I See Red

Peter Ellis case

It's not often I agree with David Farrar, but I couldn't agree more with his post on the call for Simon Power to launch an inquiry into the Peter Ellis case.  I believe the evidence of a miscarriage of justice is compelling, but (with the distance of time and absent of the hysteria surrounding the issue at the time) let's have someone independent take a look at the evidence again.

New blog

New masses (Quentin) has joined/rejoined the blogosphere.

Gays vulnerable under Fire at Will Bill

What is in the Fire at Will Bill that will prevent an employer from firing someone because they find out within their first 90 days of employment they are gay?  Of course a few neo-libs would say the employer has the right to do whatever they want.  If they don't like someone because they are gay they have every right to not hire them or to sack them.

Well they don't have that right. 

The Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act protects New Zealanders from such arbitrary discrimination.  But under National's new Fire at Will Bill, employers don't have to give any reason for why they are sacking someone.  Which means that New Zealanders from minority groups - particularly those from groups whose minority status is not visible on hiring - are vulnerable to discrimination.

National's Fire at Will law comes into effect on 1 April 2009.  If you are hired and fired after 1 April 2009 and suspect it is because you are gay, then please let your Union know.  Or if you don't have a union, let you local Labour or Green MP know.  Or let me know!

Select Committees are the senate of NZ

Putting aside the emotion around the 90 day bill for a second, I'd like to present my personal view on select committees in an MMP environment and why National's by-passing of the select committee on this bill is such a dangerous move.

Under FPP in the 1980s and 1990s the executive rushed through radical legislation so quickly people didn't know what was happening.  To a large extent it was that approach that led to the referendum and subsequent adoption of the MMP system.  People sought a more consensual approach to politics where one party didn't have absolute power to ram through radical legislation. 

Over the past 12 years of MMP select committees have developed as a major check on the executive.  Select Committees are the forum where the public can have their say, where legislation can be scrutinised and backbench MPs can recommend changes through a majority and minority report.  Increasingly select committees have played a major role in developing amendments to legislation. 

The worst select committees were those who simply sought to report back to Parliament as quickly and with as little controversy as possible.  The best select committees were those that took a genuine approach to improve legislation in a constructive and, if possible, cross-party manner.   In particular during the last Parliament the Government did not have a majority on several select committees and there was a real opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny of Government legislation.

Which is why National's move on the 90 day bill is so dangerous.  It removed Parliament, backbench MPs, the opposition and the public from the political process.  It is back to the days of elected dictatorship.  Is this the change New Zealand can believe in?

Lack of blogging

Apologies for the lack of blogging.  I've been busy buying my first home and started a new job a few weeks ago (and been generally busy enjoying the good weather!).

I'm not sure at this stage if I will keep blogging.  My views tend to be articulated quite well by No Right Turn and The Standard and my spare time is limited.

I'll reassess in the next few weeks.  In the meantime feel free to give me advise on my mortgage :)  At the moment it is all on floating.