I’ve only recently become interested in the gun law reforms. I used to think that guns were dangerous and the less the better. However after witnessing the positive energy at the Sika show, acting for diverse interests promoting public good law reform and undertaking some research on gun related issues, I’ve realised that the government’s approach to guns is as ad hoc and unprincipled as its approach to many other important issues.
The underlying issue is not guns. Guns are no more dangerous that poison baits, cars, knives or 4W bikes. Its how they are used that is important.
We all needed time to reflect after the horrors of the Christchurch terrorist attack. Reflection is a good thing. However unravelling the background reveals that the aspect that let us down was not the gun laws, but the police’s failure to properly apply the “fit and proper person” test that underpins the NZ gun laws. Why would the police exempt someone who had no NZ friends to vouch for their character, from the well thought out requirements? Then, having exempted that person with the resulting horrific outcome, why blame the guns and the laws. It does not make sense. Why dont the police put their hand up, admit their own error and commit to ensuring the law is correctly applied in future?
The response of changing the law to make historic collectors guns illegal and then demanding they be handed in and destroyed because of political expedience, has unfortunate parallels with crazed international leaders destroying ancient monuments in Syria and other places. https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/topics/topic-archive/changing-new-zealand-s-gun-laws-expanding-the-types-of-firearms-that-are-banned-and-an-amnesty-on-surrendering-guns-to-police
A parliamentary report of April 2017 states: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/reports/document/SCR_72851/inquiry-into-issues-relating-to-the-illegal-possession
“New Zealand has a very low crime rate with firearms, at about 1.4 percent of all violent crime. The Police believe that most illicit firearms in New Zealand have entered the illicit market through theft of individuals’ firearms or firearms from dealers’ premises, illegal transfer from a licensed owner to an unlicensed owner, or illegal importation into New Zealand.
In 2014/15, there were 242,056 licensed firearm holders in New Zealand. We note that the overriding majority of firearms users in New Zealand are law abiding. Thus, our recommendations aim to reduce the flow of firearms to criminals, gangs, and those who do not have a licence, without unfairly impinging on law-abiding firearms users.”
The recent and ongoing gun law reforms are an arbitrary, divisive and disproportionate reaction.
What can now be done?
I’ve read the second stage of the proposed gun law reforms and been asked to consider a legal challenge. I’m my view the prospects of a successful legal challenge to an amended Act of Parliament is low. Instead what is required is a show of people power to reassert democracy and remind our elected representatives that they are there to represent the people and they must do so in a principled rather, than an arbitrary way.
Under New Zealand’s unwritten constitution “Parliament is Supreme“
Parliament is “supreme” in New Zealand, so it can theoretically pass or reform any statute, provided the reform gets the majority of votes. In New Zealand no laws are absolutely protected. In recent years a 51% majority vote has been enough to change even important constitutional legislation. For example in 2006 New Zealand passed the Supreme Court Act to remove our access to the UK based Privy Council, replacing it with the Supreme Court on a 51% majority vote.
New Zealand has no overriding constitution
New Zealand is unlike the USA, Canada and Australia which have overarching constitutions to restrict the abuse of power, at least on topics of fundamental importance. In contrast we have few checks and balances on our NZ Parliament, and even less on the actions of our executive (who make regulations and implement our laws).
At law school we were taught that the separation of powers between the legislature (which passes new laws), executive (which implements the laws) and the judiciary (which interprets the laws) provides checks and balances on the abuse of power. This is however severely compromised because Ministers of the Crown are part of both the legislature and the executive, and because most individuals and communities do not have the resources to engage the judiciary, so executive powers largely go unchecked.
The Treaty of Waitangi, Magna Carta and NZ Bill of Rights Act are underutilised and tend to be read down by our courts.
The many challenges the public face in seeking accountability from our representatives and the protection of the public interest are further compromised by many other factors, including the way our judges are appointed and promoted, the lack of transparency in crown legal advice, our ineffectual public watchdogs and the absence of critical media.
