Bluelibs - the Blue Liberals

Blue Libs Newsletter - March 2010

nospam@example.com (Admin) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:50:59 +1300

Constitutional review - Time for a four-year term

Bluelibs readers will know that we have begun a campaign to strengthen the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Continue reading "Blue Libs Newsletter - March 2010"

Blue Libs Newsletter - November 2009

nospam@example.com (Admin) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:15:42 +1300

Strengthening the Bill of Rights Act - Campaign Update

Our paper, Strengthening Freedom and Choice, has been circulated to regional policy chairs, and the Policy Committee. Copies have also been sent to key Ministers and their advisors

For those coming up to speed with this, next year is the 20^th anniversary of the Bill of Rights Act coming into force.

Continue reading "Blue Libs Newsletter - November 2009"

Blue Liberals Newsletter: September 2009

nospam@example.com (Admin) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:16:38 +1200

Workshop Report - the Bill of (Not Quite) Rights

The Wellington Workshop on the Bill of Rights was well-attended by a mix of MPs, and Bluelibs members and supporters.

There was a strong consensus on several issues, not least about the omission from the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) of a property rights protection. Several participants expressed concern about the ease with which government can take or trespass upon private property and a couple of chilling examples involving regional government were highlighted.

One former MP reported that the property rights were left out of the Bill of Rights Act as a result of a misguided view on the part of Labour (the government at the time) that protecting property rights was somehow protecting the interests of the "boss class".

The response to this from more than a couple of people in the after match discussion was that the surest way of stopping social mobility and keeping people poor was to allow the state to trespass on property rights at will. Those of us with Scots, Irish or Maori ancestry will have some view on that I'm sure.

There was also a view that the BORA should be strengthened. The present Attorney-General is doing his job in highlighting instances where rights are being trespassed on by proposed legislation, but not every occupant of that office has been (or will be) that assiduous.

Our speaker, Dr Andrew Butler, talked about what is done in Canada and elsewhere. There are, he said, a number of things that can be done that strengthen protections but which don't limit the sovereignty of Parliament. Simply dealing with the bad drafting would be a start. Another would be to allow the courts to refuse to apply legislation inconsistent with the BORA unless Parliament has expressly said that the legislation should operate in spite of the breach. This at least would raise the awareness of when there was an issue and spare the Attorney-General from always having to be the spoilsport of the piece

It was an interesting and thought-provoking workshop. It is also one that we would like to repeat in other centres. If you're interested please let us know by contacting Laura Dalby on laura.dalby@national.org.nz.

What do you think?

Feedback … about folic acid in bread

In our last update, we questioned the justification of a compulsory inclusion of folic acid in bread. We weighed up the public harm versus the trespass on personal choice and concluded that personal choice should win out.

Not everyone agreed. There was well-considered feedback from one reader in particular that we had underplayed the public benefits. We were told that we ought to have made more of the precedent set by the inclusion of iodine in salt to prevent goitre and food fortification to prevent rickets.

Good point, but the difference is that in the case of iodine and food fortification is that the upside benefits are well-known, as are the down-sides of inaction and intervention. What we know about the proposed folic acid inclusion is that it wouldn't be enough to deliver the benefits and may in fact induce harm.

Another good point our correspondent raised was that because "people are too slack to take precautions" there are impacts on kids and thus the state ought to intervene. No argument there. Impact on others most certainly should be part of the calculation and personal freedoms must always be balanced against any public harm that may result. But again we come back to the question of whether what is proposed in this case will actually address the harm and not cause others in the process. That remains something for debate.

Where we disagree strongly with our correspondent is the suggestion that we are confusing a liberty issue with a public health one. The two things are not distinct. The fact that there may be a public health benefit from an intervention is not a trump card that can be used to justify whatever imposition the state or a health official might come up with. All state interventions, regardless of type, must be balanced against competing interests or consequences.

There would, for example, be undoubted benefits to individuals, their families and the Crown accounts if everybody exercised for an hour a day. Would our correspondent suggest that forcing people to do it would not involve an issue of liberty? Similarly, as many a social worker and doctor will know, there would be public health benefits in stopping some people from having children. Doesn't that too give rise to some very real questions of freedom?

The bottom line is that all state interventions must be justified and balanced against the downside of limiting choice and freedom. If the case can be made, fair enough, but the threshold needs to be very high.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. The debate is useful. Because of it a lot more people know about why they should have folic acid when pregnant than did before.

Quote

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”

Thomas Jefferson

Upcoming Events

Don't forget the 6^th Annual Ralph Hanan Dinner.

Guest Speaker Hon Dr Michael Bassett

When: Friday 11 September

Where: Wellington Club

Note: Seats are limited

RSVP to james.christmas@parliament.govt.nz by Monday 31 August

Discussion groups

Interested in joining a Bluelibs discussion group in your region? Contact Laura on laura.dalby@national.org.nz.

Blue Liberals Newsletter: August 2009

nospam@example.com (Admin) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:09:42 +1200

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

Blue Liberals Newsletter: March 2009

nospam@example.com (Admin) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:46:00 +1300

The Bill of Not Quite Rights

In 2007, full of pretended outrage about the brethren and the pernicious influence of big money in politics the Labour Government introduced and passed into law the Electoral Finance Act.

It was a partisan piece of legislation roundly criticised for its drafting and the assumption that it is political parties that own politics, rather than the people. But its greatest fault was its overt trespass on the freedom of speech guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Yet it still became law, prompting the question how 'guaranteed' the guaranteed rights provided by the Bill of Rights Act actually are.

The answer is not very much. From a legal point of view the Bill of Rights Act is a flaccid document indeed. It does not override other legislation and it allows Parliament to limit the rights contained in it wherever and whenever it considers such limitation justified. Lord Cooke of Thorndon said of the Act that "it is regarded internationally as one of the weakest affirmations of human rights." It is a view shared by the Civil Rights Committee of the United Nations, which regularly criticises the failure of successive Governments to do anything to strengthen it.

Nor, it seems, can we rely on the courts. In a judgment issued this month on a challenge to the Electoral Finance Act and the failure of Attorney-General Dr Michael Cullen to draw Parliament's attention to the inconsistency with the Bill of Right, the Court of Appeal refused to trespass on what it saw as Parliament's business.

Instead, what Kiwis we are supposed to rely on is the fact that our politicians are reasonable people and that they will be nervous about doing anything that looked like they were legislating away our rights. This is a normative or cultural guarantee rather than a legal one. And it was one that Labour, the Greens, Progressive, and New Zealand First felt free to ignore.

Of course you can now say a year and a bit on that the cultural protections won out. A repugnant Act has been repealed and the Parties responsible for it have been rightly removed from power. In the case of New Zealand First the blow that fell on it was even more mortal.

But it was a near run thing. So much hung on the fortunes of Winston Peters and we all know that in an increasingly complex world people rarely vote on single issues. Also the realities of MMP make the chances of being called to account on a rights issue pretty small. Tell a good story and raise enough fear and, bit by bit our freedoms die. It's how such things as the US 'Patriots' Act' get their name.

It used to be that we could rely on people being reasonable. But as the Electoral Finance Act showed it’s a less reasonable hope.

For this reason the Blue-Libs would like to see work begun on how to strengthen the New Zealand Bill of Rights so that laws like the Electoral Finance Act cannot be visited on us again.

What do you think? Email: laura.dalby@national.org.nz