QUEENSLAND BIKERS REBEL

Queensland bikie laws breach international fair trial standards

From Amnesty International:  5 November 2013

Queensland's new bike laws do away with the notion of innocent until proven guilty which could lead to arbitrary detentions and an undermining of the independence of the judiciary.

Amnesty is concerned prosecutions under the new Queensland bikie laws
fail to meet international fair trial standards.

Mandatory sentences

The laws give mandatory sentences of up to 25 years in addition to a standard sentence where a person is accused of being a member and/or officer of a criminal association.

“The laws passed are aimed at cracking down on ‘outlaw bikie gangs’ but potentially affect a wider group of people, including those that aren’t affiliated with bikie groups, something the Queensland government has failed to acknowledge,” said Michael Hayworth, Amnesty International Australia spokesperson.

“We share concerns already voiced by the Queensland Law Society, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and Queensland Council for Civil Liberties."

Broad laws cover all associations not just bikies

“One of the major issues we have is the language of the Act is so broad that in Amnesty International’s experience, they are open to abuse,” said Hayworth.

The laws focus on associations of people which include corporations, unincorporated associations, clubs or leagues or any other group of three or more people whether the group is legal or illegal.

Covering more than just ‘bikie gangs’ the laws define people as ‘participants’ in associations where they are a member, sought to be a member, attended more than one meeting or participated in any other way in the affairs of the association.

There is no mention of bikes or criminal activity in the definition of association.

A participant is deemed to be a ‘vicious lawless associate’ when they commit a declared offence while they are participating in the association.

The laws reverse the burden of proof, forcing those accused of being ‘vicious lawless associates’ or ‘office bearers’ of the association to prove that they are not participants in criminal associations. This severely undermines the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty that all Queenslanders enjoy.

Michael Hayworth, Amnesty International Australia spokesperson

The difference here is that the individual must prove that the association doesn’t exist for the purposes of engaging in declared criminal offences.

A ‘vicious lawless associate’ is then sentenced to 15 years jail on top of the sentence they receive for the declared offence.

If the person is an officer of the association and cannot prove otherwise they are liable to a further ten years.

Guilty until proven innocent?

“The laws reverse the burden of proof, forcing those accused of being ‘vicious lawless associates’ or ‘office bearers’ of the association to prove that they are not participants in criminal associations,” Hayworth said.

“This severely undermines the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty that all Queenslanders enjoy.”

The combination of the broad definitions and the requirement for the accused to prove their innocence makes any sentence under these new laws fundamentally unfair .

Arbitrary detention

“Along with a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, everyone has the right to liberty. But these laws turn this concept upside down.”

This means the state can only put someone in prison (and therefore remove their liberty) when they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that person is guilty of a recognized criminal offence.

The changes to the bail laws mean that courts have little option but to refuse bail to those accused of participating in criminal organisations, unless the person demonstrates reasons that they should not be in jail.

“There are two problems here: (1) the burden of proof is reversed, meaning the accused person has to prove they should not be in custody rather than the state proving they should be in jail; and (2) people have the right not to be in prison, even before a trial, unless it is proven to be necessary,” Hayworth warned.

Pre-trial detention under these circumstances could potentially be arbitrary and inconsistent with the most basic standards of human rights law.

Interference with the judiciary

“The unfairness of trials, arbitrary detention and attacks on the presumption of innocence are not the fault of the courts. They are a direct result of the government’s attempts to crack down on criminal associations.

“These laws and the government’s statements on cases before the courts represent a significant overreach of parliamentary and executive power.

“Amnesty International is calling for the legislation to either be reversed or completely overhauled to address these serious breaches of human rights,” Hayworth added.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/33255/

From the Queensland Government website:
New laws target criminal gangs
New laws have been introduced targeting the illegal activities of criminal gangs, including criminal bikie gangs, in Queensland. The reforms introduce new offences, increased penalties, enhanced powers for Police and the Crime and Misconduct Commission and stricter bail laws.