A) Appointment and promotion of judges:
NZ judges are appointed and promoted by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General (a member of both the legislature and executive), rather than from an independent panel;
https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Judicial-Appointments-Protocol-2019.pdf
This is in contrast with the advice from the law commission: http://r126.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+5+-+Appointment+of+judges/Introduction in its Issues paper 29
“...we suggested that the comment in April 2002 by the Advisory Group on the Establishment of the Supreme Court, that “all judges should be appointed by a transparent process, with clear criteria, and adequate and appropriate consultation”,37 is still apposite.38 We made certain preliminary proposals as to how this general principle could best be achieved in contemporary New Zealand circumstances, and for the foreseeable future.“
B) Transparency of advice from Crown Law
Crown law operates without any legislative mandate or constraints. It reports to the Solicitor-General (its CEO) who reports to the Attorney-General, and advises all branches of government. Its advice is typically “secret” due to its reliance on legal privilege.
When I worked for DoC I tried hard to encourage transparency in the reasons for decisions, so affected persons could understand the rationale. This opportunity for accountability was blocked by instructions from the Attorney-General.
Extract from the Cabinet manual: “Legal advice and legal professional privilege
General
4.62 Legal advice in departmental documents and Cabinet papers should be protected from disclosure in a manner consistent with the law. The guidance in paragraphs 4.63 – 4.72 sets out the required approach to the release of legal advice. Guidance on the release of draft government legislation outside the Crown can be found in Cabinet Office circulars.”
C: Ineffectual and under-resourced watchdogs
Ineffectiveness and under-resourcing of the Ombudsmen, Auditor-General, Health and Disability Commissioner and other authorities which can overview government actions. These authorities are constrained by their mandate and by their resources. Leaders can easily be chosen for their compliance with government will. Motivated officers become frustrated and leave.
D: Lack of objective media
Our media, is largely privately funded, so focused on easy populist stories rather than addressing complex issues. Many journalists are enthusiastic about covering stories about harm from 1080 poison, the lack of safety assessment of 5G , and the lack of constitutional rigour in New Zealand, however editors rule what is actually published. Coverage of the complex issues is largely left to bloggers or small independent publications.
What can we do?
The public is increasingly frustrated about their exclusion from important decisions. Nearly 20 years ago we had a Commission of Inquiry into GMOs, allowing experts and the public to share their views before a decision was made to postpone the introduction of this new technology due to the environmental and economic risks.
In recent years the only matter we have been asked about it a new flag. Meanwhile our government has decided to commit NZ to the TPPA, adopt John Key’s Predator 2050 strategy and promote the rollout of 5G, all without any social licence and with no public discussion about the public health, environmental or economic risks, why we need them, or even the lawfulness of the implementation.
Medicinal cannabis law reform has made some progress. However it seems to have become captured by vested interests. Public access to this herb which has been used as food, medicine and for textiles for over 4000 years by almost all great civilisations, has been restricted until it can be proven to be “safe”, licences are still required and the fees, delays and red tape have increased significantly. Police are still prosecuting medicinal users and altruistic Green Fairies.
Similarly the gun law reform has bypassed the usual limited but important public interest checks on new legislation, such as public consultation and a principled analysis of the need for the reform which is supported by robust evidence and can withstand scrutiny.
In contrast, the NZ government has consistently overlooked the obvious risk from the mishmash of poison laws and their almost total lack of enforcement, even though its own advisors admit that even a single 1080 poison bait can kill a toddler. There has been no apparent inquiry about how its own approved poisoner, Jeremy Kerr, accessed and posted enough 1080 poison to kill 13-33 toddlers without anyone in the government being alert. Even the massive police inquiry and economic harm did not stimulate any awareness in government about the risks.
Refer Queen v Jeremy Kerr 2016] NZHC 512 “[3] Enclosed with the letters in each case was a small, self sealing plastic bag containing a sample of infant formula contaminated with 1080. The collective volume of the 1080 if ingested was sufficient to prove fatal to between 13 and 33 infants.”
