My daytime phone number is 61-7-5443 6707 or 040 2866 752". Regards, Ross Baker.
I heard no more until the 15 February 2007, when I received an email from the Hon Doug Woolerton stating, "Dear Ross, Thank you for taking the time to email and for your information. Sadly, the Principles of the Treaty Bill will be lost because Labour is opposed to it. They only agreed to support it to select committee because we made it a condition of our Confidence & Supply Agreement". Kind regards, Doug Woolerton, New Zealand First.
On the 22 February 2007, I replied, "Hon Doug Woolerton, Thank you for your email. This is a great disappointment as many people spent a lot of time and money to write submissions etc when it was known Labour were opposed to it and therefore would not support it. Amazing what Party's will do to remain in power!!! Who would I write to have our submission package returned"? Regards, Ross Baker.
From the Hon Doug Woolerton's email, we thought the Bill had been already lost due to Labour not supporting it.
On the 8 November, I was surprised to find the Submissions into this Bill had been heard and had been lost. I wrote the following email to Pita Paraone who was acting for the Hon Doug Woolerton and was also a member of this Select Committee. "Pita, I am very surprised to see that the Hon Doug Woolerton's Private Members Bill was debated in Parliament today/yesterday when we were informed that it had been lost due to Labour not supporting it way back in February 2007. See emails from Doug Woolerton dated the 15 February 2007 above. Submissions were called for this Bill and we and many others spent a lot of time supporting this Bill by submitting submissions with documented evidence that both Lange and Palmer realised the terrible mistake they had made by introducing the "Principles" and "Partnership" in 1990. As you know, Palmer and Lange disappeared from politics soon after. Were any of the submissions heard? I believe you put up a good fight - good one!! This is very confusing - have we been sucked in by Labour again"!! Regards, Ross Baker
Pita Paraone replied a few hours later stating, "Hi Ross, I sat on the Select Committee that dealt with this Bill and heard submissions - I don't recall the Committee receiving a submission from you and if you did whether or not you requested to be heard. Of the 171 submissions that were received only 11 did not oppose it. We [NZ First] always knew that we would not have the numbers to see the Bill go beyond the Second reading so last nights outcome was of no surprise. However during my speech I indicated that the intent of the Bill would not end here and I forewarned members of both of the large parties that irrespective of who "won" the next election that if they wanted to become the Government then it would be a condition of NZ First that this matter be returned for reconsideration. While disappointed in the outcome I have learnt from the experience and will be recommending to my Caucus colleagues that should attack the issue bit by bit. [How do you eat an elephant? - little piece at a time]". Kia ora, RPK [Pita] Paraone MP
I was surprised the Justice and Electoral Committee had not heard our submission, and emailed Michele Reardon on the 8 November the following, "Michele, I am surprise to see the second reading of the "Principles of the Treaty Deletion Bill" was defeated today. I asked that I may appear on behalf of the ONZF at the committee hearing, but no contact was made. Was our Submission presented and heard by the Select Committee, and if so, why were we not allowed to appear"? Regards, Ross Baker.
The following day Michele replied, "Good morning Ross, Thank you for your email. The One New Zealand Foundation's submission was tabled and released to the committee. I apologise for messages not getting thru to you, there had been repeated attempts to contact you to present One New Zealand Foundation's submission on 9/7, 10/7, 8/8 and 9/8, messages had been left for you to contact me to arrange a suitable hearing time, the contact number we had was (09) 408 7911". Regards, Michele Reardon.
I replied immediately, "Michele Reardon, Thank you for your email. I am concerned you tried to phone me on 09 408 7911 when I specifically gave Catherine Parkin the numbers I could be contacted on 24/7. See email below, which was sent to you - note email address. In any case, the number you tried to ring was Allan Titford's number who has a very sophisticated answering system, which is attached to his computer. I believe there were no messages left for me on this system at the dates specified in your email. Sue Titford also states, she was home at these times.
Tau Henare misled Parliament at the second reading of the Te Roroa
Settlement Bill that our submission to this Bill was not heard because of bad
language. I presented it on the 2 May at Parliament and it contained no bad
language. While this was brought to the Prime Minister's, the Speaker of the
House, the Minister of Maori Affairs and John Key's attention, no action has
been taken!!!!