About the reforms

The package of reforms includes the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (PDF) ( https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2013/13AC047.pdf ), the Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 (PDF) ( https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2013/13AC046.pdf ) and the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 (PDF) ( https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2013/13AC045.pdf ).

The new Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (the Act) provides strong mandatory sentences for members and associates of criminal gangs who commit serious offences as part of their participation in a gang, such as a criminal bikie gang. A new mandatory sentencing regime will be complemented by the ability of the court to reduce sentences where an offender cooperates with law enforcement.

Through significant mandatory terms of imprisonment and the motivation of sentence reduction for cooperative offenders, the Act will target individuals who offend with the support and encouragement of a criminal gang. This, in turn, will aim to seriously disrupt the gang as an organisation.

Limiting the activities of criminal gangs

The Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 will ban members of criminal organisations and their associates from owning, operating or working in body art tattoo parlours. The Act introduces a new occupational licensing and regulatory framework. This will ensure that people authorised to operate in the Queensland tattoo industry have been subject to rigorous identification and probity requirements.

Amendments have also been made to liquor legislation to prevent members of certain prescribed criminal gangs from entering or remaining at licensed premises while wearing items aligned with a criminal organisation (such as bikie gang patches or club colours).

Changes to the criminal law

The Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 contains a range of criminal gang-targeted amendments, including the creation of new offences, increased penalties for existing offences and increased police powers. New offences include:

• three or more members of a criminal gang (including those listed by regulation), being together in a public place
• a member of a criminal gang being at a banned location, such as a criminal bikie gang clubhouse, or banned event
• a member of a criminal gang recruiting, or attempting to recruit, another person to the gang.

Increased penalties include:

• a mandatory minimum penalty of one year’s imprisonment for a member of a criminal gang who commits a serious assault on a police officer acting in execution of the officer’s duty
• increasing the mandatory minimum penalty for evading police to $5,500 or 50 days of actual imprisonment; or for an offender who is a member of a criminal gang, $11000 or 100 days of actual imprisonment
• increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of affray to seven years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum six months of actual imprisonment where the offender is a member of a criminal gang
• automatic minimum three month driver licence disqualification following conviction of one of the new offences or the new aggravated affray offence
• automatic motor vehicle confiscation and crushing following conviction for one of the new offences, the new aggravated affray offence, or the new aggravated evade police offence where the offence was committed in relation to the motor vehicle. This will include where the vehicle is used to drive to or from the place where the offence is committed.

The changes include amendments to enhance police powers:

• Impoundment laws have been expanded to target the motor vehicles of criminal gangs.
• Existing powers to require name and address and to search without warrant will be extended where the person concerned is known or suspected to be a member of a criminal gang.

Changes to bail laws impose additional conditions on members of criminal gangs:

• Where the defendant is a member of a criminal gang, the defendant will be in a show cause situation – for any offence.
• Where the defendant is a member of a criminal gang, and bail is granted, the bail undertaking must include a condition that the defendant surrenders their passport; and they will be detained until compliance with the condition.

Additional powers for the CMC to allow hearings to be conducted to gather intelligence about criminal organisations; and to investigate or hold hearings to respond to an immediate threat to public safety from criminal organisations. A participant in a criminal organisation will not be able to rely upon a threat to his personal safety or property to refuse to answer a question or produce a document at a hearing that involves a criminal organisation. The punishment for contempt at a CMC hearing, which will apply to all witnesses, will be mandatory imprisonment (and for a second or third offence a mandatory minimum of 2 ½ years and 5 years respectively) if a witness refuses to take an oath, answer a question or produce a stated thing or document at the CMC hearing.

Report a crime

Anyone with information regarding the activities of criminal gangs can report it anonymously to Crime Stoppers ( http://www.qld.crimestoppers.com.au/home.jsp ) on 1800 333 000 (24 hours, 7 days).

Cash rewards ( http://qld.crimestoppers.com.au/crime/campaigns/criminal_motorcycle_gangs.jsp ) of up to $50,000 are available if you provide anonymous information to Crime Stoppers that helps police to arrest a member of a criminal gang.

More information on reporting a crime ( http://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/report-to-police/report-a-crime ).