Nor has there been any official response to the clear evidence that four tuataras were killed in Natureland zoo, Nelson from secondary brodifacoum poisoning after eating “blue ” cockroaches poisoned with rat bait.
Another big challenge for communities is the rollout of 5G which threatens celltowers 100m apart in our streets, the amputation of tress (as trees and their leaves block their high energy microwave radiation) without any public consultation. A series of regulatory amendments have deemed RFEMR emissions which comply with dated industry promoted standards (NZS2772:1 1999) to be “safe” even though the WHO and IARC classify these microwave emissions as a possible carcinogen.
The overarching issue is our government’s apparent determination to follow its own opaque agenda and its lack of respect for the public it represents. If cockroaches and other insects eat cereal bait laced with brodifacoum it seems inevitable they will also eat rat bait laced with 1080 or other poisons, contaminating the food chain through secondary poisoning.
The solution is for the people to find common ground, unite and make the biggest possible fuss to remind our government why they are there and who they represent.
The March 2020 Festival of People Power to be held in Turangi and Tokaanu from 18 to 23 March is one opportunity to help build this movement and force the change we all urgently need.
Great article and as a kiwi adversely effected by our Governments private property seizure laws i welcomed a sad insight into our political system which clearly was vulnerable to corruption
If i may cheekily ask a question, surely the government by arresting and charging individuals for sharing the chch killers manifesto and video are in breach of the 1990 bill of rights act , the freedom of expression? It seems so obvious to me that this law is our freedom of speech law and yet here is a clear series of breaches going unopposed?
The NZ Bill of Rights Act does not give absolute rights. The protected rights are all subject to statute and are only available SUBJECT TO “JUSTIFED LIMITATIONS”. This requires discretion form the courts and other decision makers.
NZ Bill of Rights Act
“SECTION 5 justified limitations
Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Crown Prosecutions must also be subject to the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines
https://crownlaw.govt.nz/publications/prosecution-guidelines/
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225501.html
The Supreme Court has already ruled by a three to two vote, that the Bill of Rights Act is not enforceable against the Crown. See ‘Couch vs the Attorney General’. Unfortunately, no one knows what they don’t know. Before anyone can understand anything about society, government, economics, taxes, banking, interest, debt, and money, they first must know where our money comes from. This is purposely held back from our school curriculums. If you don’t know this, you know nothing at all but the garbage you’ve been fed by the bankers’ media machine. New Zealand is running the most transparent debt conspiracy in the world; and may well be the only country in the world capable of turning this on its horrible head. One becomes wise not by knowing all the answers, but by asking the right questions. This is the Association of Sovereignz journey- asking the right questions. It is the questions themselves that jog our cognitive dissonance into submission to the truth, opening a way for it to finally filter in. At the end of the day economics is 90% mathematics, and 10% human nature. Mathematics creates immutable science, and if given the right incentives, human nature is quite predictable. It is also quite predictable if given the WRONG incentives- such as income taxes and tax-free capital gains. Thus economics, if approached from a questioning point of view, allows the truth of human existence- and human slavery- to be revealed for all to see. 1080 poison use is a horrible crime against all life, but it is a symptom rather than a cause. The real cause is the income taxes which divert- directly and indirectly- most working class profit to the banking elite.
Hi Sue
Great article, plain English and easy to read.
Highlights some significant flaws that undermines both our political and judicial systems from reaching their fullest and fairest potential.
Nga mihi
Chris
Thanks Chris
I don’t think Adearn will be in next time. The biggest problem we have is those greens. Labour on there own probably wouldn’t be to bad, however whoever gets in next year is not going to undo the damage that has been been done. Those greens have done terrible things to this country. We all know that we will have a Labour/greens or National Govt next year 2020. Which ever it is I am asking that they stop 1080 poison altogether regardless of the excuses of doc fb etc. No more aerial shooting of our wild herds and no ground shooting by doc or any contractors to them. These animals are our food source and the majority say no to poison etc so why is the minority able to do as they wish? (these people are nothing more than servants to the people) and they are not listening to those who pay there wages.
