It is always important in matters of high politics to know what you do not know. Those who think that they know, but are mistaken, and act upon their mistakes, are the most dangerous people to have in charge. pic.twitter.com/4jRyMBAho0
— Margaret Thatcher (@MrsMThatcher) December 3, 2019
The government is sending mixed messages on fuel prices.
It’s imposed a carbon tax as part of its climate change strategy while it’s also criticising fuel companies for charging too much.
In doing the latter they are conveniently ignoring the fact that nearly half of the cost of fuel at the pumps is tax.
Didn’t Jacinda Ardern promise to lead an open and transparent government?
Labour’s decision today to block the request of former New Zealand First President Lester Gray and former Treasurer Colin Forster is the Government covering up serious allegations of financial impropriety of its coalition partner New Zealand First, National’s Electoral Law spokesperson Dr Nick Smith says.
“There was no good reason for blocking these senior New Zealand First officials from being heard at the Justice Select Committee on electoral law. They sought the hearing because they had serious concerns about the failure to disclose major donations, unauthorised campaign expenditure and concerns over the New Zealand First Foundation.
No-one with any knowledge of running a political party and election campaign could believe that a party could do that on membership subs, members’ fund raising and donations under the disclosable amount alone.
If the way the NZ First Foundation has been used to funnel donations is within the law then the law must change.
“They were fearful of speaking publically with threats of legal action and the Justice Committee provided a safe place for them to disclose their knowledge of what has occurred.
“Labour is part of a cover up in denying the Committee and New Zealand the opportunity to hear their concerns.
“These issues in New Zealand First go to the heart of our democracy and the result of Election 2017. New Zealanders have a right to know who were the financial backers of the Party that was decisive in the 2017 Election outcome.
We also have a right to see if any dots can be joined between those backers and NZ First policy.
“New Zealand First was the only Party that did not disclose the source of any donations and it had 10 times the value of anonymous donations of any other Party at Election 2017. It has also been revealed since that $500,000 was secretly contributed to the New Zealand First Foundation.
“Labour’s denial to allow senior New Zealand First officials to submit to the Justice Select Committee makes a joke of the Government’s commitment to be the most open and transparent Government ever.
“There could be nothing more important than the transparency of the source of funding for the Party that ultimately determined the Government.
“This is deja vu of the New Zealand First funding scandal that led to the defeat of the last Labour Government. Labour has learnt nothing and is continuing to cover for New Zealand First’s shady dealings.”
The failure to deliver open and transparent government joins a growing list of this administration’s record of rhetoric unmatched by action.
This government is closed and opaque and its MPs’ veto of NZ First’s former office holders to be heard is another brick in the wall between its promises and delivery.
The government has opted for legalisation of cannabis use rather than decriminalisation in draft legislation for next year’s referendum.
Key points of the proposals are:
- a minimum purchase age of 20
- a ban on marketing and advertising cannabis products
- a requirement to include harm minimisation messaging on cannabis products
- not allowing recreational cannabis to be consumed in public and only in licenced places
- limiting the sale of recreational cannabis to physical stores
- controls on the potency of recreational cannabis being sold
- a state licencing regime for recreational cannabis controlled by the Government
If the legislation passed, anyone aged 20 years or older could grow up to two cannabis plants. If two people aged 20 years or older are part of the same household, the property can have up to four plants. If you grow more than you’re allowed, you could be fined up to $1000. Cannabis must also be grown out of public sight.
People could hold 14 grams of dried cannabis in a public place – the same amount that could be purchased from a licensed store. . .
. . . “They start at 42, go down to 21 and I have seen one at 15. I am not a user, so I’m just going off advice from officials.” . . .
This is basic information the Minister ought to know.
I’m not a user either but I found an unopened packet of dried thyme weighing 15 grams and was able to measure 14 reasonably heaped teaspoons from it.
That seems to be more than would be safe for anyone to smoke or eat in a day, given there are questions whether any amount is safe, although the purchaser won’t necessarily smoke or eat it all in one day.
The proposal is up for consultation, but whether or not changes are made as a result of that, who would win and who would lose if the referendum gets a majority in favour of legalisation, and, given it’s non-binding, the next government passes it?
- People who use cannabis now, including those who smoke an occasional joint the way others might have an occasional alcoholic drink.
- People who want to use it recreationally now but don’t want to break the law.
- Individuals and businesses who grow, process and sell cannabis.
- The black market – the price and THC level in legal cannabis will be regulated providing a market for those wanting something less expensive and more potent.
- Young people who use it and suffer health and development problems as a result. Whatever the legal age for possession and use, younger people will get it.
- Those who develop mental illnesses including psychosis as a result of using cannabis. Psychiatric nurse Peter Hurst writes on the damage cannabis does here.
- The mental health system which will come under more pressure from those suffering from addiction and other ill effects of cannabis use.
- Employers who have to deal with drug users in the workplace.
- Workers who have to put up with fellow workers who are under the influence of drugs.
- Teachers who have to deal with drug users at school (see young people using cannabis above).
- Police who still have to deal with the black market.
- Emergency services who have to deal with the consequences of drug-driving.
Would the wins out weight the losses?
I don’t think so.