Contact

Report information anonymously through the community organisation Crime Stoppers ( http://www.qld.crimestoppers.com.au/home.jsp ) on 1800 333 000 or online ( https://qld.crimestoppers.com.au/crime/report_cmg_information.jsp ).

• Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (PDF) ( https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2013/13AC047.pdf )
• Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 (PDF) ( https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2013/13AC046.pdf )
• Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 (PDF) ( https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2013/13AC045.pdf ).

Updated 6 November 2013

Peter’s Piece

Amnesty International is a long-standing, highly respected world-wide organization. Their opinion should be listened to and acted upon.

The State of Queensland, on the other hand, has a long history as a police state and a place where jobs for the boys, rolls of cash for the back pocket and oppression of minorities are a way of life.

So here is my suggestion for amending this draconian law:

(a)  Delete ‘bike’ and insert ‘government limo.’

(b)  Delete ‘criminal organization’ and insert ‘political party.’

(c)  Delete ‘known criminal’ and insert ‘member of parliament.’

(d)  Delete ‘gang clubhouse’ and insert ‘parliament house.’

(e)  Delete ‘prison term’ and insert ‘term of natural life in Antarctica.’

Problem solved. 

VOTE 

FREDDIE FUDDPUCKER

FOR 

QUEENSLAND PREMIER

Available now as an E-book.

Click for a good laugh: 

Freddie Fuddpucker

TRUCK SAFETY

Comment on new USA truck driver rest period rule

Posted by Sandi Soendker from Landline Magazine (Owner Operator Independent Driver Association), Grain Valley, Missouri

OOIDA (Owner Operator Independent Driver Association)  Life Member Bob Esler of Taylor, Mich., wrote a letter this week to FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro, regarding the 30-minute rest period rule that went into effect July 1, 2013, with the agency’s new hours-of-service rules. It’s a great letter and we are feeling the need to share it.

Dear Administrator Ferro,

I noticed with interest a comment that was attributed to you regarding the studies that were done that said this was a good idea. You were quoted as saying something to the effect of “we did the best lab studies available” before this rule was implemented. In medicine before new drugs are allowed there are lab tests and then it is tested on humans before final approval. Where was the human testing on this rule? I have not seen or heard any reports of such.

 

A truck driven by Peter in 2001 in the US

You might say I have been doing my own research since 1968 on driver fatigue. That is when I entered the industry as a driver. And I am still at it. My studies have concluded that when I get tired I take a nap or shut down for the night. Sometimes when I get up, I can go all day. Then there are days when I can only make it two hours. No rule you folks make will ever change that.

This rule supposedly was done in the guise of public safety. All you folks have succeeded in doing is making drivers more aggressive on the road. Remember the old TV game show called “Beat the Clock”? That is what trucking has become today, a game to “Beat the Clock.”

Drivers will do all they can to make up for lost time because that is their living. Lost time is lost wages.

Here are some more examples of potential problems.

·                     Parking:  Drivers will run to the limit before trying to find a place to park for their 30-minute break. Off ramps, shoulders of the road, and rest areas (if you can find one open) will be prime targets.

·                     Oversize loads: They need all the daylight they can get. This is especially critical in the winter months when daylight is short. Finding a safe place to park for their rest period could be tough. Plus short daylight hours in the winter do not give the driver a full 11 driving hour day and you want him to take 30 minutes of that for a break.

·                     Law enforcement: This 30-minute rule gives them another excuse for probable cause to stop a driver to check for compliance. Plus write citations where drivers park on the shoulders and ramps.

·                     Just-in-time delivery: This is especially crucial in automotive industry. Car plants may have to adjust their production schedules. Did you folks consider that cost in your “lab work?”

 There is something FMCSA has not figured out. The trucking industry has been trying to tell you this for years and for some reason it falls on deaf ears. Driver fatigue mainly comes from sitting around and doing nothing at docks waiting to be loaded or unloaded.