Regarding the Christchurch saga the easiest way to prevent something like that happening again is to stop foreigners having weapons in the first place say “NO” when they apply for an arms license. It was not an NZ’er who did this but we are punished as terrorists because of what someone else from another country has done here. I have an arms license and for the life of me cannot understand why the arms laws are being changed for NZ’ers when it wasn’t even one of us that did this. The department of contamination of all people should be made to surrender all firearms they do not need them, they are suppose to be into conservation not mass slaughter. I would like to see the next Govt dispose of the department of contamination altogether, we would be far better of financially and morally.
Something I would like to know about Adearn is why give an election plea for affordable homes and then can the idea after a couple of years, we still need 20% deposit for a home and what people pay in rent is more than likely way above what a mortgage repayment would be. A 20% deposit on a $300,000 home is $60,000 doesn’t sound very affordable to me. My wife and I are in a state house in Gisborne and because we work our rent went up 100% (this came into being with the shipley govt) we would be better off on the dol, I kid you not. Why hasn’t Adearn started the State advance loans again like we used to have with a minimal deposit so people can get out of bronx and have a better future?
Thanks Sue. Great article. Checks and balances are so important and as you say sadly lacking here. The media is generally so useless these days… and the public so weary and wary – most in survival mode. Can you explain in a nutshell what is the limits on the new gun laws? I thought it was the banning of the semiautomatic weapons, which is a god thing in my opinion. The 13 year old girl bemoaning, on Seven Sharp recently, that she can’t use one anymore made me feel sick. Sorry for not keeping a pace with this one. Got the 5G, water fluoridation, water bottling plant proposals and live export of animals I am involved with fighting…
Thanks Lucy. I agree, there are so many issues to keep up with. I try to look for patterns as it’s impossible to keep up with all the detail .. The key concerns with the gun reform is the government has gone too far without properly consulting or thinking it through. The issue was with a few semi automatic assault type rifles and an inexplicable police decision to approve an overseas person who did not meet “fit and proper person” criteria. The underlying concern (apart from that one horrible incident) was not with licenced gun users but with those who imported or otherwise accessed guns illegally eg from others who had them illegally. The result of the rushed through reforms (and drawing an unreasonable and ill-considered line) is to encourage more illegal possession of guns…. Creating a bigger problem of illegal possession than we started with. They’ve taken many types of guns away from responsible gun owners and left them with the least law abiding citizens. … And forced collectors to chose between their treasures and the law. It’s the same type of choice that didn’t work with drugs….
Thanks Sue. In other words, to almost use a pun, its like the government has cracked a nit with a sledgehammer.
A Nut with a Sledgehammer!
Basically you were lied to.
This is from a letter I sent to Jami-Lee Ross.
“If I might be “that guy” for a moment, the government did not ban “military-style semiautomatics” or “assault rifles”.
They banned, “all semiautomatic rifles, excluding only those rimfires .22 in caliber or less” that includes a lot of antiques, such as the 1907 Winchester which actually predates the mainstream use of semiautomatic rifles by the US military by almost forty years (the French did experiment with them in the first World War). Hunting rifles like the Browning BAR II (with its non-detachable four round magazine) were also banned. The reason for this is pretty simple. There is no such thing as a “military-style semiautomatic”. It was a label made in in 1992 to differentiate one group of semiautomatic (energy of the fired round is harnessed to eject the spent round and load a fresh one) long guns (shoulder fired firearms) from another group of semiautomatic long guns based purely on cosmetic features like an adjustable stock or flash suppressor that made no difference to the function of the firearm, and the size of the magazine which was irrelevant because we never regulated the size of magazines. That in turn was because some bolt action rifles shared magazines with semiautomatics, and there was no limit on magazine size in bolt actions. That’s why, when you see the police commissioner pull a magazine out of a semiautomatic rifle and stick a larger one and pronounce, “Now it’s a military-style semiautomatic,” most gun owners simply roll their eyes at the banality of it. When you divide one type of rifle in two by an entirely arbitrary list of features it’s very easy to turn one into the other.
