Blue Liberals Newsletter: August 2009
UPCOMING EVENTS
Bill of Not Quite Rights - August Workshop
A workshop will be held in Wellington on August 25th on the NZ Bill of Rights and whether the protections offered should be strengthened. The session will be addressed by Bill of Rights expert Dr Andrew Butler. Those interested should contact Laura Dalby on (04) 894 7015.
Ralph Hanan Dinner
The annual Ralph Hanan dinner will be held this year in Wellington on 11 September. The speaker will be former Minister and historian, Hon Dr Michael Bassett. Dr Bassett will speak about Hanan's influence on New Zealand politics, 40 years after his death.
This event is a popular one and tickets go quickly. Enquiries should be directed to Laura Dalby on (04) 894 7015.
CONFERENCE REPORT
The Bluelibs conference breakfast was hosted this year by Tauranga MP Simon Bridges and Christchurch Bluelibs member, Alex McKinnon. The discussion highlighted a few issues. The need for more regular newsletters was one thing. The need for more policy discussion outside of Wellington was another.
Both are constructive points and we have taken them on board.
First will be changing the format of the newsletter and increasing its frequency. Second, we would like anyone interested in convening or participating in a policy discussion group as part of the Bluelibs to let us know. If there is a policy area that you think the Bluelibs should address, once again get in touch.
DISCUSSION
Bill of Not Quite Rights - the Case for Change
Over the past year this newsletter has highlighted our concern over Labour's Electoral Finance legislation and the attack on New Zealanders' freedom of speech that it represented.
The Electoral Finance Act has not been the only case where our basic rights have been subject to fast and loose treatment by the former Labour administration. The working assumption seems to have been that whatever the Government wanted the government should get, untroubled by any hindrance, constitutional or otherwise.
The need to respect the sovereignty of Parliament is important, but so too is the need to recognise that there are some lines that ought not to be crossed.
In the past we have been able to rely on politicians' reluctance to pass legislation that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. That seems no longer to be the case and the question we are asking is whether the Bill of Rights should be strengthened and, if so, how?
Other countries provide useful points of reference. The US is an obvious instance where the constitution and the rights contained in it are supreme law. In Canada the approach is less rigorous. Pass a law that's inconsistent with their rights framework and there's a sunset clause. It all has to be revisited after a couple of years.
We will be considering the options at our upcoming workshop and will publish the outcome of the discussion in our next newsletter and will be canvassing your views. The results will be developed into a paper for reference to the responsible ministers and caucus committees.
What do you think?
COMMENT
"I am not a pharmacist I am a baker"
Amongst the thousands of letters to the editor, you occasionally see one that is not written by a Labour Party activist.
One of the better examples came from a baker who was concerned about the possibility of being required to put folic acid in his bread. He was quite happy to offer people a choice of folic acid bread, but he objected to the being forced to be the delivery arm for mass medication. "Aspirin is good for reducing heart problems too," he said. "Why don't we include that in the bread?"
He went on to list the other things that would be good for what ails you and suggested in the end that he do away with the dough completely and opt for dispensing pills.
He has a point.
The Bluelibs believe in choice and the protection of it. The only case for our freedom of choice to be limited is when what we do or don't do impact on others to such an extent that the relative harm is greater from doing nothing than from intervening.
That's not the case with folic acid in bread. Not only would the consumer have to opt to eat half a loaf a day to get the admitted benefits, but also it's more than a bit murky whether the net effect would be to give a the same individual bowel cancer. Public health officials (always keen to tell us what to eat and how to behave) dismiss the risk, but then I've never seen officials line up to take the blame when things go wrong. Remember Cave Creek and the contaminated blood products saga?
What we're being asked to accept is that we should have to eat amounts of folic acid that are insufficient to deliver the desired benefit but sufficient to present us with a risk.
We have fluoride, we have iodine. That's enough of a slippery slope. Let's not go any further down it.
What do you think?
QUOTE OF THE MONTH
"Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave."