Nothing (this includes driving) fatigues a driver more than sitting around. A perfect example of this is how you feel after sitting for a period of time in a doctor’s waiting room. Ever notice the yawns and nodding heads? Drivers get the same way sitting and waiting. Until this issue is addressed by FMCSA, this 30-minute rule is a waste of time. This not only applies to the driver but the whole trucking industry as well.

Remember I mentioned the old game show “Beat the Clock”? The games have begun.

Meanwhile, back to my fatigue studies.

Sincerely,

OOIDA Life Member Robert Esler

Taylor, Mich.

More in Landline Magazine: http://landlinemedia.blogspot.co.nz/

Peter’s Piece

I can understand Robert Esler’s concern. This is a new rule replacing one that permitted drivers to drive ten hours straight without getting out of the seat. Now they are required to cut that in half. There is bound to be resistance.

But new rules always meet resistance. That’s part of life. And that must surely be better than the old rule which must have been part of death on countless occasions.

Most developed countries have a similar rule for professional drivers. In New Zealand, where I’ve done most of my 50 years of professional driving, the rule is a 30 minute break after not more than five and a half hours of continuous driving. It has been that way for as long as I can remember. And it works.

Robert, in other industries people strive for rules that allow a break every two hours. Why do truckers have to be different? Yes, let the customer wait. They had the option to order the consignment dispatched earlier.

But don’t get bored sitting idle for thirty minutes. Get some exercise and walk around the rig checking the load, tires and air hoses. Take the opportunity to do a fluid recycle – input and output – after five hours instead of ten. You may live longer and enjoy better health as a result. You will certainly spend less time in the doctor's waiting room.

Join Peter Blakeborough

on the highways of America

in this travel adventure

eBook

Download a free sample or buy the book now from:

Peter Blakeborough's Books

OLD AGE

Growing old 

A little poem, so true that it hurts.

Another year passed, we’re all a year older.

Last summer felt much hotter,

And now winter seems much colder.

There was a time not long ago,

When life was quite a blast.

And now I understand,

About living in the past.

We used to go to weddings,

Football games and lunches.

Now we go to funeral homes,

And after-funeral brunches.

We used to have hangovers,

From parties that were crazy.

Now we suffer body aches,

We’re sleepy and we’re lazy.

We used to go out dining,

And couldn’t get our fill.

Now we ask for a doggie bag,

And go home and take a pill.

We used to often travel,

To places near and far.

Now we get sore asses,

Just riding in the car.

We used to go to nightclubs,

And drink a lot of booze.

Now we stay home at night,

And watch the evening news.

That, my friends, is how life is,

And now my tale is told.

So enjoy every day, and live it up,

Before you turn to mold.

by Anonymous

 Here's a little something to keep you laughing . . .

Available as an e-book from: Smashwords.com

Happy reading

MR PUBLISHING DIES

New Zealand’s Mr Publishing – Ray Richards – farewelled

Eulogy delivered by Geoff Walker, former publishing director at Penguin New Zealand

I’m Geoff Walker and I’m a long-time friend, colleague and former employee of Ray Richards. I want first to extend my deepest condolences to Barbara, Nicki, Bron and their families.

Ray was my first publishing mentor. He gave me my first job in publishing 38 years ago and it’s been one of my life’s great pleasures and privileges to work with him as colleague and friend during all that time.

 

Ray Richards

I’m here to tell you about Ray’s extraordinary professional achievements, in a career in book publishing that lasted an almost unbelievable 77 years. It just has to be a record. Perhaps others overseas have continued working this late in their publishing lives – but surely nobody began at the age of 15. Publishing was in Ray’s blood and he found it impossible to relinquish.

That’s how young Ray was when he began working as an office boy at Reeds in Wellington before the war. After the war he returned to Reed as an editor.

And then began a remarkable publishing career which is unparalleled in the NZ book world. Someone recently described him as ‘the grand old man of New Zealand publishing’. I don’t think he would have minded that. This courteous, gentle man had a sharp analytical mind and, at a crucial moment in this country’s history, an ability to read the cultural winds and produce some great books.