The definition of an “assault rifle” (derived from the German StG 44 “Sturmgewehr” which translates to “assault rifle”) is a detachable magazine rifle firing an intermediate cartridge (intermediate in power between pistol and rifle) capable of firing in both semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. This development was driven by the conflicting needs of a soldier to be capable of fire suppression in close quarters (that had been handled by the pistol caliber submachine gun) and engaging the enemy at range (traditionally done with bolt action rifle chambered in a more powerful cartridge like 7.92mm Mauser, .303 British, or 30-06 Springfield). The only New Zealanders who own those are those with C endorsements on their firearms licenses, which allows them to collect those firearms, along with machine guns or any other piece of military equipment. They do so only with the approval of police, and under condition that they don’t actually shoot them. I have been told that some military ranges do allow C holders to shoot those firearms on their grounds, but other than that, no. These have not been banned. That said I’ve heard that the police are now trying to rule that C holders need one of their two year “P” endorsements to own the magazines for the firearms they already own under their C endorsement. This would be an example of police creating the law rather than enforcing it, which is never a good sign in a free country. That and the news the Police Association wants all police armed at all times fills me with concern. We are not a police state. Not yet anyway.
What were banned were the aforementioned semiautomatic rifles, some of which are chambered in the same intermediate cartridges as true “assault rifles”. Some of which look like modern military rifles (and many that look like antique military rifles) but do not have the automatic fire ability so are not “assault rifles”.
The appearance of a firearm doesn’t determine its function. For example I have a Ruger 10/22 that has been housed in a bullpup stock that makes it look like a FN P90 submachine gun. Despite its appearance it’s just a .22 rimfire semiautomatic and perfectly legal.
What were also banned were all semiautomatic and pump action shotguns with detachable magazines, and all pump action and semiautomatic shotguns with nondetachable magazines larger than 5 rounds. This is where the deerstalkers, duck hunters, and other hunting crowds started to take notice. Previously they’d believed as you did, that only “military-style semiautomatics” were affected, and their reasoning was that as long as it didn’t affect them it was fine (that Kiwi, “she’ll be right” attitude will kill us all in the end). I recall a couple of National MPs getting roasted at a meeting of farmers and other rural people for their support of the Government’s bill. Hopefully they’ve learned their lesson.
The government also banned all detachable magazines larger than 10 rounds for rifles, and, more importantly, all long guns with nondetachable magazines larger than 10 rounds. That latter one is a killer because, going back in history, almost all Winchester style lever action rifles had larger than 10 round magazines, that means a mass of antiques, valuable antiques, have been banned and now have to be surrendered (at the taxpayer’s expense), or modified to meet the 10 round limit, which destroys their value. I did read somewhere of an “antique” exemption, but I’ve yet to see one in action. Likewise a lot of .22 rimfire lever action and semiautomatic rifles have nondetachable tubular magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (typically 15-20, the .22 Long Rifle is a tiny cartridge). Ironically I can empty four or five magazines from my 10/22 in the same time it takes someone to reload a 15 shot Marlin 60.
Those nondetachable magazine shotguns and rifles can be modified (at the owner’s expense) to conform to the new magazine limits, but in order to get a refund from the government (taxpayer) they have to get an approved gunsmith to do so. The police only recently issued a list of approved gunsmiths, and their numbers are so few that if they worked around the clock from now till Christmas they still wouldn’t get half the required number done. Of course we have Mike Clement saying there’ll be no extension to the amnesty and that every part of this dog’s breakfast has to be resolved by December 20. Someone should remind him that police don’t create law, they only enforce it. Though, that said, I’m beginning to doubt if that’s true.