It seems once again our submission has been deliberately sabotage to prevent it from being heard. Please discuss this with your superiors, as we demand answers to why the ONZF submissions are being deliberately prevented from being heard. From what we have found, it seems the Select Committee process, and those involved, are very corrupt"!! Regards, Ross Baker. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A REPLY TO THIS EMAIL!!
I again emailed Pita Paraone to confirm if "our submission had been heard by the Select Committee", his reply dated the 9 November, "I can confirm that, it was not heard by the Committee". Regards Pita Paraone.
PARLIAMENTARY SELECT COMMITTEES A SHAM
At the Te Roroa Settlement Bill, Tau Henare was allowed to lie to
Parliament that our submission was not heard and in the Principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill our Submission was not heard by the Justice
and Electoral Committee. How many other submissions are being denied by this
corrupt Select Committee system?
Not only this, Labour knew they would not support the "Principles of
the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill" past its first reading but allowed
the public to waste hours of their time and money presenting submissions under
the impression they would support it. HOW CORRUPT WAS THAT!!!!
RODNEY HIDE’S SPEECH MIRRORS THE ONE NEW ZELAND FOUNDATIONS CONCERNS
Rodney Hide summed this up in his speech to the First Reading of the Bill.
(Hansard). "It is amazing how this real accident of the principles of
the Treaty being inserted into our legislation could achieve such
constitutional status and have such high-minded speeches being given about it.
The truth of what happened is that in the State-Owned Enterprises Act that
Geoffrey Palmer was negotiating with Maori, he thought he had pulled a fast one
because he put in the provision about the principles of the Treaty. Maori felt
really good about that.
Geoffrey Palmer then went back to Cabinet and told them not to worry, that it did not mean anything. That is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer said-that putting the principles of the Treaty into legislation did not mean anything. Then the discussion around the Cabinet table was that normally judges like to think that the experience of putting something into legislation must mean something, and that Parliament would have intended something. But Sir Geoffrey Palmer said: "No, it's OK. It doesn't mean anything." Of course, what has happened now is that it has grown into a huge industry. We should make a distinction between the Treaty and the principles, because it is huge. [This is exactly what the One New Zealand Foundation has said for the last 20 years when the Principles were introduced. It's good to see one MP, Rodney Hide understands the implications Palmer's and Lange's terrible mistake, which they admitted on the ABC, is causing to New Zealand. There is only one Principle in the Treaty of Waitangi – He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people - Equality for all the people of New Zealand – The Principle are a fraud!!].
The problem is, if one accepts that Parliament is Sovereign, then it is
for Parliament to decide what the rules are and what the law is, and it has
never done it for these principles. We hear Ministers and other people getting
up in this Chamber to say that the principle means this or the principle means
that. What sort of jurisprudential adventure is that? They say: "Oh, the
principles of the Treaty!" and wave their hands and get all solemn about
it but do not actually determine what it means. They leave it up to unelected
bureaucrats and judges-poor things-to interpret what it all means [and those who are to gain most!!]
Of course, New Zealand First felt oh so good. It has the baubles of office-a little poodle sitting there-and it has got the Labour Party to agree to this Bill. But the stupid thing is, New Zealand First got agreement to only a first reading. So the Labour Party will vote for the bill going to a select committee and then will kill it. New Zealand First has signed up to the Labour Party to achieve nothing. How stupid could they be? [And how corrupt was the Labour Party – even to its own partner!!].
I ask Mr Woolerton why New Zealand First did not ask the Labour Party to
support the bill all the way if it believed in and had the courage of its
convictions. The Labour Party has done the New Zealand First MPs like a dinner.
Helen Clark said to them: "Don't worry, we'll support you to the first
reading, and we'll kill it there." That is what she has told the Maori
caucus. I have to say to Doug that Shane Jones and the other Maori MPs are all
laughing at him. They are all saying that Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and-as
John Tamihere observed-the "smarmy" one, are tricky. [Just read Ian Wishart’s June Investigate magazine, “Political
Shockwaves” to see how tricky]
They are so tricky that even the wily old fox Winston was outfoxed by the Labour Party and the Maori caucus. They got New Zealand First's support for the Government and its Budget in return for what? Labour is going to vote for the first reading of the bill and then kill it. I always knew that New Zealand First were useless; I just did not realise quite how useless they truly were in signing up to this agreement with the Labour Party. But I have to say that we support this bill".