It’s not stretching things too far to claim that Ray essentially created New Zealand publishing as we now know it. It’s a big claim, but I think it’s true. From the mid-1960s Reeds under Ray created a new kind of New Zealand book and set up New Zealand’s first commercial publishing culture.

We don’t see much of these books these days, but there are some of them over there. The novels of Barry Crump, the first big tourist color books, a big Maori publishing programme, the books by Peter McIntyre the painter, the T P McLean rugby tour books, natural history books, lots of New Zealand history, and so on.

This was all new. These were New Zealand books, by our writers, for us. It was the flowering of a specifically Kiwi publishing culture, which continues to this day, and it was led by Ray Richards. Ray has described this period as being ‘like a runaway train – unstoppable’. It’s easy to forget just how successful Reeds’ publishing was. They never printed less than 5000 copies – that’s double what a publisher would print today.

I was a long-haired leftie young editor, an enthusiastic new member of the team. And I was in awe of the man guiding this revolution – he was charming, canny, passionate about New Zealand culture, and possessing a very sharp commercial eye for what would work in the marketplace. He was a hands-on publisher, building strong personal relationships with many of his authors. And he was a brilliant editor himself.

But any life this long is also a rich tapestry in which there are ups and there are downs. Reeds ran into financial trouble in the 1970s. Ray ended up in bitter conflict with the owners. There were staff redundancies. As Ray himself has described it: ‘The team fell apart.’ Ray and Barbara’s beloved daughter Meredith died while overseas. Like the other Reed editors at the time I remember this vividly. It was the lowest of lows. And it was Barbara who said one night to Ray: ‘I don’t know about you, but I’m moving to Auckland. Do you want to come?’ It was time to leave and start a new life.

And so in 1976 they did. In Auckland they set up on their own as a book publisher and Ray became the first executive director of the Book Publishers Association, making a major contribution to New Zealand book publishing in a different way. In the same year he established in partnership with Barbara the Richards Literary Agency, which then became the second part of his publishing career. Barbara was an integral part of it and so were Nicki and Bron at various times.

For decades Richards Literary Agency was New Zealand’s biggest and strongest. Ray specialised in children’s books and he had a huge stable of children’s writers. He achieved considerable success in selling foreign rights, particularly to the United States, and he earned the gratitude and loyalty of many of our leading authors. To the end Ray was still working personally with fine writers such as Joy Cowley, Witi Ihimaera and Tessa Duder. He still represented Maurice Gee.

It isn’t possible to talk about Ray’s life and his achievements without mentioning Barbara. I want to pay special tribute to the remarkable woman who is Barbara Richards. Ray and Barbara were married for 64 years, and all through Ray’s life Barbara has been his partner in every respect. When he was a publisher she was his confidante and supporter – and yes, also cooking hundreds of dinners for authors and having the occasional penniless one sleep in the spare room. When Ray was a literary agent Barbara was literally his partner, his colleague in the business. She is also charming, loving and considerate – and a fine artist. That’s her portrait of Ray over there. So let’s be clear: Ray could not have achieved what he did without her presence beside him.

Ray Richards, we salute you, for a life that made a huge difference, not just to your family, friends and colleagues – but also to New Zealand’s culture.

E te rangatira – haere, haere, haere. From all your friends and colleagues in the book publishing world, farewell Ray. . . .

More on Beatties Book Blog

Peter’s Piece

I met Ray Richards several times about five or six years ago after someone suggested that I should engage him as my literary agent.

Ray was in his mid eighties and trying to reduce his workload. He wasn’t keen on taking on a new author and so we talked about flying instead. His flying was in the 1940s, mine started in the 1950s. As I left his house he asked to see my manuscripts, and I left the complete Asker Trilogy with him.

A couple of weeks later we had another long chat and he gave me lots of sound advice on changes to the manuscripts and how to get them published. He must have put in many hours on my behalf for no return other than the pleasure of helping a fellow flyer and lover of books.

His help is acknowledged in the front matter of Book One of The Asker Trilogy, a small appreciation for a great book man.