When groups representing gun owners, like COLFO, say that the buyback could cost a billion dollars or more, they’re looking at the projected cost with 100% compliance of every affected firearm
Ironically the government actually did come up with the correct solution shortly after the March 15 murders, which was to move all detachable magazine semiautomatics (other than rimfire up to .22) to the E-category and do away with the make-believe “military-style semiautomatic” classification. That would have been largely self-policing. Those who wanted to subject themselves to the extra scrutiny and restrictions necessary for owning an E-cat firearm could go get the endorsement, and those that had detachable magazine semiautomatics but didn’t want to go through the rigmarole could sell their firearms to gun shops, E-license holders, or to the government in a limited “buyback” program (those could be resold to gun shops/E-license holders to recoup the losses). Those that don’t have an E-license would be fine with guns like the aforementioned Browning BAR, which is a good hunting rifle. This is the law as it should have been put in place in 1992. Licensed firearms owners would have been okay with those changes, which would have fixed what they recognized as weaknesses in the law prior to March 15. Looking over the last 27 years, to the best of my knowledge no crime has ever been committed with an E-cat firearm, suggesting that the level of scrutiny we have for that is about correct.
Instead Labour decided to out-Australia Australia by ramming through their law changes in record time without much in the way of public consultation and submission. How many people even knew there were two days of public submissions on the law changes? How many people thought they were only talking about “military-style semiautomatics”? How many people were just ballot-stuffing as it seems Gun Control NZ intend to do with submissions on the latest round? It doesn’t take any effort to type “I agree” and press the send button, but it counts for just as much as the four hours I spent writing my opposing submission. Consequently they’ve destroyed businesses, sports, along with the hunting pastimes of disabled shooters who need the ease of operation of a semiautomatic.
If you’ll forgive me diverting for a moment, Gun Control NZ are an opportunistic bunch who’ve popped up after the Christchurch murders to tell us there’s no such thing as a safe firearms owner, and who want to ban all semiautomatic firearms, even the couple that we’ve still been allowed to own. As near as I can tell they’re a small bunch of academics (about 45ish) who live on the taxpayer’s dime, and have no qualifications or experience in anything at all related to shooting as a hobby, sport, or profession. Nonetheless, despite them knowing about as much as John Snow (who, I’m told, knows nothing), they’re called on for comment by the mainstream media all the time, giving them a legitimacy they don’t deserve.
The government also placed in law the Henry 8 clauses that allows them to ban any firearm, any component, and any type of ammunition, with an act in council signed by the Governor General, without having to take the matter to the floor of Parliament. What kind of country do we live in where a person’s legally owned property can be made illegal without anyone having any say in the matter?
Preventing mass shootings is a laudable goal, but having had only one in 29 years, and that by an Australian who may not have been adequately vetted before being given a license, doesn’t give us any pattern of behaviour to stop. There are quarter of a million licensed gun owners, who outnumber the police and military combined ten to one, yet they’re among the most law-abiding people in the country.”
The only good thing that can be said of Labour’s laws is that they now distinguish firearms based on function rather than appearance. However that is all that can be said of them.
Thanks Jason. I am unable to digest half of what you say as I am not at all interested in guns… but what you have said helps me to appreciate what this government Nanny State has done.
Sorry, I do tend to the “too much information” side of things.
Just found my way here!
Good work!
I’ll come back and digest it thoroughly when I’m not at work! (lol)
I like that people can engage with your article.
Cheers
KJG
Thanks Kerry your feedback is much appreciated. Sue
As an example of the deceitfulness of the police, you see in their justifications for the law changes that a man was able to get a license and sell 69 guns to gang members.
What they don’t mention is that Peter James Edwards was an Australian with links to gangs over there, who got his license because the police don’t information share with their peers in Australia.
Where have we heard that before?