THE ELECTORAL FINANCE BILL – CORRUPTION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL
The Electoral Finance Bill is to stop people and organizations such as the
One New Zealand Foundation from showing up the corruption within Government.
Hopefully the people of New Zealand have the "guts" to stop this
Bill. It is undemocratic and is explained by Muriel Newman in her excellent article
this week.
"COMPROMISING DEMOCRACY"
"The answer has to be an unequivocal "Yes". Helen Clark has
shown that she is prepared to sacrifice everything that is good about democracy
to advance her own political objectives. If she and her partners of convenience
prevail in passing this Electoral Finance Bill into law, democracy in New
Zealand will indeed be fatally compromised - just as it has been in those
despotic regimes where the state has become the master over its citizens.
The Electoral Finance Bill, which seeks to impose complex restrictions on how people can engage in the democratic process during election year, was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Select Committee last week.
The Bill has been designed by Labour and its support parties to ensure that they win the next election. The Labour Party is so desperate to preserve political power that they are quite prepared to compromise democracy in New Zealand for political expediency.
The amended bill has retained three of its worst anti-democratic features by attempting to silence critics, crush opposition funding, and trash New Zealand's constitutional electoral law reform traditions.
Firstly, the regulated period, which was extended from three months before an election to the whole of election year, has been retained. Secondly, draconian restrictions on anonymous donations and third party spending have been introduced - while government departments remain free to use taxpayers' money to promote Labour Party policy. Thirdly, New Zealand's proud tradition of electoral law reform, which has always involved cross-party consensus and the widest possible public consultation, has been hijacked. [This has already happened with Select Committees]
The New Zealand Herald has boldly claimed that the Bill remains a "constitutional outrage": "The bill is a drastic alteration of electoral law, going to the heart of our freedoms and democracy. It is being rushed and reeks of partisan opportunism. It should go no further". Read the Herald's "Electoral Bill Still an Outrage" and their analysis of the "Changes to the Electoral Finance Bill in Detail" for more information)
The Electoral Commission, whose job is to advise on the detail of electoral law, has complained that the Bill as reported back is confusing and that some parts will be almost impossible to interpret. [As were the Terrorist Laws]
The President of the Law Society has stated that the Bill is far too complex, contains serious restrictions on the freedom of speech, and should be scrapped.
Professor Bill Hodge from Auckland University has expressed has concerns that "the biggest spender and the biggest chequebook in the country remains the advertising tool of the current labour Government, while the opposition gets shut down. Government advertising is unlimited while those who protest are said to be exercising chequebook democracy."
But it doesn't stop there. Labour has also passed two other self-serving election funding laws aimed at progressing its goal of introducing taxpayer-funded elections by stealth: the first was the legislation passed last year to retrospectively validate their illegal $800,000 pledge card spending and the second, the Appropriations Bill passed last week made it legal for Parliamentary parties to use taxpayers' funding for electioneering purposes (for more information see the Appropriations Bill's Second Reading Debate.)
Of all of the restrictions being imposed by the Electoral Finance Bill, the most dangerous is Labour's plan to restrict the freedom of speech of all citizens for the whole of election year. The Human Rights Commission has predicted that the effects of the Bill would be "chilling". With the imposition of complicated state controls, an increase in the maximum fines from $40,000 to $100,000 and the ultimate penalty for 'getting it wrong' increasing from one to two years' imprisonment, many individuals and groups who would normally engage actively in the political process will be intimidated into silence, fearful of inadvertently breaking the law. [Maybe, but hard to silence a website in the middle of India, China or the U.S.A!!!]