TAXES & BENEFITS

New Zealanders, Australia's 'Underclass'

By Robert Burton-Bradley  -  NewMatilda.com

The flag of Australia

Documents released under Freedom of Information reveal the Federal Government has been concerned since 2008 about New Zealanders isolated from support, education and pathways to citizenship, reports Robert Burton-Bradley

The flag of New Zealand

Documents released (pdf) under Freedom of Information reveal the Federal Government is worried about a growing "underclass" of New Zealanders living and working in Australia with limited rights and without access to basic government services.

The FOI release from the Departments of Community Services, Immigration and Foreign Affairs show that as far back as 2008 there was increasing concern for the estimated 566,000 New Zealand citizens now living in Australia, drawn here by a "40 per cent wage gap". At least 240,000 fall into the post 2001 non-protected visa category.

New Zealanders can live and work in Australia indefinitely as Special Category Visa holders, but following changes to the migration program those who arrived after 2001 fall into the "non-protected category" with no access to basic social services such as unemployment benefits, parenting payments, sickness allowance or HECS-funded study. They will not be covered by the National Disability Insurance Scheme when it begins.

In early 2009, with the GFC beginning to hurt, the situation was making itself clear to staff at the Department of Community Services. In March of that year a section manager working for the department's international policy section wrote: "We have recently seen an increase in correspondence around non protected SCV holders and their inability to access working age payments. I suspect this issue will only intensify with the downturn in the economy . . . . 

See the full story at:  newmatilda.com

Peter’s Piece

If Australians want the production and taxes of New Zealanders then they should be prepared to give them the protection that they have been taxed for. In this case the taxation really is nothing less than theft and extortion.

I have always found most Australians very reasonable people, but I would say to those who object to sharing their country with other taxpayers, they should exercise their own option and go somewhere else to live.

For more than 200 years Australia and New Zealand

have been like one nation. Has the time come to

make it one nation?

Read about the first years of Australia

in this hard-to-put-down book

Download a free sample of Nathaniel's Bloodline now from:

Smashwords.com

BRITAIN FIRST

Britain First fanatics distort
the truth to win support

From the Britain First website:
Man who put up sign banning non-Asians
from his property let off by judge

A man who put up a sign outside of his home threatening any non-Asians who called there, or who talked to the residents, with violence has been let off by a judge.

Jim Dowson, left, and three of his Britain First henchmen

Vaseem Gova, of Parkhurst Road, Sutton, was handed an absolute discharge after appearing at Croydon Magistrates charged with a public order offence – because of “exceptional circumstances” namely that he faced losing his tenancy if convicted.

According to the Sutton Guardian, the sign read: “An Asian family occupy this property. If you are not Asian or a member of my family you MUST seek permission from the estate management before attempting to talk to anyone from this household.

“Failure to adhere to this heartfelt advice will render your life a misery and threats of serious assault and carjacking will reign upon you so fast that you will wonder why this street is not called Parkhurst Prison.”

Wonder if a sympathetic judge would have let off someone who put up a “no Asians allowed or you’ll be seriously assaulted” sign outside of their home.

You know the answer, their feet wouldn’t touch the ground and not one judge would give a damn about their tenancy.

Funny how it seems that the law is more lenient and sympathetic towards certain groups of people than others.

Peter’s Piece

Before readers get their blood pressure up over this article they should consider what really happened in that court, and what Britain First is really about.

It is true that a person was charged in the Croydon Magistrates Court with a racist offence and he was found guilty and ordered to pay £325 costs. This outcome was not the same as that claimed by Britain First. However, the defendant was discharged without conviction so that his tenancy would not be lost. That’s not an unusual outcome and it is to be hoped that he, and others like him, will think twice before repeating the offence.

Now let’s look at Britain First.

Britain First was registered as a political pressure group in 2011 after its leader Jim Dowson split acrimoniously from the racist British National Party where he was the chief fund-raiser.
Dowson is a clever fanatic who makes money, and political capital, from the prejudices of people who are easily influenced. His hobby horses are racism, immigration, abortion and Christian morality. The ‘Hope Not Hate’ organization has described Dowson, 48, as ‘the cash cow of the far right.’