Well said Sue, thanks for your insight.
Thanks Michael
Does the Bill of Rights from the 1689’s have any power here in NZ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
Excellent review of a sad situation.
Your example of the GMO decisions twenty years ago are especially important for showing the way forward.
Kia Kaha
Thanks Zac much appreciated
I think the Govt. may be expecting a “Backlash” after poisoning our Wildlife, Our Farm dogs & cattle & stock, and refusing to listen to ” the people” or even the scientists, They have decided to start taking away our guns as they are becoming afraid of the majority, who want 1080 poison banned.
I have many thoughts around the whole article, but I will comment about two only.
GMO, why are we still talking about this? It is proven that is safe and used only as a marketing tool to sell to people ignorant about it and are susceptible to conspiracy theories and populism. They even label salt as non GMO. People is so gullible sometimes.
Green fairies. Would the outcome be the same if they were brown with a moko? Unlikely, I believe prisons are full of not-blond green fairies. Plus the story of the lady as per Paddy’s doco selling it for $100 bucks seems more like an illegal business than a charity. If that was the case she would live off a job and made the medicine for free or koha. But she looks cute though.
I commend the Outdoors Party for broadening its scope in drafting policy that goes beyond the 1080 disaster. It seems pretty clear that most Kiwis have other issues besides 1080 poison that are at least equally dear to them. It also seems clear that many more conscious Kiwis will be drawn to the Outdoors Party if their primary and/or secondary issues are embraced also. It is my view, which I openly express within the Association of Sovereignz Facebook group, that the problem behind most of the problems surfacing is the huge debt- both public and private- that creates an incredible sense of poverty consciousness on society affecting both rich and poor. The rich become all the more defensive, protective, and perhaps greedy when they perceive that resources are too limited to provide basic well-being for all. Thus, they insist on preserving their own favoured status over the working classes; and because our entire political system is driven by money or its absence (including the 1080 poison issue), only the rich have any real voice in constructing government policy. The working people, on the other hand, have almost all labour profit taken away from them through PAYE taxes, income taxes, fuel taxes, ongoing inflation, low wages caused by induced unemployment, and high interest on the perpetual debt largely caused by income taxes. Present income tax policy, combined with tax-free capital gains, corporate tax exemptions, and clever multinational cross-pricing schemes, ensure that the rich avoid most tax liability while the poor have no means of escaping the tyranny of the rich. Working class debt to the rich is now said to exceed $600 B, with at least $40 B going to the rich each year just as interest on old debt. This debt is the real elephant in the room, with no party acknowledging it either as cause or effect. The interest on this debt is purely inflationary, with no real increase in equity behind it except inflationary increases in housing prices. The elephant has been around so long, that it has become accepted as part of the permanent furniture. Like ‘the emperor has no clothes’ it’s finally time that someone points out the destructive nature of income taxes and how they rob from the poor to pay the rich. At present, all new money entering our economy arrives as interest on old debt, which then must be borrowed again, thereby increasing the principal further. In other words, before a single dollar can be taken as tax, someone, somewhere, must first borrow it into existence from the bankers interest ledger. What would happen if income taxes were eliminated? $40 B now taken would be left to grow the economy by that much. A 10% growth in GDP also requires a 10% growth in the money supply to prevent the deflation that would otherwise occur. Rather than forcing the private sector to borrow this money into existence through taxes, government could itself create and issue this new money directly to the real people of NZ as a $200 Universal Basic Income; which would then create an on-going double feedback loop creating yet more growth, yet more deflation, and a permanent UBI. Is this politically feasible? At the moment, very few persons even know there is a question about taxes, assuming the elephant has always been in the room. The anti-1080 movement, although only a symptom of a government run by the rich for profit, may very well be the perfect vehicle for bringing this larger issue out from the shadows into the light of day. By joining many worthy social issues under one banner, the Outdoors Party will become ten times stronger than its original mandate, and gain renewed credibility. By addressing the tax reform that can transform society