David Farrar, this week's NZCPR Guest Commentator, has been an outspoken critic of the Bill since its inception. As a trustee of the Freedom of Speech Coalition set up to "Kill the Bill", he holds grave concerns about its widespread impact:
"The Electoral Finance Bill will affect the rights of New Zealanders to participate in the political process, and especially to criticise politicians in many ways. If you express an opinion for or against any political party, or any MP seeking re-election, then this is now classified as an election advertisement and regulated. And this does not just apply to the period immediately before an election, but for all of election year. If passed, this means that political advocacy will be regarded as election advertising for 30% of your life. You may think that the law only applies to you, if you spend lots of money on advertisements. This is not correct. The Bill defines publishing an advertisement as bringing to the notice of the public by any manner. This may be speaking in a public meeting, taking part in a protest march, posting your views on a party or MP into a political newsgroup on the Internet, or even an e-mail
This attack on the freedom of speech by the parties of government is extremely serious. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 states that "everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind and in any form". If Labour, the Greens, NZ First, the Progressives and United, are successful in passing this Bill, New Zealand will be regulated by the most restrictive and draconian electoral law legislation in the Western World.
It is this attack on our freedom of speech that has motivated John Boscawen to mount a nationwide campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill. John responded to my call to NZCPR readers to put in a submission on the Bill, and having realised how dangerous it is, he is determined to lead a citizens' fight to defeat the Bill.
His recent Queen Street protest march attracted over 2,000 people. Many were marching for the first time. The Prime Minister dismissed the march as hardly being indicative of a 'groundswell'. That has spurred John to organise a second march: "If you are not happy with 2,000 protesters, Prime Minister, we'll see if we can find you some more!" (For details on the Auckland march on Saturday December 1st at 2.30pm, and the Christchurch march on Wednesday Nov 28that 12.30pm. See below) [May be your last change for democracy and freedom of speech]
John Boscawen believes that the public has the power to stop the Bill. Apart from the marches, if everyone who values free speech contacts the leaders of the parties supporting the Bill - and all of their MPs - asking them to withdraw the Bill, then John believes the force of public opinion will cause them to reconsider. With Parliament in recess this week, there is plenty of time for everyone concerned to email MPs about this Bill - the email addresses of all MPs can be found on the NZCPR's Parliament page, click here>>>
John Third is a New Zealand consultant who has spent much of the year working in Cambodia. He was deeply moved by the freedom marches and has written an article for our NZCPR Soapbox Series questioning the government's attack on our democratic rights: "Cambodia today is struggling to overcome the horrendous effects of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge … up to 3 million of a 5 million population were killed. This leads a person to ponder just how it was possible for a deranged lunatic like Pol Pot to get away with this. How in a country in a modern age can the majority be cowed to such an extent to allow such atrocities to happen? Reading the history this occurred bit by bit: First, the Khmer Rouge took control of the media, censoring what could be said, and who had access to the media. [This has already happened in New Zealand] Secondly, they passed laws to immunise themselves from prosecution, criticism, and any form of public scrutiny. [This has already happened with the death penalty being removed for treason at the same time the Principles were introduced] Thirdly, they used state funded propaganda to misinform…" [This has been happening since the Te Roroa claim in 1987 – “This Bill is the final nail in the coffin”]
In his article "Crossing the Line" John reflects on the importance of constitutional constraints on our own politicians and asks, "When does a government actually cross the line from being a servant of the people to being the master of the people? How do we identify that important step? Is it signing other people's paintings and not being charged? Is it speeding in motorcades and transferring the blame to staff? Is it taking taxpayer funds to fund its own propaganda, while denying the right of others to criticise? [Is it Select Committees suppressing the truth? Is it the Crown falsifying documents to steal privately owned freehold titled properties from innocent New Zealanders…..]
Has Helen Clark crossed that line with the Electoral Finance Bill? [Just read the ONZF website to find out!!!]
NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly newsletter by Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a web-based forum at www.nzcpr.com for the lively and dynamic exchange of political ideas. [The One New Zealand Foundation has made Comments in blue]
BE VERY AFRAID IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW -
THE STATE WILL BECOME MASTER OVER ITS CITIZENS AND YOUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND FREEDOM
OF SPEECH WOULD BE LOST FOREVER!!!!! VERY AFRAID IF
IS BILL BECOMES LAW
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Chairman, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 26/11/2007
To all Political Leaders and others.
Cc. Webmaster, www.onenzfoundation.com.nz
|
Campaign Against the Electoral Finance Bill |
|
|
|
|