However, while Dowson is skilled at producing inflaming reports of the court appearances of others, he has also made his own appearances. Last month he appeared in court, with the leaders of several other extremist groups, wearing a boiler-suit with ‘Political Prisoner’ on the back.

He is in cahoots with such trouble-makers as the Progressive Unionist Party, the Ulster Volunteer Force, and the Ulster Defence Association.

His stated objective is ‘to save this country and our people from the EU, politically correct, multicultural insanity that is now engulfing us.’

Rape is another issue that Dowson and Britain First like to sound off about with one claim that of 130 rape charges in a particular part of Britain, 116 were British and 14 were foreign nationals. Surely a figure like that must confirm that foreign nationals are under-represented in the crime statistics.

But a complaint from a British National candidate, Shelley Rose, in 2010 that she was groped by Dowson, coincided with his departure from the party.

Dowson and Britain First are skilled at whipping up bandwagon hysteria, but more cautious minds will see the likenesses with the early days of Hitler’s Nazi Party.

NEW ZEALAND REPUBLIC

The case for a
New Zealand republic

The case for a New Zealand republic sets out the main arguments for why New Zealand should become a republic. They fall into three categories:

Parliament Buildings, Wellington

Independence — New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state;

Nationhood — the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand's national identity, culture and heritage;

Democracy — New Zealand should have a democratic and accountable head of state.

Independence

New Zealand will not be fully independent until we have a New Zealander as head of state. New Zealand likes to think of itself as an independent country. However, it cannot objectively be argued New Zealand's current head of state represents this.

A republic means a New Zealander as head of state

"Is New Zealand to continue to have an appointed Governor-General... or should we move to an elected president? This will not happen because of any lack of affection or love for our Queen in London, but because the tide of history is moving in one direction." - former Prime Minster Jim Bolger.

Our current head of state is not a New Zealander and does not represent New Zealand. When the Queen travels overseas, she does so in order to represent Great Britain.

The Queen works to strengthen British economic and political ties, and does whatever the British Government asks of her. In fact, whenever "our" head of state visits New Zealand, the Queen has to ask for permission from the British Government to leave Britain.

If the Queen wanted to be a citizen of New Zealand, she would not meet the legal requirements to become a citizen. The Citizenship Act 1977 requires an applicant for New Zealand citizenship to have been resident in New Zealand for five years before citizenship is granted. The Queen has spent a total of no more than six months in New Zealand.

The Governor-General is not a proper head of state. While the Governor-General may increasingly act in ways that befit a head of state, the reality is that New Zealand is still not regarded as being fully independent of Great Britain. Appointing the Queen's representative in New Zealand is inadequate. A New Zealand head of state will make it clear that New Zealand is an independent country. It will signal New Zealand's independence and maturity to the world.

Deciding the rules for ourselves

In recent years, the British Parliament has attempted to amend the succession law. The problem is the Statute of Westminster 1931, the law which granted legislative independence to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The Statute requires "consultation" on changes to the succession before any changes to the succession law. While this provision is not binding, it is still an important constitutional convention. The most recent attempt in 2008 failed for this reason: the British Government did not want to have to consult with all the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms. New Zealand's Parliament could change the law of succession unilaterally, but that would go against the convention established by the Statute of Westminster. Change can only be enacted if the governments of all the 15 Commonwealth realms are consulted, probably by Britain. In a republic, the rules governing New Zealand's head of state will be made solely by the New Zealand Parliament. They will change as New Zealanders decide they need to, not because of events in Great Britain.

Nationhood

"The case for an independent republic of New Zealand is summed up in one word — nationhood. It is a statement to the world and ourselves that New Zealand is a mature nation, that we possess a constitutional framework that best suits New Zealanders." — Michael Laws, Mayor of Wanganui.

New Zealand is a unique, dynamic and diverse country. New Zealand's constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state should reflect this.

A republic affirms New Zealand's sense of nationhood

"We exhibit symptoms of retarded nationhood: a widespread insecurity about what others think, a search for applause and endorsement by visitors; and, conversely, a begrudging willingness to extend applause here at home." — Simon Upton former minister and National MP.