Lord Henry Peter Brougham
UPCOMING EVENTS
Bill of Not Quite Rights - August Workshop
A workshop will be held in Wellington on August 25th on the NZ Bill of Rights and whether the protections offered should be strengthened. The session will be addressed by Bill of Rights expert Dr Andrew Butler. Those interested should contact Laura Dalby on (04) 894 7015.
Ralph Hanan Dinner
The annual Ralph Hanan dinner will be held this year in Wellington on 11 September. The speaker will be former Minister and historian, Hon Dr Michael Bassett. Dr Bassett will speak about Hanan's influence on New Zealand politics, 40 years after his death.
This event is a popular one and tickets go quickly. Enquiries should be directed to Laura Dalby on (04) 894 7015.
CONFERENCE REPORT
The Bluelibs conference breakfast was hosted this year by Tauranga MP Simon Bridges and Christchurch Bluelibs member, Alex McKinnon. The discussion highlighted a few issues. The need for more regular newsletters was one thing. The need for more policy discussion outside of Wellington was another.
Both are constructive points and we have taken them on board.
First will be changing the format of the newsletter and increasing its frequency. Second, we would like anyone interested in convening or participating in a policy discussion group as part of the Bluelibs to let us know. If there is a policy area that you think the Bluelibs should address, once again get in touch.
DISCUSSION
Bill of Not Quite Rights - the Case for Change
Over the past year this newsletter has highlighted our concern over Labour's Electoral Finance legislation and the attack on New Zealanders' freedom of speech that it represented.
The Electoral Finance Act has not been the only case where our basic rights have been subject to fast and loose treatment by the former Labour administration. The working assumption seems to have been that whatever the Government wanted the government should get, untroubled by any hindrance, constitutional or otherwise.
The need to respect the sovereignty of Parliament is important, but so too is the need to recognise that there are some lines that ought not to be crossed.
In the past we have been able to rely on politicians' reluctance to pass legislation that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. That seems no longer to be the case and the question we are asking is whether the Bill of Rights should be strengthened and, if so, how?
Other countries provide useful points of reference. The US is an obvious instance where the constitution and the rights contained in it are supreme law. In Canada the approach is less rigorous. Pass a law that's inconsistent with their rights framework and there's a sunset clause. It all has to be revisited after a couple of years.
We will be considering the options at our upcoming workshop and will publish the outcome of the discussion in our next newsletter and will be canvassing your views. The results will be developed into a paper for reference to the responsible ministers and caucus committees.
What do you think?
COMMENT
"I am not a pharmacist I am a baker"
Amongst the thousands of letters to the editor, you occasionally see one that is not written by a Labour Party activist.
One of the better examples came from a baker who was concerned about the possibility of being required to put folic acid in his bread. He was quite happy to offer people a choice of folic acid bread, but he objected to the being forced to be the delivery arm for mass medication. "Aspirin is good for reducing heart problems too," he said. "Why don't we include that in the bread?"
He went on to list the other things that would be good for what ails you and suggested in the end that he do away with the dough completely and opt for dispensing pills.
He has a point.
The Bluelibs believe in choice and the protection of it. The only case for our freedom of choice to be limited is when what we do or don't do impact on others to such an extent that the relative harm is greater from doing nothing than from intervening.
That's not the case with folic acid in bread. Not only would the consumer have to opt to eat half a loaf a day to get the admitted benefits, but also it's more than a bit murky whether the net effect would be to give a the same individual bowel cancer. Public health officials (always keen to tell us what to eat and how to behave) dismiss the risk, but then I've never seen officials line up to take the blame when things go wrong. Remember Cave Creek and the contaminated blood products saga?
What we're being asked to accept is that we should have to eat amounts of folic acid that are insufficient to deliver the desired benefit but sufficient to present us with a risk.
We have fluoride, we have iodine. That's enough of a slippery slope. Let's not go any further down it.
What do you think?
QUOTE OF THE MONTH
"Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave."
Lord Henry Peter Brougham