and usher in real monetary reform, as suggested by the Association of Sovereignz, the Outdoors Party can generate the very conversation that will illuminate the elephant for all to see- if only in an attempt to discredit it. I assure you that it is the present income tax system that fails the test of careful examination. If the present tax system actually WAS funding government sustainably, why do we also have around $100 B of public debt? Income taxes CANNOT stand the test of scrutiny, and certainly cannot be justified in enslaving the working classes to the rich. The bottom line is this. When the Outdoors Party acquires enough credibility to attract the public media- and if these tax reforms accompany that media attention- many persons will finally see the elephant for what it is, will see the immense personal and communal benefits likely to accrue in its absence, and will gladly join with the Outdoors Party to change not only the makeup of parliament, but the very way we fund our government without income taxes. I would like the opportunity to address the present board of the Outdoors Party in an informal meetup somewhere in the North Island so that I can more completely explain the Sovereignz policies and why they are what they are. In my view, these tax reforms are the only way that human society can sustain itself with meaning, purpose, and ultimately, survival into the next century. New Zealand is very blessed to have a tax system more apparent than most. The emperor does indeed have no clothes. Should party leaders express interest in these views, I would be keen to join the Outdoors Party and likely bring many of our 2500 group members along with me who already support these views. How could any thinking individual refuse to accept an ongoing PAYE tax rebate of around $150 per week? How could any thinking individual NOT be tempted by the prospect of a universal basic income- on top of all other tax-free earnings?
Hi Sue Alan and Outdoors Party Supporters.
A keen mind and a clean heart does not appear to influence the decisions of the people in the NZ Government any more.
Democracy is supposed to be:
Government OF the people.
Government BY the people.
Government FOR the people.
The important word in this is PEOPLE.
Unfortunately, there are not many PEOPLE involved in the political parties that choose, promote and “sell” the candidates that the rest of us are permitted to vote for.
Party membership is said to be about 10% of what it was in the 1980’s. Maybe 50,000 or less.
The people who are involved in these parties are not representative of the general population. They tend to be older, more financially secure, more privileged and indoctrinated with similar belief systems.
The culture and membership of the political parties discourages the discussion of diverse opinions and the involvement of people from different backgrounds.
The hierarchy of powerful and opinionated people in these parties is an “elite” minority that actually approves policies and candidates.
There are also people with money and vested interests who “donate” in return for political favours.
The culture is very adversarial with the desire to “beat the other parties” as the main priority.
This is the system by which the MP’s in our government are chosen by an elite minority to govern rest of the people.
Our system has become an OLIGARCHY in which the masses are governed and controlled by a small minority who consider themselves to be the “RULING CLASS”.
The issues that you refer to are of concern but they are really symptoms of a government that is NOT BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE.
The efforts of the people to influence the government fail because the OLIGARCHS DO NOT LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!
We are facing a serious social and economic crisis in which the well-being of the people will be sacrificed for the benefit of this RULING CLASS.
The only solution and chance of avoiding the consequences of this crisis is to replace the current career politicians with new people who are not servants of the current Oligarchy.
OUT THEY GO!
Thank you Charlie for your thoughtful analysis. I totally agree that the future of our planet deserves far more respect and care. The Outdoors Party is in the process of setting up a forum to crowd source ideas for suggested policies. It also has an ever expanding panel of wise people to test ideas and policies against. It won’t be easy to change the status quo, but together a committed team can do miracles. We have no choice if we want to work with nature to start to heal our planet.
I head a lovely vision today… A strong community must focus on creating wonderful grandmothers. That way we can both lead and mentor with wisdom.
Have you ever considered writing an e-book օr guest authoring on otheг websites?
I have a blog centered on tһe same iⅾeas you discuss and would love to have you
ѕhare some stories/information. I know my readers would appreciate your work.
If you’re evеn remotely interested, feeⅼ free to send me an e-mail.