Becoming a republic and electing New Zealand's head of state will foster a deeper and more sophisticated sense of nationhood. It will clarify to New Zealanders, and to the world, what New Zealand stands for.

How New Zealanders understand their place in the world is crucial to New Zealand's success in an increasingly globalized world. New Zealand excels in sport, in its human rights record, in business and in the arts. New Zealand's constitution lags behind these achievements. Our current constitutional arrangement causes confusion overseas as to whether New Zealand is linked to Britain, or whether it is part of Australia. We send conflicting messages about who we are and what we stand for.

The debate and discussion around becoming a republic affirms the values that are important to New Zealanders. It will promote discussion about New Zealand's history and future. It will clarify the values we all see as important. Becoming a republic will be a celebration of New Zealand's unique culture and heritage. It will demonstrate New Zealand's confidence and independence and it will symbolize a shared sense of nationhood.

Democracy

A republic will make New Zealand more democratic.

A republic will ensure we have a head of state that is democratically elected and accountable to voters. As a result the head of state will be a more effective constitutional safeguard. This will decrease the risk of political instability.

Electing the head of state is a basic democratic right. Republicanism is based on the principle that government authority is reliant on the consent of citizens. The Monarchy is based on the principle that hereditary privilege alone should decide the head of state. It represents a belief that government authority is embodied in a single individual (the Monarch). In a republic the head of state would be elected — either directly by voters, or indirectly by parliament.

Replacing the Governor-General

At present, the Prime Minister chooses the Governor-General and advises the Monarch of their choice. They usually choose someone who will not challenge them, and someone who has something to do with their own party.

In the past, this has meant a number of openly political appointments. National Prime Minister Jack Marshall gave his friend Sir Denis Blundell the job in 1972.

In 1977, Robert Muldoon appointed former Prime Minister Sir Keith Holyoake to the job. This was primarily because the next best candidate, Sir Edmund Hillary, had signed a petition in 1975 supporting Labour Prime Minister Bill Rowling. Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a known constitutional conservative with National Party leanings.

In 1985, Labour Prime Minister David Lange appointed the Reverend Sir Paul Reeves. Sir Paul was known for his activism for the anti-apartheid and anti-nuclear movements. Dame Catherine Tizard was appointed to the office in 1990 by the outgoing Labour Government. She was the former wife of Labour Deputy Prime Minister Bob Tizard.

While individually there have been good appointments made, there have also been a number of openly political appointments. Many of those, particularly the appointment of Sir Keith Holyoake, were very controversial. Creating a transparent democratic process will ensure that the replacement of the Governor-General will not be as controversial.

A republic means an effective constitutional safeguard

A republic will create a head of state in New Zealand that could act in times of constitutional crises. The Monarch and the Governor-General do not have the political power to do this. The Governor-General is unable to resolve constitutional crises because the Prime Minister holds the power to dismiss and replace the Governor-General at any time. The Monarch will never get involved in New Zealand politics, because they are "non-political". Having a head of state able to act effectively in times of crises will be a better restraint on the power of the executive — the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The Monarch is an absentee and ineffectual head of state. The position is unaccountable to New Zealanders. In a republic, the head of state will be chosen by New Zealanders. They will work on behalf of all New Zealanders regardless of their political beliefs.

More from the website: http://www.republic.org.nz/case

Peter’s Piece

The New Zealand Republic debate does not need to be centered on whether or not New Zealanders should support the Queen and her successors.

As a republic the country could still support the monarchy as head of the Commonwealth and there can be no disputing that the Queen has been an exceptionally good leader of the Commonwealth. But it is no longer appropriate for her, or her successors, to be the New Zealand Head of State also.

Some New Zealanders fail to appreciate that most members of the Commonwealth are republics, and several are even kingdoms, and that does not affect their Commonwealth membership. A suggestion that becoming a republic would oblige New Zealand to leave the Commonwealth is pure scaremongering.

The debate should be about full independence, democracy and effective government with a New Zealand based democratically elected, executive head of state.

I believe New Zealand’s time has come.